Mounting a camera to a/c externally

[foodstamps]

Hi,

I am wondering if there are any rules / regs that I may have over looked regarding the mounting of a camera externally to an aircraft such as a C172?

ie a GoPro camera which many of you may be familiar with. It comes with a suction cup which is fine to 300km/h. There's lots of videos on youtube of people mounting them externally without the suction cups failing. (Altho, I'd tether it to the tie down ring just in case, which raises the following question as well: if the suction cup fails, will the camera swing around and possibly hit the underside of the wing damaging it?)

I've been told through word of mouth lots of people do it, ie friends who know others who do it. No issues in terms of it falling off etc.

That aside if I do this, I'd like to do it legally.

A quick google search led me to a former pprune thread which talks about Reg 35 but a search of the casa website didn't really help me unless I'm looking incorrectly.

Thanks

[john_tullamarine]

Presuming that you are in Oz, it's the same as for any other mod. Easiest way to tick the boxes is to pay a few dollars to your local CAR35 guy or gal.

[foodstamps]

I am in Australia.

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00378)

What am I missing here in the CARs?

or am I looking in the wrong place?
It goes from 33 to 37

also would you know a rough figure as to what it costs?

[noclue]

I haven't read through it, but this could be on the right track...

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/35_7.pdf

It's a CAAP 35 thing.

[das Uber Soldat]

Speed isn't the issue , pressure differential is. It's a suction cup, remember?

Also, I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure tethering it to a plane is the worlds stupidest idea. Good luck with that.

[Ultralights]

Tethering isn't an issue, it won't fly around and hit the wing. you don't see the ropes on sea planes flapping against the wing, they just hang about 45 deg to the airflow and stay there, with the added weight of a go pro, they do the same, but spin around a bit.

[peterc005]

The cameras I've seen have been mounted either in the cockpit/cabin or a fair way back further along the side along the fuselage.

Not sure it's a good idea to mount them on the wing or anywhere else where airflow is critical.

It's way over the top to spend $1,000+ for an Engineering Order on something like this.

One tip is avoid suction cups, which might release as the altitude increases and density decreases.

[Ovation]

foodstamps - check your PM's.

Been there - done that. A CAR 35 Approval will set you back around $700 and it's aircraft specific.

Tachyon XP under-wing video

If you use a suction mount and it loses it's grip, a safety tether will allow the camera to swing wildly in the slipstream and flail whatever surface it happens to come into contact with. There's video of just that occurrence somewhere on the web.

[john_tullamarine]

Simple case of legit or not.

[Ixixly]

Saw one where a GoPro mount was attached to one of the Inspection Panels under the wing allowing it to be very easily taken on and off as required and was far more secure than any suction pad.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

You need a ForkMount Mk4 - Patent Pending! :E

Dr :8

[VH-XXX]

The inspection panel is the best idea if it suits.

You WILL lose your Go-pro if you rely on the suction mount. 8,500ft is when they usually drop off, about the same time that your iPad suction mount will fall off too.

[Morrisman1]

Remember the plate that the GoPro came mounted on in its packaging? That is perfect to duct tape to a smooth surface like a painted wing. Just four 20cm bits of tape is all you need. When you are done just rip it off but be careful if your paint is not very good as it may take the top layer off!

I read that this has been used at 600mph at the reno races. I personally have only used it on a surf board as I haven't had the opportunity to stick it to the plane yet but I would trust it ten times more than Id trust the suction mount.

[VH-XXX]

I'm disappointed that it's been so long since we've seen a video from the ForkMount Mk4 (PP).

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

How about if one simply mounted a camera to a head-band, and wore it?
Or to shoulder epaulettes....some guys have LOTS of bands to attach them to....:p

Not attached to the aircraft - so no engineering order..??
You look outside - it photos outside.
Hands free....

Any probs with this guys and gals...??

Cheers:ok::ok:

[Sunfish]

If you are stupid enough to attach a camera to the outside of a non experimental aircraft, and post a video to Youtube that allows your aircraft to be identified, I would imagine that the CASA video police will ask you for an explanation of how that camera got attached to your aircraft, and you had better have the approvals documentation and certification by the LAME who made the modification.

[thunderbird five]

"CAR 35 & 36" went out about a year ago.:(
It's CASR 21.M now for modification approvals.:rolleyes:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Subpart 21.M authorised persons (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90504)

[compressor stall]

Probably cheaper to head over to that first world aviation country where you can bolt this sort of stuff to your wing strut no questions / engineering mods required.

[john_tullamarine]

"CAR 35 & 36" went out about a year ago.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

At least I wasn't reminiscing back to ANR 40/41. I think you knew what I was getting at, though ?

[tartare]

Why not use 100 mph tape?
Good to see Sunfish chiming in with his usual positive take on life...!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
John T is trying to tell you the only way to do it legally, and Sunfish is trying to get the message across of the most likely (no improbable - most likely) result of you don't.

The potential list of offenses and their penalties, for the illegal modification of an aircraft are quite impressive ---- including the "not a fit and proper person" determination, which is all too often the icing on the cake of all the technical criminal offenses.

Quite apart from the immediate consequences, don't discount the long term consequences of a criminal conviction (or even a criminal charge --- if you are thinking of ever visiting USA).

Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

CASR 21 was modeled on the USA regs but the implementation is quite different. I could be a little rusty on the finer points after the last round of changes so JT will correct me if I get off track.
In the USA a mechanic with inspection authorization can decide whether a mod is minor and, if so, approve it. If not minor, then a FAA designee (like our reg 35 types) needs to approve the data etc.

CASA originally used the same definition as minor and major as the USA but I believe now use the EASA one - I'm not sure how that was achieved - JT? Anyway, we need a reg 35 type person to approve a minor mod. Worth considering how far the regs go in requiring such approval for trivial alterations.

Back in the old days when cameras were big and heavy it would clearly be a major mod. Small cameras perhaps the approver is happy with the minor mod process after assessment. I have one camera about the size of my thumbnail - still a minor mod and requires the same approval, even if only held on with sticky tape for a 10 minute flight.

Perhaps I should get back into the engineering approvals business - I'd have a sliding scale of fees depending on the size of camera and time it was to be fitted to the aeroplane.

[LeadSled]

djpil,
Memory says the problem goes back a bit further, as to what an A&P can do, with reference to (amongst other acceptable data) AC43.13A/B versus when a 337 is required---- and what a LAME can do here.
Somewhere around early/mid '90s, the word "major" was quietly removed, ergo all damage, not just "major" damage, required the tender attention of a CAR 36 engineer.

The rest, as they say in the movies, is history.

Indeed, this was at the time that the then quite new CASA thought they could "engineer" a situation where all requests for repair schemes would have to go through CASA, who would farm all the work out to delegates , and collect a substantial margin in the middle ---- all in the cause of "safety oversight", you understand.

At that time, we had one extraordinary incident at YSBK, where a CASA AWI (ex-LAME) with a (in my opinion honorary) CAR 35 approval, took it upon himself to "design" a major repair to a Metro wing, the damage the result of a prop of an MU-2 hacking into the wing. Fortunately, the plug was pulled on that one, before too much "damage" was done, financially or otherwise, and real CAR 35 engineers took over the job.

The following is still on the books:

42U Modifications and repairs: approved designs
(1) A person may modify or repair an Australian aircraft only if:
(a) the design of the modification or repair:
(i) has been approved under regulation 35, as in force before 27 June 2011; or
(ia) has been approved by a modification/repair design approval; or
(ib) has been approved by an approval granted in accordance with a method specified in a legislative instrument issued under regulation 21.475 of CASR; or
(ic) is taken to have been approved under regulation 21.465 or 21.470 of CASR; or
(ii) has been specified by CASA in, or by means of,
an airworthiness directive or a direction under regulation 44; or
(iii) is specified in the aircraft’s approved maintenance data; and
(b) the modification or repair is in accordance with that design.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.



Tootle pip!!

[john_tullamarine]

so JT will correct me if I get off track.

I think I've been out of the CAR35 game longer than you have now, Dave. Probably we both need to give the colleagues still in the sandpit a call from time to time to find out what's what and on at the coalface.

For the keener folk who think it is all beer and skittles .. the problem is knowing when you don't know enough about whatever it is you are planning to do and, as a result, you get bitten on the tail. The secret of the expert is to make this call and then go seek the advice of a more expert expert when the expert realises that he is not quite expert enough for the task at hand ... if that makes any sense at all.

When looking at hanging things outside sometimes you can end up with strange and unexpected effects. The idea is that the specialist folk might just have a better chance of twigging to a potential problem than the amateur.

For instance, hanging a bigger lump of something on the wing might just alter the wing dynamics in a not so nice way. Better not to find out in flight.

Even the expert experts sometimes get it wrong. A couple of anecdotes I can recall ..

(a) military jet which had a flutter problem and resulted in the loss of a few. Rework and test program to fix the problem. Flight test with a chase plane .. you guessed it right ... the chase plane was an unmodded example .. and the control bits departed company right about when they would be expected to do so. MB letdown saved the day.

(b) big military jet had a bit of stuff hung outside on the fuse. Unfortunately the static ports were downstream and the stuff hung outside changed the PEC dramatically. TP fortunately twigged to the wind in the wires not sounding quite right on takeoff and rejected.

Thinking we know more than we really do is a major problem everywhere and it is the rare person who can be truly objective in his/her self assessment of competence.

Bob Smith's reminiscences (http://www.nf104.com/) are worth a read in the chair whilst smoking one's pipe .. puts a few things in perspective, I suspect.

[fencehopper]

Skip the suction mount. I attached one on a Electric lazair at last years Oshkosh on the fiberglass mono float and it came off after a few minutes. Lucky i had put a bit of safety string on it. Humid air and not so flat surface was the problem. Also all go pro quick mounts vibrate a bit.
There are a couple of good after market ones around like the fully adjustable one from "Cookie Helmets". Not to hard to fabricate a simple mount out of a piece of flat metal half inch wide and 2 inches long with a couple of pieces welded on in the right place and drilled to take the housing. Best to safety it on. If it fell off and hit someone or the like it is big trouble. More than the not having a mount signed off. Fabricating a thicker inspection panel would be a good idea. Plenty of footage out there of RAAus aircraft with cameras mounted all over the place. I have two mounted on my helmet for jumping one for vid and one for stills. I have been tempted to mount them on my grass roots type U/L but i'm not into providing evidence. I'll wait until i go to the states next year for three months of FAR103 adventures.
FH

[Lancair70]

Ive got a go-pro mount on the side of my right ear cup of my DC H10-40's. The weight of a go-pro is not really felt too much, the DC's are heavy to start with. Works great for seeing the panel, forward view in flight and looking out the door as skydivers depart. Once I work out how to edit and actually get around to it, Ill post a vid of skydive flying in a C182 from the pilots view.
Id love to stick some outside somewhere for various views but . . . given the consequences of doing it without approval, I'll give it a miss.

[Ovation]

This is a CAR35 approved installation. The camera is attached using a slightly modified bracket that came with the camera. The video is recorded upside down and is flipped with editing software.

The approval is aircraft specific but as I read it other aircraft and types can be added to the current EO according to the engineers:

The approval will be specific to your aircraft but I can add additional regos onto the EO under your jurisdiction. CAR35 approval is for an aircraft rather than an aircraft type and this is the reason why it cannot be blanketed to cover all M20's.


http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/TACHYON02.jpg

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I'm disappointed that it's been so long since we've seen a video from the ForkMount Mk4 (PP)

Here's a bit of nostalgia for you XXX! When I get my hands on a decent aeroplane again, I will make some more. The ForkMount Mk4 (patent pending) is easily adapted to a variety of aircraft. :E

YBCV Rwy 12 RNAV 720.wmv - YouTube

Dr :8

[john_tullamarine]

The approval will be specific to your aircraft but I can add additional regos onto the EO under your jurisdiction

A matter of checking for conflicting aircraft detail.

(a) for a one-off aircraft (or a group which are checked out by the CAR35 org) the design looks at the appropriateness of a mod on that (those) particular aircraft. Hence the normal restriction usually by individual S/N or tail feathers.

(b) if one wants something a bit more general, one goes for an STC. In this case the applicability typically (but not necessarily) is for a larger S/N range (or similar control) and the design org has to establish that the STC mod is applicable to all the S/N range specified. Caveat - the STC will be looking at the stock standard aircraft and, perhaps, OEM STCs. Hence, if you intend to put an STC mod on your bird, then if the bird has non OEM mods (eg non-OEM STCs, CAR35 mods, etc) someone (the CAR35 org) has to check that the proposed mod doesn't represent a contraindicated problem due to pre-existing mods.

As before, traps for young players which the CAR35 guys and gals should be able to protect against.

Some of the camera mods can be fun.

For instance, going back a long ways, I put cameras in the tail and cockpit of several Types for a particular set of flight test programs which worked real fine.

Similarly it is pretty standard to use cockpit installations for most FT programs and we have done a few wing installations for ground data monitoring and subsequent analysis.

Likewise a bunch of early TAA and other in flight videos of company aircraft for advertising purposes were done using an O/B installation in a LearJet (as I recall) in which we set the camera up in the forward cabin area and filmed through the removed emergency exit. Some great TV video clips came from that program.

For those who may recall an Oz takeoff from the Indiana Jones range of movies, the 'stang video (with Jack M's grisly visage in the cockpit) was done from the ramp of a C212 in Melbourne as Jack put the nose just about into the ramp opening. Sitting on the ramp at the time I found it all quite good fun. Unfortunately the Regulator of the day wouldn't let us do the DC3 exit through the overhead hatch due to a particular Reg which they wouldn't bend so it had to be done O/S where the rules were a bit more flexible. The RAAF did something similar with a Hornet and Herc in which the pilot must have sat the radome on the ramp or very nearly so.

[compressor stall]

A go-pro is a 2 inch box for, what happened to common sense and some bush ingenuity? Sometimes I despair at the nanny state. :}

[baron_beeza]

I can't for the life of me see why you need a medical to fly an aircraft. I can ride a motorbike with nothing more than a eye test every so often.

Same with instructor's ratings... anyone that can fly should have the knowledge to be able to coach a learner. Same as we do when teaching the kids to drive.

I realise the regs have been around for years and have provided a protocol for safe operation of aircraft.,- they do come with some expense however.
My logic is telling me that if owners and operators are quite happy to ignore the regs when it comes to things like modifications then surely they must be doing backyard maintenance and not wasting time and money on doctors and renewals.

Generally the aircraft, or operation, would have trouble with insurance in that case so that would be another savings. No need for those annual premiums.'

Aviation can be cheap... you may just need to operate outside of the regs.

It seems any number of contributors here are already doing just that. ;)

[T28D]

GAFATape and lotsof it works a treat

[Arnold E]

When I get my hands on a decent aeroplane again,

Getting an RV then are we??:E:E:E

[superdimona]

I know you were being sarcastic Baron, but I actually believe this (at least for private flying in Class G anyway). Despite what the egos of many pilots tell them, the skill required to safely fly a Cessna 172 from A to B is not brain surgery.

[baron_beeza]

It is not difficult at all, - as we all know.

Unfortunately the whole scene needs some form of regulation..... we have seen what the cowboys are capable of.

I have been involved in many mods. Generally if it a good idea and has been thought through then the process is straightforward and painless.

The initial question was asked about what was involved in raising a legal mod for the fitment. I think it has been answered pretty well here.

[lilflyboy262...2]

I used to have one mounted to the wing strut on a C208. Worked fine. Had it cable tied to the tie down point just in case.
Came off once, but it did not flap around wildly, just sort of rolled lazily around.

Got some pretty epic videos from it. Usually only mount it on the inside now though. New company, new country, don't want to get any grief from the boss!

[Ovation]

The attached images will give you an idea of the work involved in a CAR35 Approval. Pages 6-8 are not loaded as they are pictures of the camera mounted on the aircraft and one is already loaded on this thread.

I would guess that a lot of the information is "boiler plate" that could equally apply to other modifications, but they have their name and reputation on the line once they sign off.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PPrune%20Stuff/CCI04062012_00005.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PPrune%20Stuff/CCI04062012_00006.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PPrune%20Stuff/CCI04062012_00007.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PPrune%20Stuff/CCI04062012_00008.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PPrune%20Stuff/CCI04062012_00009.jpg

[Jabawocky]

hey Ovation

was that your lovely machine in the Aero Services hangar at YPPF last week?

I was tempted to leave a note on the seat from Jaba :}

But that may have been wasted if not!

If I knew now I would have looked for the mount!

Quote:
When I get my hands on a decent aeroplane again,
Getting an RV then are we??http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


Arnold.........secretly Forkie does like a pole around in a Retard Vehicle, but his Fork Tailed personna can't bear public admission! ;)

[john_tullamarine]

one mounted to the wing strut

please do be a tad careful hanging things off wing struts .. they can have very interesting flutter characteristics. I have even seen abnormal icing buildups cause problems ..

the work involved in a CAR35 Approval

having known Graham for decades, I can vouch for his appropriately conservative engineering nature ..

[lilflyboy262...2]

Icing was certainly not an issue where I was flying!

I'm actually interested now to see what aerodynamic effects one of these will have...

[Ovation]

This is from an earlier thread on the same subject:

I'll put my hand up as one of the people stupid enough to put and subsequently lose a go pro off the side of an aircraft.

It lasted for 3 sectors on the tail (great video!) but once on the outboard underside of the wing, didn't.

I don't recommend it.

In other news if anyone is after a cheap though slightly dropped go pro, 20nm east of Coonamble.

[compressor stall]

This one is not my picture, but I have one at home almost identical that I took flying around Denali.
http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10728/normal_ready_for_winter_002.jpg

We have a system of rules in this country to which we are bound to abide.

My beef is that we have gradually regulated out of existence common sense and a practical approach to something like a go-pro being gaffer taped (not suction cupped) to a light aircraft's wing strut.

It is, however, good for the likes of Graham whose great work I pole around the sky almost daily.

[baron_beeza]

My beef is that we have gradually regulated out of existence common sense and a practical approach to something like a go-pro being gaffer taped (not suction cupped) to a light aircraft's wing strut.


The regs have been around a long time. I can't see any difference between this and flying without a licence.
Is it just me ?

To me that example has illegal mod stamped all over it. Is the aircraft still airworthy with such a mod ?
I realise it happens all over the place, and probably on a daily basis..... does that make it correct and lawful.

Is driving my car about town with the door removed any different ?

It may be reasonably safe etc but it is still going to attract attention.

The whole world has gone PC..

[fencehopper]

Just received my RAAus mag and there is a article on cameras and mounting them. Absolutely no mention of the hazards or rules of losing one or any mention of consideration to location that may affect airflow etc or even if external mounts are legal for some catagories.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Thanks Fenceopper, maybe they can run an article on removing DIY aeroplanes from ferris wheels as well.

Bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzbzbzbzzbbzbzzb

[john_tullamarine]

Absolutely no mention

then, presumably, the article is not written by someone with a design and certification background ?

[forever flying]

Or to what extent do the regulations cover something like a camera fixed onto the airframe under RA-Aus I think would be the better question.

[baron_beeza]

I have not fitted a camera to an LSA or microlight but we did do a Pitts. It was written up much as the Mooney example above.


The RA-Aus Technical Manual appears to have a section on modification procedures. The following links may not necessarily be up to date.

RA-Aus Technical Manual issue 3 (w3c 2/10) (http://www.auf.asn.au/techmanual/index.html)

http://www.auf.asn.au/techmanual/3-5-3.pdf

'''''''''' All modifications to CAO 95.32 paragraph 1.2 and 1.3 or CAO 95.55
paragraph 1.8, 1.9 aircraft are subject to the conditions as set out in AC
21.41.
A Special Certificate of Airworthiness stops having effect if the aircraft is
modified outside of the approval given by the manufacturer, or the aircraft
no longer meets the LSA standards as defined by regulation 21.172 of
CASR 1998. ''''''''''

Perhaps the author of the article could have made some sort of mention of the manual requirements.

[fencehopper]

This site really needs a 'like' button.
I mentioned that there are possibly requirements to fit external cameras on another forum but no one has responded to it. Possibly to busy removing mounts and you tube vids. RAAus seems to live in a world of their own.

[LeadSled]

---- maybe they can run an article on removing DIY aeroplanes from ferris wheels as well.

Buzzy,
Are you sure that was an RAOz aircraft?? I thought it was a VH- registered Experimental Amateur Built.

'''''''''' All modifications to CAO 95.32 paragraph 1.2 and 1.3 or CAO 95.55 paragraph 1.8, 1.9 aircraft are subject to the conditions as set out in AC 21.41.

That doesn't sound right to me, (even if it was in the Tec. Manual) AC21.41 only refers to LSA, where the rules are quite different to, say, a 19- registered aircraft.

Tootle pip!!