Cameras mounted externally
) will do the job! 
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
I remember a while back CASA were focusing on aircraft that had leading edge tape fitted.
obviously quite distressed.
"I could barely maintain stall speed in the circuit with full power applied....."
I asked what had changed.
"I put some protective tape on the leading edge of the prop. thats all."
when I looked the goon had put eighth inch thick tape on the leading edge with considerable steps around the edge of the tape area.
I told him to remove it and stop being stupid.
so there are stridently independent thinkers out there who shouldnt even be allowed to look up, let alone fly, let alone actually own aircraft.
but why cant someone use some real nouse, apply some engineering savvy and mount a little camera in somewhere safe without all the bull****?
from those who stridently defend the certified world could someone tell us just how an engineer would determine a safe installation. :-) how would he actually determine it?
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
ForkMount Mk4 (patent pending ) will do the job!
what you have shown is that the camera shouldnt be pointed through the propeller arc.
it seems a good steady mount otherwise.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Obviously I meant on the leading edge of the wing. I would like to assume that nobody would be stupid enough to put tape on a prop, but unfortunately people keep proving me wrong on that front.
I have seen owners/operators do some stuff that just makes you shake your head in absolute disbelief.
Hence the reason authorities have to draw a line somewhere I guess.
I have seen owners/operators do some stuff that just makes you shake your head in absolute disbelief.
Hence the reason authorities have to draw a line somewhere I guess.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm actually surprised by any 'pilot' putting a gopro in front of a pitot tube, they should, however, be congratulated for self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. You'd hope that they don't take useful contributors to the gene out with them.
---- for the FAA was that other govt departments operated airplanes and claimed that the regs did not apply to them.
Generally civil regulations do not apply to "state" aircraft, and for the FAA, that even included their own aircraft.
Check our Civil Aviation Act and Regulations, you will find a definition of "state aircraft" in the regs.
A close examination of the law here suggest that, if any state government decided to take on the Commonwealth, "state" aircraft, such as the various Police AIr Wings, would not be subject to the tender and loving attentions of CASA. The NSW State Government know this, but want nothing to do with it.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 16th Jun 2013 at 15:27.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has relevance. Be careful with cameras and you tube.
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-s-latest.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-s-latest.html
Moderator
A comment or two if I may.
First djpil and HarleyD have a few runs on the board in respect of such matters and their counsel ought not to be discarded quite so lightly.
The underlying problem is that the typical pilot has little to nil knowledge of design and manufacturing certification and all that goes into getting an aeroplane out on line in a fit for purpose configuration.
Just because another jurisdiction does it differently, doesn't necessarily mean that such an alternative is better (unless you are of the view that cheaper = better as a general rule).
Unless one intends to put an exception list in the regulatory words, it is entirely sensible to have a generic rule - whatever that may be.
Importantly, a lot of things are subtle and confuse the experts at times. I recall a story from long ago (in respect of a B52 test as I recall). A gadget was hung off the side a great distance forward of the statics and an engineering judgement concluded that it would have no effect .. fortunately, the TP was an adherent of wind in the wires sixth sense warnings, twigged to a significant PEC problem during the takeoff roll, and was able to reject safely. I'm sure that djpil and I could come up with a list of such eye-openers over coffee.
Plenty of traps out there, folks. It's not a case that pilots are stupid and can't make an input - however, if one wants a brain operation done, perhaps one should consult a neurosurgeon rather than an orthopaedic surgeon ? Pilots are competent when it comes to driving aeroplanes but not necessarily so in respect of related disciplines ?
The NAA delegates (or similar terms), likewise, are not infallible but they do have a lot of relevant runs on the board .. and, as a consequence, a somewhat higher probability that they will get it right. Cheap insurance in my limited view of life, death and the universe ..
Not suggesting that the Australian way of doing certification things necessarily is best .. but it has had a good track record in the world of aviation over many decades.
First djpil and HarleyD have a few runs on the board in respect of such matters and their counsel ought not to be discarded quite so lightly.
The underlying problem is that the typical pilot has little to nil knowledge of design and manufacturing certification and all that goes into getting an aeroplane out on line in a fit for purpose configuration.
Just because another jurisdiction does it differently, doesn't necessarily mean that such an alternative is better (unless you are of the view that cheaper = better as a general rule).
Unless one intends to put an exception list in the regulatory words, it is entirely sensible to have a generic rule - whatever that may be.
Importantly, a lot of things are subtle and confuse the experts at times. I recall a story from long ago (in respect of a B52 test as I recall). A gadget was hung off the side a great distance forward of the statics and an engineering judgement concluded that it would have no effect .. fortunately, the TP was an adherent of wind in the wires sixth sense warnings, twigged to a significant PEC problem during the takeoff roll, and was able to reject safely. I'm sure that djpil and I could come up with a list of such eye-openers over coffee.
Plenty of traps out there, folks. It's not a case that pilots are stupid and can't make an input - however, if one wants a brain operation done, perhaps one should consult a neurosurgeon rather than an orthopaedic surgeon ? Pilots are competent when it comes to driving aeroplanes but not necessarily so in respect of related disciplines ?
The NAA delegates (or similar terms), likewise, are not infallible but they do have a lot of relevant runs on the board .. and, as a consequence, a somewhat higher probability that they will get it right. Cheap insurance in my limited view of life, death and the universe ..
Not suggesting that the Australian way of doing certification things necessarily is best .. but it has had a good track record in the world of aviation over many decades.
First djpil and HarleyD have a few runs on the board in respect of such matters and their counsel ought not to be discarded quite so lightly
For the record, I have never mounted one of these devices outside an aircraft and have never permitted anyone to mount one on the aircraft I operate. I do see a lot of them around the traps though. Oe should also remember the recent RAA rag that ran an article on how to mount them ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remember the recent RAA rag that ran an article on how to mount them
Moderator
by what yardstick?
Fair question.
In the context of the thread we are talking engineering design, certification, and continuing airworthiness ie the PE side of things (albeit that not all practitioners necessarily are PEs - if djpil and I go back to our roots on the Nomad, the leading light in the stressman side of things was a TO .. only because the system wanted to see a bit of paper before they would make him up to an engineer ... he was a fine engineer regardless of bits of paper and a great mentor for many of us young chaps ...).
I can think back on a number of Regulator mentors who were held in high regard by the aero engineering community - world wide - folks such as Col Torkington, Ron Ferrari, Ted Barden (who inveigled me to start off in private practice after I went to Ansett - he needed a bunny to reduce his workload in respect of a particular manufacturer and I looked like I had long ears), Gary Sunderland (with whom I enjoyed more than a few intellectual stoushes), Pat Larcey, John Fincher (a mentor in performance work), Stan Schaetzel, John Blackler, to mention a few, come to mind. For those whom I have neglected to note but ought to have done so, the apologies of an ageing mind ...
The djpils, JTs, and many other young engineers of the local Industry learned from these folk much in the way of salutory lessons and, in due course, acquired a modicum of skill ourselves ... I don't know that we ever achieved their status but, forever, we owe them a very great debt of gratitude.
Yardstick ? I put it to you that a great number of Australian Regulatory airworthiness engineers have the runs on the board ... their reputation at peer Industry and ICAO level in areas such as structural fatigue and other specialist disciplines is a matter of record.
dubbleyew eight ? Perhaps a reference to that delightfully "interesting" little aeroplane which did strange things in the yawing plane ? I can recall my one and only ride in one with Peter Furlong (as I recall) many decades ago at Latrobe Valley ...
Fair question.
In the context of the thread we are talking engineering design, certification, and continuing airworthiness ie the PE side of things (albeit that not all practitioners necessarily are PEs - if djpil and I go back to our roots on the Nomad, the leading light in the stressman side of things was a TO .. only because the system wanted to see a bit of paper before they would make him up to an engineer ... he was a fine engineer regardless of bits of paper and a great mentor for many of us young chaps ...).
I can think back on a number of Regulator mentors who were held in high regard by the aero engineering community - world wide - folks such as Col Torkington, Ron Ferrari, Ted Barden (who inveigled me to start off in private practice after I went to Ansett - he needed a bunny to reduce his workload in respect of a particular manufacturer and I looked like I had long ears), Gary Sunderland (with whom I enjoyed more than a few intellectual stoushes), Pat Larcey, John Fincher (a mentor in performance work), Stan Schaetzel, John Blackler, to mention a few, come to mind. For those whom I have neglected to note but ought to have done so, the apologies of an ageing mind ...
The djpils, JTs, and many other young engineers of the local Industry learned from these folk much in the way of salutory lessons and, in due course, acquired a modicum of skill ourselves ... I don't know that we ever achieved their status but, forever, we owe them a very great debt of gratitude.
Yardstick ? I put it to you that a great number of Australian Regulatory airworthiness engineers have the runs on the board ... their reputation at peer Industry and ICAO level in areas such as structural fatigue and other specialist disciplines is a matter of record.
dubbleyew eight ? Perhaps a reference to that delightfully "interesting" little aeroplane which did strange things in the yawing plane ? I can recall my one and only ride in one with Peter Furlong (as I recall) many decades ago at Latrobe Valley ...
Seems every second pilot wants to video their flight so i'm surprised there's no cheap stc'd wing/fuselage mount mini camera holder ? (perhaps there is i just haven't seen it)
There are plenty of stc's/CAR 35's for the bigger cameras and FLIR's etc that have them hanging off struts and aircraft bellies, shouldn't be to hard to work out a mini cam holder.
There are plenty of stc's/CAR 35's for the bigger cameras and FLIR's etc that have them hanging off struts and aircraft bellies, shouldn't be to hard to work out a mini cam holder.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minor or major?
unlike its overseas counterparts, CASA has no definition of a " minor" change
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.
21.093 Classification of changes in type design
Changes in type design are classified as minor or major. A minor change is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller. All other changes are major changes.
Source FARs section 21.93 modified.
Problem is, CASA individuals come up with individual interpretations, because guidance material and standardisation training are ineffective.
So even with a definition of 'minor change' available, it remains a daunting process for most people to get a change approved - which I suppose, is why many don't bother.
I think you will find that our regs have the same definition of a minor change. EO needed here and logbook entry in the USA. No reg requires the EO process so no reason why our process for minor mods should be any more onerous than in the USA.
There are plenty of stc's/CAR 35's for the bigger cameras and FLIR's etc that have them hanging off struts and aircraft bellies, shouldn't be to hard to work out a mini cam holder.
But for a "minor mod" (that allows adaption to be applied to the aircraft type) under EASA the admin and paperwork cost for something small and benign is
+£5k.
In respect to rotary, the cost for something sizeable (that effects weight and balance) that attaches to the outside of a craft is a blank check, especially if flight testing is required.
There is also a small risk to the public below of a go-pro or monitor falling off and freakishly fouling rudder pedals. Accidents have been caused by video tape cassette and mobile phone fouling the pedals.
Good practice dictates that the flexible part of a suction mount should be covered when not in use because just a hairline scratch across the edge will cause a slow loss of suction.
If one hasn't already it is likely that an errant monitor or gopro will eventually affect flight controls
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 19th Jun 2013 at 00:10.
Ansett did the engineering for the first fitment of a sunlight searchlight to Vicpols first Aerospatial helicopter back in the early 80s. I remember it cost a lot as apart from structural it took electrical load analysis and performance tests as well. The resulting approved data package, if I remember correctly, then got onsold to Aerospatial.