In a somewhat tangentially related vein, Suncor Energy, one of the top Oil Sands mining companies in Canada, announced they're replacing their fleet of heavy haul trucks with automated ones[0] by 2020, in the artcle they interview a automated truck industry rep who basically calls the use-case 'simple':
>"Really, what the industry is doing here is picking the low-hanging fruit. It's a lot easier to design and operate an autonomous truck on private property like the oil sands than it is on a on a public road. And there are a number of motivations. Computers drive better and more safely and better than humans."
Most of Gold Rush is filmed in Canada, specifically anything involving "The Klondike", which is in the Yukon, Canada.
They would need to abide by Transport Canada's UAV regulations, and would most likely require a SFOC, which is possible to get if you're operating <400ft commercially. The FAA does not yet have a similar permitting process for commercial drone use.
As someone who has spent a fair bit of time working on swingstages, towers and other structures, there's a few things that immediately caught my attention. Yes, I'm going to be that guy.
- As this appears to be a photoshoot for SmugMug, of SmugMug employees, does Smugmug carry the proper class of insurance on their employees to allow this sort of work? In most cases, unless additional coverage was purchased from the insurer, your general "office worker" insurance will not cover this type of work.
- Was the building owner aware of the photoshoot, and did they have the insurance to cover this sort of work?
- Does Von Wong's liability insurance cover this sort of work (especially since he's not tied off when jumping around on the ledges)?
- I don't see a shock absorber attached to the harness, whcih is necessary to limit the forces on the person to 900lbs (body belt) or 1800lbs (harness) in the even of a fall. I also note that the harness looks like it's a climbing harness NOT a proepr fall-arrest harness (the exception I saw was Hell-girl). Generally you must wear a full body harness rated for fall-arrest and be attached using the back D-ring when doing this type of work.
- The tie-off point, while not visible in the video/photos, (generally) must be a certified tie-off anchor or rated to 5000lbs arresting strength. Using a travel limiting device _may_ have been acceptable, but there doesn't appear to be one.
- The webbing making a sharp angle across the roof flashing is also not ideal, as you should be anchored from above in almost all cases.
- Was there a rescue plan in place? Had someone fallen, what would have happened?
If all of these things were taken into consideration and properly addressed, then thank you for doing your due diligence, otherwise I feel like this has OSHA violation written all over it.
I imagine the city of San Francisco also has regulations when suspending equipment beyond a buildings footprint over an active street.
People die regularly from improper fall arrest systems. You were not just doing a fun photo-shoot, YOU were responsible for these people's lives, as well as the lives of anyone walking below.
I will acknowledge that my knowledge relates to the Canadian labour code, but the US regulations appear to be similar.
If this was insured (which I doubt) and a claim was made, the insurer would turn right around and sue Von Wong (as the organizer of the project) for gross negligence. On the preponderance of the evidence stand (ie >50% probability) that obtains in civil litigation, they would almost certainly win.
I don't like making all these negative comments. But I've seen people get seriously injured in entirely avoidable accidents, and could give you numerous examples of fatal accidents on film sets off the top of my head - whenever I read of one I study it carefully to ensure I never make a similar mistake. Film and photo shoots are fun, exciting environments, precisely because they often involve unusual locations, activities, or situations. But because everyone is participating in the pursuit of some larger goal (producing art of some sort) the people in the roles of director/producer have an outsize responsibility, because they are temporarily invested with significant authority to the point that people will put their common sense and personal judgement on hold, akin to Stanley Milgram's famous electric shock experiments, due to the blend of unfamiliarity and micromanagement that the endeavor necessarily involves.
As far as running water through a water system to keep it from freezing:
That's exactly what we do here. The town _requires_ all households to have a bleeder turned on from about Nov-April at a rate of 1 Litre/minute. This is a small hose which is routed directly from your supply line into your drain pipe. The system is continuously cycling water through the line.
You're correct in that this isn't cheap, but it's much cheaper than the alternative (water mains freezing).
You can see the advisory on the town's page here:
"ATTENTION RESIDENTS: PLEASE TURN ON WATER BLEEDERS
Winter is here! Please ensure all water bleeders are TURNED ON!! They should be turned on at the rate of one litre per minute. Don't let your pipes freeze up on you!!" [0]
http://cityofdawson.ca/
To add to what's been said, another problem is currently our only fibre link to southern Canada is via the Alaska highway, which gets accidentally cut about once a year or so by a construction company.[0] We have microwave that it will fall back to, but that's extremely limited bandwidth.
>"Really, what the industry is doing here is picking the low-hanging fruit. It's a lot easier to design and operate an autonomous truck on private property like the oil sands than it is on a on a public road. And there are a number of motivations. Computers drive better and more safely and better than humans."
[0] http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-238-charleston-s-ame-ch...