Another one bites the dust...

[dazzab]

Like everyone has said it could have been lots worse, they had a plan if things went wrong and when they had to put that plan into action it played out as expected, if anything it should help strengthen the safety fight for multi's in the uk. Things will and do go wrong with everything in life, every day, risk mitigation is key and planning paid off here.

I'm pleased to see the tone of this thread change to the positive. I actually used this video as an example of how to do the right thing. I really feel for the pilot. We all know how it feels to have something like this happen and it's simply awful. I don't wish it on anyone for any reason.

I know that some here think it's too risky to fly this close to a crowd. But what is too close? Here in Australia our regulator says 30 meters is the limit. Operators here have received exemptions to fly as close as 5 meters after demonstrating their safety planning and ability to control their craft. In the past I have worked as a commercial photographer and I did all sorts of photography that entailed risk but of course we also applied serious safety protocols. Things do go wrong. Photographers have been killed doing their job even though they took extreme precautions. Very sad, but true.

Then again, we all know of examples where copters were much further away from crowds and people still were hurt/killed. So how far IS safe? I've seen multirotors being flown at fields well away from populated areas take off on their own (the dreaded fly away) and land randomly anywhere. So does that mean we need exclusion zones of say 10 kilometres to be absolutely safe? Or do we make it totally safe by banning flying? Heck, how many parts of commercial jet liners have landed on houses over the years? It happens.

I see this issue more like computer security. Nothing is totally secure and all you can do is provide layers of security techniques to mitigate events relevant to the value of what you are attempting to protect.

At the end of the day, life itself is a risk that none of us will survive.

 

[Tomstoy2]

Dazzab, liked your comments to this incident! We all know sh*t happens. Gets proved to us every day. I well remember, when I was a kid, a B52 lost its entire vertical stabilized during a wind shear not far from me. Landed on this poor ol' dirt farmers prize chicken! Done correctly, like this pilot did, just demonstrates that these things can be handled correctly. My complements to the pilot!

 

[Breezemont]

I can't see how that video could be taken for anything except a warning.

 

[dazzab]

I can't see how that video could be taken for anything except a warning.

A warning for what? Don't fly over a river unless you are willing to hire a diver to recover it? Ok.

 

[dazzab]

I well remember, when I was a kid, a B52 lost its entire vertical stabilized during a wind shear not far from me.

Totally off topic - One of my claims to fame is that when I was 12 I stalled a B-52 on take off. Of course, I was in a simulator back in the days when these things took up an entire train carriage but it was quite exciting. Alarms were going off and the floor was moving. I'll never forget it. Such were the days of a military brat back in the 'good old days'.

 

[Str8 Up]

This was a near miss - plain and simple. Don't congratulate someone for putting an entire industries future at risk because of poor judgement. This was the wrong tool for the job. This was not risk mitigation, it was taking risk that wasn't necessary. When you fly near crowds you increase the risk in direct proportion to the size/density of the poor unsuspecting people in it.

 

[dazzab]

This was a near miss - plain and simple. Don't congratulate someone for putting an entire industries future at risk because of poor judgement. This was the wrong tool for the job. This was not risk mitigation, it was taking risk that wasn't necessary. When you fly near crowds you increase the risk in direct proportion to the size/density of the poor unsuspecting people in it.

So what's your answer to the question, 'how far is safe'?

 

[Bowley]

This was a near miss - plain and simple. Don't congratulate someone for putting an entire industries future at risk because of poor judgement. This was the wrong tool for the job. This was not risk mitigation, it was taking risk that wasn't necessary. When you fly near crowds you increase the risk in direct proportion to the size/density of the poor unsuspecting people in it.

No offense but fortunately it is the requirements of the CAA that we have to meet and not your's Str8 Up. What is ironic is that I see numerous videos posted by a few of the major players in the industry that far surpass this in terms of hazard and the response is by and large supportive. Sh*t happens in all walks of life and you cannot mitigate risk and hazard to nil.
I agree with Dazzab, I assume the job was approved under permission and exemption, planned, risk assessed and appropriate measures were taken as a result of that planning. Lets not forget it is completely legal to fly 30m (T/O & Land) from a crowd of 999 people under standard regulations. However its anyone's prerogative to apply their own more stringent standards if they wish

 

[Tomstoy2]

Well said, Bowley. Str8up, not arguing that it was or wasn't a near miss. Myself, I would never have attempted something like that. Personally, I felt it was foolish to try. I agree it was the wrong tool for the job. Fact is, a zip line would have been, no doubt. If anybody is to blame here, it was the governing body that gave him permission. However, all that aside, the pilot here, though wrong in his desire, did the correct thing in dumping it in the river. Nuf' said.

 

[SMP]

Chuckling... Russian Arm or Cable Cam on the cheap or this Rig http://www.spidercam.org/en when you do it right. Cowell can afford it. As to the octo.. Deliberately crashed in the river??? Dunno bout anybody else but on my few crashes the bloody thing went straight down. There was no guiding it to the river.. that be where she fell Now what that could mean is that the pilot was over the river in the first place. In which case, good on him.

Truth be told, there was a surfing video posted here just yesterday buzzing surfers with a couple of shots at ridiculously close quarters. Great shots, poor judgement. Just a matter of time. I think it was Yuri pointed out what should have been obvious. Lens correctly and you don't have to fly two feet over your shot.

Edit. And you're right, TBS is simply out of control.

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Just about every fast jet crash report starts with the line... " He bravely steered it away from (insert school, hospital, bambi )"

Unless you were there you cannot know what happened.

Because it happened in a country with regs and with no doubt the regulator there a proper investigation will happen and the words will be promulgated. A chance to learn for all.

Any pilot of anything, model or sit in face forward should be very wary of attributing blame in an incident. It generally comes back to bite you on the bum on the very next flight.

If you have an off, learn and swallow your pride then tell those around you what happened so they can learn as well.

The UA industry is not going away in the UK. In fact its going to get a little better shortly with a change to CAP 722 and where you can get your pilot training. The monopoly is being broken. But I cannot say how just yet, be sure the CAA knows the problems and a solution that allows many folks to offer training will happen.

People that hold themselves up as major players from countries without regulations are interesting as when it hits the fan with them they would not have been insured. Even if they think they are any insurer worth his salt with a big claim will immediately find a loophole for the paid policy month on month.

 

[gadgetkeith]

It just seems nowadays to many people in all different industries just look for a quick easy out option

cant be bothered to do a job properly ie whats the easiest least labour intensive fix for a solution

if they cant be bothered to do the job properly they shouldnt be there in the first place time to get out and let someone in who can be bothered to put in the time and effort

most of the time quick fixes either dont last or will go wrong anyway ,,,,,, ie the bodge it and leg it solution ,,,,,

SO IF YOU GONNA DO SOMTHING DO IT RIGHT OR DONT BOTHER TRYING

bad call on the behalf of the production team sack em all and get another crew who will put in the time and effort to do things properly

keith

 

[Gary Mortimer]

I know one operator who offered to do the job with a wire cam as they thought it a little tricky. But anyway probably best to wait for the CAA report now.

 

[DennyR]

Been getting it right here in Cyprus for more than ten years now with specific craft for specific jobs. however the problem now is that the big players who want CGI standards of work don't have any money. In a country where not paying bills is a National sport, things are going to get very tough around the world. Anyone investing in stuff with the idea that they can simply start up and do business the next day are living in a dream world. Of the thousands out there who are trying to get up and running, less than 1% have the talent for the job and of those who do, most will fail economically in the end. The other 99% will screw the business with their lame and dangerous efforts. The first regulation should be to stop any speculative shooting and make it illegal unless it is approved by the local aviation authority who then inform the police that the shoot is taking place. Then those who screw up are held accountable, which should deter all but those who are capable. That does not affect recreational flying, just those who allow their commercial bravery to overtake their ability to accurately asses their equipment and their own ability.

 

[Bowley]

Denny... are you actually Lord Sugar incognito :tennis:

 

[PaulT]

The craft was employed by X-Factor

The pics are stolen from a thread on RCGroups.

View attachment 14110
View attachment 14111

The AV company involved:

http://www.helicam.com/our-helicam/

Thank you for the link to our website (www.helicam.com), but it was not us!

There would have been a risk assessment performed as a condition of the insurance, which would have planned to 'ditch' the UAv into the Thames if they encountered an error.

Whoever it was, based on the footage I have seen, they were not flying 'in control' and I doubt any of the footage would be usable as they were too erratic and flying too fast.

Hope that's cleared up the confusion.

Paul
Helicam

 

[DennyR]

Denny... are you actually Lord Sugar incognito :tennis:

Nah I have more hair than him.

 

[APVXtreme]

The rigs we fly for cinema work have proven to be very reliable with thousands of flights and only a couple of forced landings over a period of many years. It has taken many years to learn and improve on the many weak areas found along the way. Many of these weaknesses were caught just in the nick of time. Having said that, as I said before, I would have declined this gig. The rig flown here did not benefit from extensive flight testing and the ops paid the price. They will most likely lose their insurance and now are branded with questionable reliability. If someone would have been hurt, it would have made the front page.

In the professional world, a root cause analysis would follow such an incident. The primary recommendation from this event would be to not fly near large crowds. The secondary would be improve equipment reliability. Take this as a close call due to poor judgement and a good lesson learned.

Our team has a saying "hope is not a plan".

+1 This is one of the more sensible posts I've seen on the subject yet, unless you trust your rig (and I mean know it inside and out) and have the countless hours in to back that up then pack it up. There are far too many amateur wanabe's with very little social responsibility these days...

The other thought that occured to me is since they were using Zenmuse they had to be running WKM. I'm wondering if they were still using FW 5.18 which did have a bug in it specific to octo's and was replaced with 5.20 a week after it's release with the fix. It's too hard to tell wether or not it was pilot error.

That said, my whole take on the story? I think the chief at Google paid X-Factor to make it crash so it could get some publicity to endorse his urge to regulate mini-drones. When have you heard of a professional company crashing they're bird on set? It doesn't happen very often... not to say it doesn't, but not very often....

 

[DennyR]

Just about every fast jet crash report starts with the line... " He bravely steered it away from (insert school, hospital, bambi )"

I don't think any pilot knowingly steered the plane away from any building that was a school or what ever because in the heat of the moment how would he know what it was. The chances of survival are much greater if you head for an open field or even water.

 

[Droider]

Thank you for the link to our website (www.helicam.com), but it was not us!

There would have been a risk assessment performed as a condition of the insurance, which would have planned to 'ditch' the UAv into the Thames if they encountered an error.

Whoever it was, based on the footage I have seen, they were not flying 'in control' and I doubt any of the footage would be usable as they were too erratic and flying too fast.

Hope that's cleared up the confusion.

Paul
Helicam

Welcome to MRF PaulT. Thanks for clearing that up.

In fact its going to get a little better shortly with a change to CAP 722 and where you can get your pilot training. The monopoly is being broken.

Well thats a new one on me.. Interesting. Ill see what TonyH has to say about that on friday.

Dave