Aerial photo mishap

Subscribe
Pilot in fatal Denver crash was shooting photos, may have hit winds - The Denver Post

This article is about a mishap that occurred back in June 2011, but it highlights some of the dangers of aerial photgraphy I think - the environment. I'd like the discussion to focus on the trials and tribulations that aerial photo pilots finding themselves dealing with when on a job.

USMCFLYR
Reply
This guy apparently got into a downburst. Very dangerous and not much you can do about it. Small airplanes can only do about 800 fpm and the low altitude does not give a lot of slack.

I am not doing aerial surveys any more, but our operation stayed in busy airspace and we were always seeing/ avoiding airplanes. With one crew member head down the other guy had to keep a lookout. It was close sometimes. We did have a TAS system on board but they are not infallible.
Reply
Quote: This guy apparently got into a downburst. Very dangerous and not much you can do about it. Small airplanes can only do about 800 fpm and the low altitude does not give a lot of slack.

I am not doing aerial surveys any more, but our operation stayed in busy airspace and we were always seeing/ avoiding airplanes. With one crew member head down the other guy had to keep a lookout. It was close sometimes. We did have a TAS system on board but they are not infallible.
+1. No matter how good you are this is probably a job that would be better accomplished with two people. He was probably pretty low, and there is not much margin for any incidents down there, our 2000 lb Cessna plane weighs less than a car and will get blown around pretty easily.

I'm the biggest wimp when it comes to bad weather, and concentrating on a job is a very easy way to get out of your element.
Reply
Key words "a storm strong enough to ground flights at denver international"...yeah, no business being there.
Reply
I remember a CRJ700 took off ahead of us and reported WS with altitude LOSS on climb out. The 700 is overpowered for an RJ, it would take a lot to actually lose altitude after you firewall it.

Then some clown in a 310 took off immediately after, disregarding the tower's suggestion that he wait...and the fact that he had to taxi around another RJ (me after I decided not to go).
Reply
Quote: I remember a CRJ700 took off ahead of us and reported WS with altitude LOSS on climb out. The 700 is overpowered for an RJ, it would take a lot to actually lose altitude after you firewall it.

Then some clown in a 310 took off immediately after, disregarding the tower's suggestion that he wait...and the fact that he had to taxi around another RJ (me after I decided not to go).
Must have been freight
Reply
He definitely pushed his limits. Also a job best conducted by at least 2 people. Let one do the flying only. It is simply unsafe to both fly (low) and be taking pictures.
Reply
Quote: I remember a CRJ700 took off ahead of us and reported WS with altitude LOSS on climb out. The 700 is overpowered for an RJ, it would take a lot to actually lose altitude after you firewall it.

Then some clown in a 310 took off immediately after, disregarding the tower's suggestion that he wait...and the fact that he had to taxi around another RJ (me after I decided not to go).

Guys like that really tick me off! Just the other day I told our passengers we were going to delay because it was freezing rain. Then we are standing in the building and another company based on the field taxis out in their Navajo and takes off!
Reply