Cameras mounted externally

[training wheels]

How easy is it to get approval from CASA to have externally mounted cameras such as in this video?

URvCgaGYI78

I'm inspired by this TAA tail camera ad back in the 80's to do the same if it's easy enough to do with a GoPro Hero camera.

ymJtFNds9Yo

[Ascend Charlie]

Don't need CA$A, just get an engineering order from a qualified engineer.

[Aussie Bob]

Judging by the number of Gopro cameras I see flying about the place on external mounts an engineering order must be easy ... :rolleyes:

[Mach E Avelli]

Speed tape......

[deadcut]

You need an engineering order?!?!? :eek::eek:

[Sunfish]

If its an experimental aircraft, just make sure the cameras are mounted when you receive your C. of A., otherwise anyone who fits anything without an EO or STC is making an unauthorised modification to an aircraft which is a felony offence of strict liability.

[pull-up-terrain]

I will have to find the video, but there was a video of a pilot who mounted his go pro to the nose landing gear of a 744 freighter. It's amazing how strong the suction cap is.

[Mach E Avelli]

Sunny, the beauty of speed tape: "Officer, what are you saying we fitted, and when, where, how do you say? Why would we even think of doing such a naughty thing?"
In Canada they strap boats, barn doors, dead bears and all else to Beaver floats and just crank in a bit of opposite rudder as necessary. EOs, yeah, sure.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

GoPro Boeing 747 Landing Gear View - YouTube

Just mute the video and enjoy! :E

[djpil]

Canada? Not sure myself but I had heard the same about Alaska. An issue (perhaps still, not sure) for the FAA was that other govt departments operated airplanes and claimed that the regs did not apply to them.

You need an engineering order?!?!? An issue with the way that minor and major changes are dealt with by CASA. If it is minor then an EO is required. Incidentally, any, repeat any change is either major or minor so what I might describe as a trivial change has to be dealt with as a minor change therefore needs an EO. In the USA minor changes are dealt with much easier.

Worth reading the relevant bit of that new CAAP on EFBs: 7.9
All EFB mounts attached to the aircraft structure will require airworthiness approval (Subpart 21.M of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998). An unsafe condition must not be created when attaching any EFB control yoke attachment/mechanism or mounting device. For example, the weight of the EFB and mounting bracket combination may affect flight control system
dynamics, even though the mount alone may be considered light. "All" means all" - temporary or permanent.

Some more relevant reading is the new AWB 25-023 on the use of Velcro to mount ELTs.

[Ultralights]

that 747 nose gear vid is a rip off, the original is from a guy named Balleka on youtube, he is/was a B747F capt, and made quite a few very god videos. lots of gliding footage as well.
original is here, with acceptable soundtrack also.

_DcoVBj7pyU

my favourite. FE's
_4TRSYhrEJE

even this is cool, overtaking an MD11.
c58evspEf7A


he made a making of video for the first vid, belly of the beast. but sadly it looks like he removed it, basically a camera, a contour, was taped on the nose gear leg, and he asked the ground engineer to start the camera on pushback for him.
Im pretty sure a gopro suction cup would not hold on above about 8000ft, something about the vacuum under the suction cap equalising with the outside air pressure. highest mine has held on for is 7500ft.

[601]

in the video at post between 0:52 and 1:08 there is a sequence where the nose gear is lowered without the body or wing mains cycling.
Pulling circuit breakers perhaps or can you select nose gear only?

Mr Google has come up with conflicting answers

[triton140]

my favourite. FE's


My all time fave - just great editing by Balleka. And reminds us all of the Flight Engineer.

As for the Lufty MD-11 - I give you Chemtrails, and I rests me case M'Lud.

[Ultralights]

in the video at post between 0:52 and 1:08 there is a sequence where the nose gear is lowered without the body or wing mains cycling.
Pulling circuit breakers perhaps or can you select nose gear only?


Alternate gear extension system, just flick the switch for nose gear only. and as balleka said, fly over some cool shti, later lower the gear as normal, then reset the alt gear switch. ops normal.

[kaz3g]

"anyone who fits anything without an EO or STC is making an unauthorised modification to an aircraft which is a felony offence of strict liability."

Haven't looked it up to find the relevant penalty but suggest it more accurate to speak of an indictable offence:Crimes Act 1900, s580E.

Kaz

[Volumex]

I wonder if the plane used for CASA's Out'n'Back videos has got an EO for its cameras?

[owen meaney]

Hi fvpdude
In Australia an Engineering Order is raised in consultation with what used to be a CAR35 Approved organisation,now is covered in CASR Part 21M.

They are the equivalent of the Transport Canada LSTC. (Limited Supplementry Type Certificate). It limits the modification to particular aircraft serial numbers rather than being approved for a type.
There is a listing of approved organisations on CASA web site.

It is common practice on light aircraft and helicopters that I have been involved with, and doesn't alter the C of A Type category.

Hope that helps

[Lumps]

We got one for our aircraft, fairly straight forward about $650 for the EO itself from memory, just find an aerospace engineering company near you!

[VH-XXX]

Here you go, AF have done the hard yards for you already.

CASA Confirms External Camera Ruling (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-confirms-external-camera-ruling)

[training wheels]

Thanks for that triple X. It won't be as easy as I first thought ...

[alphacentauri]

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

[HarleyD]

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

[dubbleyew eight]

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.

[compressor stall]

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.

[djpil]

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.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

one such as I wonders what the actual evidence is of a go pro actually causing problems to an aircraft?

Well I did advise some bright sparks recently that besides requiring an EO, they may want to consider that tethering their brand spanky new gopro may prevent at least the loss of their new toy and at worst the possibility of it going through someone's head from four thousand feet once the suction cup let go at the reduced ambient pressure.:rolleyes:

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?:8

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.

[alphacentauri]

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

[Aussie Bob]

Alphacentauri I am stunned by your facile and disingenuous post

Harley D I am more stunned by yours ...

[Jack Ranga]

alphacentauri & Aussie Bob :D 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 :cool:

[Sunfish]

Getting Australian approval for this might take a while..............

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR77bNXJQCCqwU7U7HinJ-AXUuSrrnF1V1SoW9bRSJ87R9VvuUR

[Super Cecil]

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.

[alphacentauri]

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

[VH-XXX]

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.

[Shagpile]

I often look at this picture and wonder if humanity will ever be able to achieve this again. Sadly, I don't think we can any more.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/12/74/17/2868161/3/628x471.jpg

[djpil]

alphacentauri: But an engineering order? Seriously?

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/harness_kits/media/shoulderpolicy.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.

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.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

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 :ok:

[Old Akro]

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.

[kabukiman]

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?

[Horatio Leafblower]

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... :eek: :{

[Volumex]

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?

[rnuts]

I remember a while back CASA were focusing on aircraft that had leading edge tape fitted.
They were pinging the owners/operators if there was no EO for it..

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

ForkMount Mk4 (patent pending :E) will do the job! :ok:

ForkMount in action
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k31BUJ4fDg

Dr :8

[dubbleyew eight]

I remember a while back CASA were focusing on aircraft that had leading edge tape fitted.

I watched a pilot once come taxying past all flushed and panting heavily.
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?

[dubbleyew eight]

ForkMount Mk4 (patent pending ) will do the job!

Charleville eh. I had to look up ersa.

what you have shown is that the camera shouldnt be pointed through the propeller arc. :rolleyes: it seems a good steady mount otherwise.

[rnuts]

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.
:confused:

[Jack Ranga]

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.

[LeadSled]

---- for the FAA was that other govt departments operated airplanes and claimed that the regs did not apply to them.
Folks,
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!!

[oicur12.again]

Dont tell anyone, I didn't get approval to mount this gopro externally.

B-17 over Prado field - YouTube

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This thread has relevance. Be careful with cameras and you tube.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest.html

[john_tullamarine]

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.

[Aussie Bob]

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

Thanks John for the perspective. I have re-read Harley D's comment and taken on the sensibility of it. Sorry Harley if I caused any offence, none was meant.

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 ...

[VH-XXX]

remember the recent RAA rag that ran an article on how to mount them

Probably the same edition where editor said that he usually lets his passenger fly the aircraft....

[dubbleyew eight]

but it has had a good track record in the world of aviation over many decades.

by what yardstick?

[john_tullamarine]

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 (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Colin%20Torkington%20biog.htm), 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 (http://www.nevillefreeman.com/network/stanschaetzel.htm), 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 ...

[Flying Binghi]

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.

[Blowie]

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.

There is a definition that CASA can use:

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.

[djpil]

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.

[Blowie]

djpil - good point!

[mickjoebill]

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.

The design and engineering aspects of working out a small cup holder for a individual aircraft is not a problem.

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 :sad:



Mickjoebill

[Sunfish]

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.

[VH-XXX]

Post removed because OZ is being a nancy.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

XXX, bit rough drawing a comparison. You are sick, just sick!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Bit of a long bow to draw I thought. :hmm:

[VH-XXX]

Not really, if you hang something large off the end of a wing, regardless of what it is, or mid-wing or even closer, there are going to be side-effects that become more evident closer to the stall or at unusual attitudes. It's all very well to strap a bike to the side or whatever we've seen in the photos, but there are unknown forces at play.