Possible Boatpix Aircraft Crashes into Lake Travis-Austin, Tx

[rmiller4292]

Both walked (swam?) away....witnesses say they were flying very low and there was a cameraman onboard...sounds like boatpix to me....thankfully they were both ok..

 

Ryan

 

 

 

 

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/Hom...mp;pageId=1.1.1

[TomPPL]

This one was definitely Boatpix, there's another link here:

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/Hom...mp;pageId=1.1.1

which has a photo, there's also a video link on the lower right which explains in more detail what happened.

[Goldy]

"Witnesses say the helicopter was flying really low and skimming the water"

 

What is it they teach...there are no new causes for accidents, just the same ol mistakes?

Edited May 16, 2008 by Goldy

[rmiller4292]

"Witnesses say the helicopter was flying really low and skimming the water"

 

What is it they teach...there are no new causes for accidents, just the same ol mistakes?

 

Goldy...people on the lake related that "the pilot mis-judged his turn and the tail struck the water and the helicopter flipped" Can someone from boatpix chime in...how low do you guys fly to get these pictures ? I'm assuming you would have a pretty powerful lens so you don't have to fly so low...but i'm just an amateur when it comes to photography....

 

Ryan

[PhotoFlyer]

Goldy...people on the lake related that "the pilot mis-judged his turn and the tail struck the water and the helicopter flipped" Can someone from boatpix chime in...how low do you guys fly to get these pictures ? I'm assuming you would have a pretty powerful lens so you don't have to fly so low...but i'm just an amateur when it comes to photography....

 

Ryan

 

A powerful lens makes no difference if you are trying to see the side of the boat, or want/need a low angle shot. I would imagine the photographer wanted to get low to get a shot of the boat with the cliffs in the background. 'Tis a shot I would want if I were taking boat pics on Lake Travis.

[Goldy]

Goldy...people on the lake related that "the pilot mis-judged his turn and the tail struck the water and the helicopter flipped"

Ryan

 

I'm sorry. I usually don't pre-judge an accident, I just wait for the ol NTSB. However witnesses say that he was flying 4 feet over the water just before the accident. Flying 50 feet is dangerous and irresponsible and in my opinion, illegal.....IF he was flying 4 feet that would be a deathwish.

 

I am glad that no one on the ground(water) or in the ship was hurt.

[rmiller4292]

Ok...I can see that for the low angle shot....still probably not the best idea...and if you are that near to boats, like Goldy says...possibly illegal...its all about perspective in regards to what would constitute a hazard to persons on the surface should something go awry.... If the low angle shots are what your going for...might be best to take them from another boat?

 

Ryan

[TomPPL]

Well said Ryan, you'd think it'd be common sense :

...might be best to take them from another boat?

Ryan

They'd get some fantastic low angle shots from a fast power boat

[FUSE]

Since the illegal aspect has been brought in to this I will address. We do not do anything illegal. We never put anyone on the water in any danger, no more than any helicopter flying over any city. What I mean is that sure, if something were to happen there will be flukes and someone might get hurt. But we fly our lines so that we are not so close that if we were to go down we would hit anyone or cause anyone to have to make such avoidance maneuvers that they can hurt themselves. We are aware that people in boats sometimes do not understand helicopters so we have to adjust our flying to not scare anyone also. Example, when going to shoot the next boat you make a B line straight for them, well time is money and the best thing would be to haul butt to them and do a quick stop just before getting to them. But boaters don't know if we can stop, I know I stop, my co-pilot knows we can stop but they don't and that can scare them. And keep in mind, I don't know how to explain it but not putting anyone in danger means more then the direction, location, and alititude that you fly. If you scare someone so bad, even if your a hundred feet above, that they have a heart attack and die, it's your fault, you were flying illegal. So that is a big consideration when shooting pics of boats.

 

4 feet is a bit low and I don't really believe it but it could be true, and if the water was calm that is very deceiving as far as your altitude. We usually are at about 10 - 20 feet above the water when at the 90 degree mark to the side. We start high at the rear drop down for the side and then back up for the front.

 

Dangerous and crazy sometimes, yes, but so are a ton of other helicopter jobs. It seems to be part of the helicopter field to fly a lot within that "dead man zone". It's just what we do.

 

And sorry no, taking a picture from another boat will not get you a picture any where close to what we can get you.

 

I think that this is one of those things that just doesn't translate very well in writing over the internet. Lot's of folks when reading have a lot of negative thoughts about what we do, but when I talk with folks, or fly with them the thoughts and comments seem to be totally different.

[Goldy]

Ray- I think most of us understand that photo work tends to put you in more dangerous situations than normal flying does. So much so, that Robinson came out with a safety notice to address the issue.

 

I also don't argue with anything you have said....but let me just play devils advocate for one minute. I'm now the FAA inspector sent out to investigate this crazy low flying helicopter pilot. Depending on how you can answer a couple of these questions makes the difference between what is safe and what is not.

 

So, how much time do you have flying at 50 AGL ? Oh, 30 hours wow., So tell me how many successful autorotations have you practiced from 50 AGL ? None ? So how can you tell me that you are proficient and safe at 50' if you only practice auto's from 500 AGL ? Last question, from the altitude you were flying at what actions could you have taken when your engine quit to avoid a boat or persons in the water ? Oh, none? You didnt have enough time to take action? Boing...wrong answer.

 

Now for one second lets talk about a congested area. Do you know that one pilot lost his FW license because he was flying 200 AGL over a beach..not a crowded beach either. The case was made that the beach would be his only safe place to land. And in that stretch of 1000 feet of beach there were about 50 people who could have been in harms way.....one of those people was an FAA enforcement officer and his family. The court ruled in the FAA's favor and declared that stretch of beach was a congested area, thus the F/W should have been at 1000AGL...and away goes his certificate.

 

And lastly as you stated, is perception. We have enough regulation with helicopters already. Perception of danger, and as you state, the lack of knowledge about helicopters on the boaters part creates fear. What this does is add fuel to the anti-helicopter fire that we all face. Eventually for "safety's sake" helicopter operations will be banned from future events...or a special AGL requirement over events will be instituted. Then see how great your shots look from 1000 AGL.

 

For the sake of the entire helicopter community, I think we need to regulate ourselves first before someone else comes along and does it for us.

 

If this type of flying is norm for BoatPix then I would challenge BoatPix to come up with some internal rules that allow them to do their job while maximizing safety and minimizing danger to persons on the ground. Couple that with some low altitude training and recovery and you could go a long way towards keeping helo's in the air. Or just keep flying at 4 feet and see what the FAA will come up with.

 

Good to hear from you Ray...

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Goldy

[FUSE]

Can't argue with anything you said Goldy, all good points...

 

I have already had one encounter with the FAA about this stuff. Nothing on paper happened, but it did make me a more mature pilot. The FAA really doesn't like us doing this so it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. I hope the pilot was doing everything right and it was something really out of his control that made all of this happen. This particular type of work I can't deny is walking on a thin line between what's legal and not, and it takes all of your concentration and a lot of effort to stay on the legal / safe side. By safe I mean for the innocent folks on the water / land. Us pilots, well doing this work we really can't be totally safe at any time.

[lelebebbel]

Flying 50 feet is dangerous and irresponsible and in my opinion, illegal.....IF he was flying 4 feet that would be a deathwish.

 

I fly 4ft AGL at least twice on every flight...

 

whether this qualifies for having a death wish would depend also on the speed he was flying at, wouldn't it? The accident could have been a power failure in a hover or hover taxi for all we know.

If they were taking pictures, why are we assuming he was flying fast?

 

I say, stop the speculation and wait for the report. Nothing good can come out of discussions like this, and in the worst case, what you type here will end up ripped out of context in some newspaper article about renegade helicopter pilots endangering our children or whatever.

[Goldy]

I thought we were having a pretty good discussion without dwelling on what may or may not be factors related to this crash..

[rmiller4292]

Goldy, I'm with ya on that...I thought we were having a civil reasonable discussion about not just this accident, but this flight regime in particular...we all do things that would probably be considered quite dangerous by the average person, but we do what we can to minimize risk...for example, my unit recently went to flying on NVG's. It has greatly increased our chances of a successful outcome should we have a nighttime emergency....its all in the risk management...Fuse, I appreciate your input on the situation, and applaud you for not being the "strong defensive type." Lets hope we can all learn something from this unfortunate incident.

 

 

Ryan

[Wally]

Whatever happened in this case, here's a fact- low level, visual reference, overwater is 'russian roulette'- hovering or not. It WILL bite you eventually. There's a very good reason the Coasties have fully coupled auto-hover, even with two pilots and trained flight crew in back watching the line.

[relyon]

And sorry no, taking a picture from another boat will not get you a picture any where close to what we can get you.

The vantage point of the camera at the moment the shutter releases is all that matters. How the camera comes to being there is moot.

 

Bob

[FUSE]

The vantage point of the camera at the moment the shutter releases is all that matters. How the camera comes to being there is moot.

 

Bob

 

That is true but we do not get low enough for a boat to be at the same vantage point. Even at only 10 - 20 feet above the water the pictures look very different. Even at just 10 feet you can be above the water spray and get a clean picture while the boat is moving. Plus that picture isn't the one that I like the best anyways. The pictures at about 45 degrees to the front at about 30 - 70 feet (depending on the size of the boat) I think look the best and the couple of folks I personally know that have bought pictures those are the ones they bought as well. I really don't know how well those pictures at the side sell.

[lwalling]

This looks like a great video to illustrate what some folks are doing to get good boat shots,

 

 

Impressive flying, but I do shudder when I think about what would happen if the engine failed

[Fiasco]

This looks like a great video to illustrate what some folks are doing to get good boat shots,

 

 

Impressive flying, but I do shudder when I think about what would happen if the engine failed

 

 

It is impressive flying but it looks (to my untrained eyes) to be exceptionally dangerous and the helicopter and boat pose a serious threat to each other in the event of error or mechanical failure.

[Goldy]

It is impressive flying but it looks (to my untrained eyes) to be exceptionally dangerous and the helicopter and boat pose a serious threat to each other in the event of error or mechanical failure.

 

 

I agree totally. Great flying, lousy piloting.

 

Never looking for other aircraft, wires, big boats, bridges...eyes almost always fixed on the photo shot. Safety would dictate having another rated pilot on board to handle those duties.

 

Thats one R44 ride I will pass on.

 

Goldy

Edited May 22, 2008 by Goldy

[Copterpilot213]

That video shows some Good manuevering but it appears to be an altitude that could "cause undue hazard to persons or property on the ground"... But that's just my opinion of course.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Copterpilot213

[FUSE]

wow, impressive video but that is nothing like what we do at Boatpix, nothing like it. We would have our certs yanked in a heartbeat if we flew like that.

 

I believe that video is someone who hired to get that helicopter to do that. Possibly a commercial for the boat manufacturer or something like that. I wonder how the regs apply when both are consenting to it. I would think that it probably doesn't apply, as long as the pilot made sure the boater signed some type of release...

[relyon]

That is true but we do not get low enough for a boat to be at the same vantage point. Even at only 10 - 20 feet above the water the pictures look very different. Even at just 10 feet you can be above the water spray and get a clean picture while the boat is moving. ...

Understood and agreed. As much as I like the idea of doing it from a full size helicopter, it isn't strictly necessary.

 

I'd be curious if full size operators like Boatpix or Air Photo, Inc. are feeling competition from the live video downlink radio controlled remote imaging operators (helicopter or others - see this and that). I'd imagine these have significantly less hardware, insurance, and operating costs than their full size bretheren, but I admit I don't really know. See examples of what can be done here and here.

 

Bob

[Copterpilot213]

It'd be pretty hard to see one of those R/C's at 400' AGL. That could do some serious damage to anyone unfortunate enough to hit one.

[relyon]

There are lots of things to run into at helicopter altitudes and it's pretty hard to see anything small. Kites, inadvertently released helium balloons, birds of any size or species, and yes, RC aircraft of any type come to mind. It seems prudent to assume that serious damage will result if one hits anything much larger than bugs with any amount of speed. I've seen the results of hitting a both 16 pound pelican and 9 pound seagull at 110+ knots; I'm glad I wasn't in their path.

 

RC helicopters that take photos don't usually flock and are of minimal concern IMHO. I was merely suggesting there are other ways to achieve the same result and provided some examples. This incident clearly shows that taking photos from full size helicopters is not without significant hazards either.

 

Bob

Edited May 24, 2008 by relyon