Cameras mounted externally
As usual, CASA strikes again. Creating an issue or problem where there is none. They are the masters of creating issues for others to solve, that turn into regulation, usually at great cost. As with my dealings this sounds like an uneducated dimwit in CASA had an opinion that turned into law. The magazine article even states they assumed there was no problem. ....THAT'S BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!!
CASA are just too **** scared to admit it, we must create a rule
Rant over, tin hat on.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
CASA are just too **** scared to admit it, we must create a rule
Rant over, tin hat on.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alphacentauri I am stunned by your facile and disingenuous post.
To say that this is CASA's fault is both stupid and ill informed. Just because you are clearly ignorant of the procedures relating to making aircraft modifications does not make your self righteous indignation justified.
Attaching ANYTHING to an airframe, (especially one externally which can have an effect on aerodynamics, stall speed, departure characteristics, instrument indications, flight handling, spin recovery,) is a MODIFICATION, regardless of your personal concept of the term. Always has been. There is, and always has been, a procedure to be followed when doing such modifications. It is not up to the pilot, thank god, to determine what type of installation is airworthy or not. You can very easily violate certification standards, and/or fundamental airworthiness requirements by such installations. There is no latitude for your personal 'common sense', this is a job for those who hold part 21m (old reg35) approvals. Have you ever even heard of Reg 35? as it seems not.
Just because you think it should be up to you what you attach to an airframe, rather than a someone who specializes in such things, shows your lack of aviation grounding.
CASA did not create this issue. Uninformed self important pilots did. Listen and learn.
HD
To say that this is CASA's fault is both stupid and ill informed. Just because you are clearly ignorant of the procedures relating to making aircraft modifications does not make your self righteous indignation justified.
Attaching ANYTHING to an airframe, (especially one externally which can have an effect on aerodynamics, stall speed, departure characteristics, instrument indications, flight handling, spin recovery,) is a MODIFICATION, regardless of your personal concept of the term. Always has been. There is, and always has been, a procedure to be followed when doing such modifications. It is not up to the pilot, thank god, to determine what type of installation is airworthy or not. You can very easily violate certification standards, and/or fundamental airworthiness requirements by such installations. There is no latitude for your personal 'common sense', this is a job for those who hold part 21m (old reg35) approvals. Have you ever even heard of Reg 35? as it seems not.
Just because you think it should be up to you what you attach to an airframe, rather than a someone who specializes in such things, shows your lack of aviation grounding.
CASA did not create this issue. Uninformed self important pilots did. Listen and learn.
HD
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course the counter argument is that certification dates from around WW1 when any design that flew was a minor miracle. if it flew well it was a major miracle. major miracles were locked in place in the interests of not disturbing the magic and having them cease working.
one such as I wonders what the actual evidence is of a go pro actually causing problems to an aircraft?
while it is great to rant on about "certification" and how difficult it all is, show us the evidence that it is actually a problem needing an engineer's considered worrying to achieve.
if Flying mag can mention that they receive lots of these videos then just maybe the evidence is that you are sprouting nonsense.
one such as I wonders what the actual evidence is of a go pro actually causing problems to an aircraft?
while it is great to rant on about "certification" and how difficult it all is, show us the evidence that it is actually a problem needing an engineer's considered worrying to achieve.
if Flying mag can mention that they receive lots of these videos then just maybe the evidence is that you are sprouting nonsense.
HarleyD Must have different laws of physics in Alaska then. Coriolis maybe?
Common sense seems to work there pretty well with all sorts of stuff lashed to struts. I haven't got it with me, but I've got a good pic of a set of snowshoes strapped to the T-craft's strut I was flying.
Common sense seems to work there pretty well with all sorts of stuff lashed to struts. I haven't got it with me, but I've got a good pic of a set of snowshoes strapped to the T-craft's strut I was flying.
Last edited by compressor stall; 15th Jun 2013 at 08:14.
I think you will find that the word is "change". Using a different part or material is a change. Adding or removing something is a change. Doesn't matter whether it is temporary by Velcro or permanent (could still be Velcro). Change something and it must be approved. Some-one decides whether it is a minor or major change and you go from there. Quite similar rules to the USA however they allow approval of minor mods by a much easier process without needing an equivalent to our "old" CAR 35 engineer.
one such as I wonders what the actual evidence is of a go pro actually causing problems to an aircraft?
Hypothetically, what would be the effect of a unit coming loose under the load factor created by a large control movement and the said unit becoming jammed in the aforementioned deflected control's horn balance? How about wedging in the slot of an extended flap?
Another very relevant point could be the mounting of a camera in a position that disturbs the airflow over a static port, resulting in erroneous altimeter or ASI readings.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 15th Jun 2013 at 11:11.
Harley D. That's horse ****! Have you seen what they attach to the same aircraft in the US without engineering orders?
I don't reckon you will find too many engineering orders for canoes on floats of aircraft. If a big f**k off canoe strapped to side of a Beaver doesn't make it unflyable, I highly doubt a 10cm x10cm x 2 cm gopro is going to have slightest effect on aerodynamics.
Consider that I can pretty much build whatever I like in my garage and fly it as experimental, but I can't strap a small plastic cube to take pics.
Anyone flying the 'its aerodynamically unsafe' flag is kidding themselves
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
I don't reckon you will find too many engineering orders for canoes on floats of aircraft. If a big f**k off canoe strapped to side of a Beaver doesn't make it unflyable, I highly doubt a 10cm x10cm x 2 cm gopro is going to have slightest effect on aerodynamics.
Consider that I can pretty much build whatever I like in my garage and fly it as experimental, but I can't strap a small plastic cube to take pics.
Anyone flying the 'its aerodynamically unsafe' flag is kidding themselves
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphacentauri & Aussie Bob 
good on you brah's
A gopro going through somebody's head? wtf?
EO's eh?
Build an experimental, get it inspected by an AP and it seems ok, I wonder if the dood in the 747 got an EO for his gopro?
Any tool who suction cups a gopro deserves to lose it
good on you brah'sA gopro going through somebody's head? wtf?
EO's eh?
Build an experimental, get it inspected by an AP and it seems ok, I wonder if the dood in the 747 got an EO for his gopro?
Any tool who suction cups a gopro deserves to lose it
Last edited by Jack Ranga; 15th Jun 2013 at 23:04.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is issue in Canada at the moment concerning external loads and approval. It might have been considered normal at one time to strap anything on you liked but because of a few incidents they are now shutting the door unless certified. I don't know if it's right or not but I read somewhere a canoe of a certain size strapped on the side a Beaver is covered in the aircraft certification.
Yeah well I didn't say you shouldn't be smart about it. I agree Jack, those suction cups are useless on an aeroplane. One would have to engage brain and think about safety.
But an engineering order? Seriously?
I have seen some big and important bits fall out of aeroplanes that had been checked and signed off by an engineer. Having an engineer install it/sign it off does not necessarily make it safe.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
But an engineering order? Seriously?
I have seen some big and important bits fall out of aeroplanes that had been checked and signed off by an engineer. Having an engineer install it/sign it off does not necessarily make it safe.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last person that I knew that strapped something to the side of their aircraft died from it approximately 30 minutes later. Admittedly it was bigger than a go pro, but it came loose and it all went downhill from there.
alphacentauri:
Worth noting the principle of airworthiness certification - each change must be shown to comply with the airworthiness design requirements. Some people seem to think that it'll be right unless the pilot knows of a reason why not – but it is the other way round – prove that it is OK before doing it. When a change has been found to comply then it is approved. A potentially significant change is approved by the airworthiness authority. Less significant changes may be determined to be a minor change and then approved by some-one authorised by the airworthiness authority.
In the USA a minor change may be approved by an appropriate mechanic with a very simple process.
eg see http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/h...lderpolicy.pdf
CASA requires a more onerous process for minor changes. The rules do not provide for any change less significant than minor so even the most trivial change must go through the minor change process.
Art Scholl had a very large camera fitted and believed to be the cause of his fatal crash in the Pitts S-2A. A Go-Pro can still cause problems if installed stupidly. My little thumb-size camera is even less significant - cost of approval to fit here is many hundreds of $$ cf a small handful of $ in the USA.
Of course, Experimental aircraft have a different and more simple process for maintaining their CofA after a change.
But an engineering order? Seriously?
In the USA a minor change may be approved by an appropriate mechanic with a very simple process.
eg see http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/h...lderpolicy.pdf
In such cases, the FAA certificated mechanic who installs the shoulder harness records it as a minor change by making an entry in the maintenance log of the airplane.
Art Scholl had a very large camera fitted and believed to be the cause of his fatal crash in the Pitts S-2A. A Go-Pro can still cause problems if installed stupidly. My little thumb-size camera is even less significant - cost of approval to fit here is many hundreds of $$ cf a small handful of $ in the USA.
Of course, Experimental aircraft have a different and more simple process for maintaining their CofA after a change.
I have beeen advised that if one wears a helmet cam or such, whilst aviating,
then this is OK as it is not attached to the airframe...(?).
I guess it would also have the advantage of 'filming' what you are looking at, and the disadvantage of moving about a bit / lot......
We have a GoPro type camera fitted to the strut of our Tiger Moth for the filming of the client during 'joy-rides', and yep - it is subject to an EO......
Cheers
then this is OK as it is not attached to the airframe...(?).
I guess it would also have the advantage of 'filming' what you are looking at, and the disadvantage of moving about a bit / lot......
We have a GoPro type camera fitted to the strut of our Tiger Moth for the filming of the client during 'joy-rides', and yep - it is subject to an EO......
Cheers
DJP in his normal understated manner has made the most significant post. The issue is that unlike its overseas counterparts, CASA has no definition of a " minor" change. So, all modifications must be treated the same - ie require an engineering order. My understanding is that the starting price for these is around $350. And the changes CASA will make at Christmas may double this.
Our aircraft still a redundant wire under the fuselage ADF antennae. To remove this requires an Engineering Order. The flat 25mm x 25mm pieces of aluminium that will be required to cover the antennae mount holes by screwing into pre-existing nutplates will require an EO.
We have a system that is out of control.
The guys that can think intelligently have made GoPro mounts that rigidly attach to the aircraft in a way that is completely removable without leaving any sign of it having been there.
From memory, a GoPro weighs less than 100g. That's less than the tissue box that many people (dangerously) put on the rear parcel shelf of cars. It doesn't actually require a lot of mounting strength. Anyone watched Ken Block's car videos? Count the GoPro's hanging off it by suction cups?
We have a system that is so unworkable as to force people to work outside it.
If my recollection that a GoPro weighs 100g is correct, then a rule of thumb is to design for a 20g impact. So, if the mounting bracket can withstand a 2kg force in all directions, it should be OK.
Or just mount it in the aircraft looking over your shoulder.
Our aircraft still a redundant wire under the fuselage ADF antennae. To remove this requires an Engineering Order. The flat 25mm x 25mm pieces of aluminium that will be required to cover the antennae mount holes by screwing into pre-existing nutplates will require an EO.
We have a system that is out of control.
The guys that can think intelligently have made GoPro mounts that rigidly attach to the aircraft in a way that is completely removable without leaving any sign of it having been there.
From memory, a GoPro weighs less than 100g. That's less than the tissue box that many people (dangerously) put on the rear parcel shelf of cars. It doesn't actually require a lot of mounting strength. Anyone watched Ken Block's car videos? Count the GoPro's hanging off it by suction cups?
We have a system that is so unworkable as to force people to work outside it.
If my recollection that a GoPro weighs 100g is correct, then a rule of thumb is to design for a 20g impact. So, if the mounting bracket can withstand a 2kg force in all directions, it should be OK.
Or just mount it in the aircraft looking over your shoulder.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if someone mounted one in front of a pitot fin or something silly by accident. I always wondered how many people have had them fall off during a flight,
They are pretty small. The only concern I'd ever have is that the mount would fail and my 300 dollar camera would plumet into someone's back yard, and then they'd have a free go pro and I'd need to buy another one
from what I read really quickly you need a qualified person to baby sit you mounting it to make sure it's stuck in a safe place? could you just ask a LAME to come for a walk for five mins and point out a good spot and then check the mount? Or do you need to carry written certification now?
They are pretty small. The only concern I'd ever have is that the mount would fail and my 300 dollar camera would plumet into someone's back yard, and then they'd have a free go pro and I'd need to buy another one
from what I read really quickly you need a qualified person to baby sit you mounting it to make sure it's stuck in a safe place? could you just ask a LAME to come for a walk for five mins and point out a good spot and then check the mount? Or do you need to carry written certification now?
Kabukiman,
You need to read slower.
Yes you need a qualified and approved Aeronautical engineer (not just a LAME) who hold delegations under CASR 21.M to approve a modification to an aircraft. This will take several weeks and a couple of thousand dollars, I am betting.
Alternately, Contour HD cameras are a good shape for zip-tying to pitot tubes...
You need to read slower.
Yes you need a qualified and approved Aeronautical engineer (not just a LAME) who hold delegations under CASR 21.M to approve a modification to an aircraft. This will take several weeks and a couple of thousand dollars, I am betting.
Alternately, Contour HD cameras are a good shape for zip-tying to pitot tubes...
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarnia, ON
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to find a definition of the word "modification" in Part 21 or even in the whole CASR and was unable to find one.
If one cannot stick anything to an aeroplane without an EO, then taking it to the extreme then it requires an EO to place a checklist sticker beside an instrument panel?
If one cannot stick anything to an aeroplane without an EO, then taking it to the extreme then it requires an EO to place a checklist sticker beside an instrument panel?