Mounting Cameras etc.

[LeadSled]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100227/draftac23-1-0.pdf

Folks,
Several threads, over time, have discussed external mounting of cameras etc. The above is a draft AC that outlines what is needed for a normal cat.Part 23 certified aircraft.
The requiremenst will not be greatly different for aircraft in other categories, just the details of the who and how of making the modification legally.
Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

I don't find it particularly useful after para 2.1.3. We should respond to this - closing date is 11th Nov.
Of course the topical subject is external camera installation which is mentioned in para 2.1.4: For the purposes of this AC, external equipment is a piece of equipment that protrudes into the airflow (e.g. cameras, sensor units, nightsuns, forward looking infrared system).
Then goes on to state: 2.3.1 An aircraft is eligible to remain in its currently approved category if the operational
airspeed/flight envelope is:
 defined
 flight tested
 within the airspeed/flight envelope defined for the type design
 compliant with applicable airworthiness standards that have been identified in the
compliance summary for the design change.
All very vague which of course it has to be as the method of showing compliance will depend on stuff like the size/shape (including number) of camera, location of the camera(s) and characteristics of the aircraft but not every installation would need to be flight tested. I also would've expected mention of "minor" and "major" with a pointer to AC 21-15, Supplemental Type Certificates.

I always like to consider the extremes of the scope to test the sensibility of something like this. I recently saw a photo of an Otter carrying a Cessna fuselage externally - OK, the draft AC covers this. So does common sense in my opinion.

Now for my mini digital camera. I am sure that I could find a place to put this on my biplane such that some conservative calculations (per Hoerner, no need for CFD) would demonstrate no "appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller." Leading to a much more simple approval process than directed by the conclusion of the AC.

This sentence in para 2.2.3.1: "it may be necessary for CASA or an authorised person to request flight test validation" is quite sensible but contrary to para 2.3.1 quoted above.

Perhaps some-one could ask CASA to define "modification"at the same time?

J.T. and O Akro, what do you think?

[duncan_g]

djpil wrote: but not every installation would need to be flight tested

The draft AC implies (by para 2.2.3.1 and 2.3.1) that everything needs to be tested:

2.2.3.1: "the operational flight envelope must be defined and tested. This will require the applicant to propose and demonstrate, by test, their operational flight envelope"

Is there a conceivable ground test that would meet the intent of this (i.e. not requiring actual flight test?)

:confused:

[Horatio Leafblower]

There are legitimate ways an aeronautical engineer would calculate such a thing... but that would be too sensible :ugh:

[Volumex]

VD Design Drive Airspeed

High quality editorial work as usual.


Just wait until Mr CASA Inspector figures out that every fixed gear Cessna with spats removed needs to have it's operational flight envelope flight tested.

[Old Akro]

Suddenly, I feel very tired. Seriously, are we paying people to write this?

Firstly, there is no definition provided for equipment or airflow. Nor is there any definition of airframe.

What constitutes a piece of equipment protruding into the airflow? An HF antenna? VHF, GPS, etc? We are required to install new antennae for ADSB & 406 MHz ELT's. To the letter of this circular we now need flight testing when we change the GPS & Transponder antennae when an aircraft is upgraded to ADS-B or if a 406 HHz ELT is fitted. Want to remove a redundant ADF? That will require a report & flight test to remove its antenna too.

Thinking about installing a JPI engine monitor? If you take the OAT option, that will require a report & flight test.

How about a new aircraft cover? Aren't the press studs equipment that protude into the airflow?

The circular only gives guidance for airflow. Where does one look for issues such as structural integrity, free control movement or CofG.

It does not define " Flight test validation". Does it need to conform to the CASA guidelines for Flight Testing? Is it required to be conducted by a specialist? Can the owner do the test flight? Is a flight test report required according to the CASA Flight Test Guide? Is a risk management assessment according to AC 21-47 required?

It does not define "an authorised person" who is required to create the application. Is this what we currently refer to as CASR 21.M Authorised person? There are less than 30 of these people outside the airlines. They might be about to be busy.

After DJP going into detail with me about how CASA has omitted the minor mod exemption that exists in US law, I'm surprised he didn't get into this. The biggest problem is that CASA is treating a camera mount the same way as the modification to carry a space shuttle on the back of a 747.

[LeadSled]

The biggest problem is that CASA is treating a camera mount the same way as the modification to carry a space shuttle on the back of a 747.

Folks,
One can't be to careful can one, seeing that the "aims and objects" of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, as interpreted by the present management of CASA, allow for no "common sense" interpretations, only "minimizing accidents and incidents" no matter how unlikely, and regardless of the cost of such minimization.

After all, those beastly Senate chappies, goaded by the members of the Ills of Society Society, might ask difficult questions.

Seriously, the "one size fits all" approach embedded in the current act and regulations, and being reinforced in the so called "reformed" regulations, marches on, to the cost of all sectors of what remains of Australian GA.

Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

This seems to be the official action to follow on from this magazeine article CASA Confirms External Camera Ruling (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-confirms-external-camera-ruling)

Thinking about installing a JPI engine monitor? If you take the OAT option, that will require a report & flight test.On the other hand if the AC was not intended to change the current approval process for little OAT sensors and antennae then it should be clearly stated.

This AC is aimed at design approval holders, maintenance organisations and applicants for approval of modifications.
My opinion is that design approval holders should not be authorised if they don't know basic stuff - they deserve something like this FAA AC: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2021-40A/$FILE/AC%2021-40A.pdf

Maintenance organisations likewise should know that changes require approval but perhaps they could do with guidance as to whether something would be "major", "minor" or (my new category) trivial whereby a LAME can put a -6 screw in the wingtip fairing of my aeroplane rather than the approved -4 screw.

Applicants don't seem to be helped by this as they don't need to know about stuff like "Design Drive Airspeed". Applicants could do with knowing about who to go to and how to apply to get a change approved.

Perhaps aircraft owners and pilots could do with knowing what they cannot do without getting approval. "Attaching anything to the external surfaces of an aircraft, whether it is the wing or not, is considered a modification," CASA's spokesperson said. - from that magazine article. I wonder why that statement didn't make it into the AC - my opinion is that the AC would be much better than it is if that sentence was the only content.

[Old Akro]

DJP

I don't see anything that exempts things already covered by an STC. I'm thinking mainly about things like the JPI OAT sensor, or maybe an AoA sensor (which are becoming more popular). Our aeroplane has the LoPresti hub caps fitted, that should now require a flight test (despite its STC) and ditto LoPresti spats, gear lobes, and other fairings.

Also the AC talks about replacing items (substitution of a part or appliance), which theoretically says if you replace a TXP antennae with an ADS-B one, or a GPS antennae with a WAAS one of an ELT antenna with a 406 one then you need a flight test. Technically, its saying that if you replace a landing light you need a test flight.

"anything attached to external surfaces..." also catches the press studs for aircraft covers and the unique Australian requirement for grounding tabs adjacent to fuel caps. It probably also covers fitment or replacement of static wicks. Taken to the extreme, this covers self adhesive aircraft registration or other decals.

I also think flight test requires some definition. Is it a circuit? Is it a local flight with clean & dirty stalls? Does it include VNE dives? Does it require a flutter test regime? What constitutes a flight test pass? Flight testing is a qualitative thing, so it needs guidelines. Does the flight tester need to fly the aircraft before and after to look for differences? Many, many GA aircraft are mis-rigged. Should this be checked & rectified first so the pilot is test flying the mod on an aircraft rigged within the TC spec?

To me there needs to be something that allows discretion. Component replacement should be exempted, fitment of items according to an STC should be exempted (unless required by the STC) and minor items that don't materially affect the airflow or are within the boundary layer should be exempted.

The trouble is that CASA has a bee in its bonnet specifically about cameras and they are getting small enough to fall within most exemptions you might draft. There are already cameras smaller than GoPro's.

[Old Akro]

Actually, thinking about mounting a Go-Pro, I think the things that would worry me more than disturbing airflow (unless it mounted somewhere totally dumb) would be:
a) that it fell off
b) that it fell off and struck the tail or somewhere else as it went or
c) that it detached from the mount and was retained by a strap and banged against the aircraft
d) that it mounted in a way that damaged the aircraft (ie self tapping screws into aircraft skin)

Also, you'd have some concern about embrittlement of the plastic case that might cause it to fail. And GoPro don't use self locking screws on any of the attachments, which might also allow the camera to fall.

These are probably reasons to make it easy for someone (eg a LAME) to fit one properly rather than forcing it all "underground" through overly arduous and clumsy regulation.

[djpil]

This FAA Order explains how flight tests are normally arranged. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/8130.29A.pdf
Something needing a flight test requires the aircraft to be in Experimental category (as, until the test is successfully completed and assessed then compliance with airworthiness regs has not been shown or found). It must be flown by an approved pilot to a plan approved by CASA.

Yes, I agree, there are certainly issues with external fitment of GoPro cameras etc but this draft AC contributes diddly squat.

An Operational Flight Check is a lesser activity to check function for example. So, for a camera, CASA doesn't care if the camera works or not, just that the installation is safe and complies with the applicable regs.

My mini camera is smaller than my thumb. Easy enough for an approved person to assess a safe place for it to go and determine a safe installation. Less significant than a small antenna.

You don't need an exemption for your STC as it is approved but worth reading the relevant STC with the note on checking applicability wrt other STCs fitted.

PS: aircraft should always be rigged within TC tolerances. Flight tests may want it rigged specifically at one extreme of the tolerances.

[djpil]

Is there a conceivable ground test that would meet the intent of this (i.e. not requiring actual flight test?)I could postulate situations where I might want to do a ground test (eg a wind-tunnel test) to indicate the effect of something prior to undertaking flight tests. If the change is substantial enough to warrant wind-tunnel tests then my view is that subsequent flight test would be essential.

I can remember getting involved in the certification of an ultra-light aircraft here many years ago where the designer had done some ground tests for certification in another country. Towing the aeroplane tied down to a trailer behind his Porsche down a motorway at Vd instead of flight tests did not show conformance, in my opinion, to the specific requirements nor did it seem very smart to me. Well, it was smart in that it kept the risk low to the test pilot who didn't fly it above Vne but left future participants at risk.

I should note that I have been out of this business for a few years but thinking of getting involved again. Perhaps people do things differently here now (and differently from in the USA) and perhaps my comments are way off track.

[Old Akro]

Well, it was smart in that it kept the risk low to the test pilot

What about the risk to the Porsche?

[john_tullamarine]

but thinking of getting involved again

Laurie got out a while ago due to the cost's outweighing the benefit .. are you sure ?

[tartare]

Surely the main issue here is that the damned thing could fall off and kill someone?
250 grams or so of camera from 1000 feet - that's quite a big hole?!!
The airflow interference with a static port or pitot tube is perhaps valid (although you'd have to be an absolute goose to mount it near either) but they're hardly going to contribute to a stall or some other drastic airflow change are they?
They're great things - we suction mounted our one to the inside of a 152 windscreen to get a shot of our 11 year old boy's first flying lesson.
But personally I think anyone other than a LAME who mounts a Go-Pro on a wing or the fuse is bloody nuts!
I've read anecdotal stories of people using the Go-Pro supplied suction mounts to do so... I hope to God they're not true.

[djpil]

Not the subject of this AC but do you think that a GoPro mounted internally does not require design approval? It is the very same regulation that powers this AC.

Incidentally, the EFB CAAP states that EFB mounted to structure only requires design approval. (is my cabin door part of the structure?) Silly to mount anything like an iPad or GoPro on the flimsy interior trim in my airplane but sensible onto a convenient steel tube.

[Old Akro]

250 grams or so of camera from 1000 feet - that's quite a big hole?!!

More like 130g including the enclosure for a GoPro and others are lighter. Plus I think the terminal velocity may be quite low. But it is a risk.

GoPro cameras and similar are regularly used in motorsport now. In the old days we had quite stringent requirements for the mounting of video cameras require steel cages and things like that, but its becoming less and less of an issue. In say a 25g impact, the restraint only needs strength of about 3.2 kgf or say 4.5 kgf with a safety factor. But there are some issues. The standard GoPro pivot bolt becoming loose under vibration is at the top of these. For motorsport, we require the tether to be used. On an aircraft this probably should not be used.

[djpil]

Well, that Advisory Circular – AC 23-1 v1.0 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/023/023c01.pdf)– Airspeed airworthiness standards for the installation of equipment that protrudes into the airflow has been published.
I expect FOIs to quote it ad nauseam at ramp checks if they see a little camera.

[Volumex]

I expect FOIs to quote it ad nauseam at ramp checks if they see a little camera.

Or any equipment not installed, such as spats missing on fixed gear Cessnas.

I even put a submission into CASA on this one, no acknowledgement and evidently no consideration of this issue.

Better get your test flight organised if you don't have spats on...

[djpil]

Friend has some public YouTube videos taken in flight from aeroplane - the reason given by two FOI's seen inspecting the aeroplane recently. Nothing found as the camera was (temporarily) mounted in the cockpit. I wonder if CASA has been looking at other aeroplanes which star on YouTube?

[mickjoebill]

Reading the advisory circular I'm not sure if they are more interested in how the aircraft performs with additional kit dangling in the wind or if they are interested in ensuring the kit is adequately attached so it doesn't fall off.


If it is the former what have they got to say about 100 years of hand held aerial photography where potentially much larger interference with slip stream occurs?



Mickjoebill

[baron_beeza]

such as spats missing on fixed gear Cessnas.

Volumex has referred to the spats a couple of times.

I would think there is ample provision for this procedure, just as there always has been.
The TCDS and other manufacturer data would be referred to as part of the certification required by the local regulators.
Some aircraft have requirements that need to be met, exactly the same as the engineer must check when thinking about releasing an aircraft with the spinner removed.

The TCDS are all available online, under the FAA website for most aircraft.

[VH-XXX]

Seems the Americans don't care about mounting GoPro's... in my inbox this morning...



http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/gca1.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/gca2.jpg

[OZBUSDRIVER]

WingItMounts GoPro-01 Products Page (http://www.wingitmounts.com/html/products.html)

link to the product.

like that a logbook entry may be required from your LAME and no responsibility accepted if your fitment results in damage...as if that will keep the sharks away....other than that, a bloody solid looking piece of kit.

[VH-XXX]

Lol I should have looked a bit further like you did!

I wonder how many would go to the effort of talking to their LAME. Hire Cessna, affix mount, remove mount, return aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Reading between the lines...a couple of young bucks get together and come up with a brutally simple mount for a popular camera. Hope it makes them a boatload of dollars:ok:

[training wheels]

WingItMounts GoPro-01 Products Page (http://www.wingitmounts.com/html/products.html)


Too bad for PA28 drivers .. hehe ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Too bad for PA28 drivers .. hehe

:E....yeh but you could make one to wrap around the inside of the step.

[djpil]

Seems the Americans don't care about mounting GoPro's...Page 28 of the Jan/Feb 2014 FAA Safety Briefing gives quite clear advice. http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2014/media/janfeb2014.pdf
Very similar rules there and a similar approach - the difference is that the FAA's advisory documents are very clear and it is much easier to get approval for a minor mod there than it is here.
“A minor alteration can be approved through a simple logbook entry …. The bottom line is that all installations require some sort of approval. Each must be evaluated for its application and complexity to ensure safety.”

[djpil]

Latest from CASA, in Flight Safety Australia of Mar/Apr 2014:
In the meantime, a reminder to all those wanting to fix recording devices to their aircraft - all installations, whether cameras or otherwise, require formal engineering approval and may require a technical standing order (TSO).

Obviously, CASA know little about their own rules. TSO is the USA's Technical Standard Order "A TSO is a minimum performance standard for specified materials, parts, and appliances used on civil aircraft."

Australia has ATSO "As per CASR Part 21, Subpart O, an Australian Technical Standard Order contains minimum performance standards for specified articles (ie. materials, parts, processes and appliances) used on civil aircraft."

The main point is that “all installations ... require formal engineering approval.” Nothing about temporary installations excepted as stated in the CAAP on EFBs.

[peterc005]

Does this mean temporary camera mountings don't require an EO?

Would this be different for, say, temporary mountings on a wing or inside the cockpit?

[VH-XXX]

Sometimes PeterC it's better to get someone who is qualified to do the job for you and do it properly the first time....

[LeadSled]

Does this mean temporary camera mountings don't require an EO?
Would this be different for, say, temporary mountings on a wing or inside the cockpit? Peterc005,
The answers are NO and NO.
Every mod. to an Australian aircraft requires a minimum of an Engineering Order or an STC. The US system for minor modes is far more simple, with a thing called a "field approval" via FAA Form 337 ( I hope I remembered the form number correctly)

Tootle pip!!



Had to tidy up your post Leadie due to, sadly, near miss no longer being active in this thread!

Tail Wheel

[peterc005]

@Leadsled - I thought the FAA Form 337 was pretty much the equivalent of a CASA Form 442?

Recently I had another EO done for a fuel level indicator and, apart from needing an electrical load analysis, it seemed much easier that earlier EOs.

Bob MacGillivray down at West Sale did the EO. Great job and he was very fast in knocking it over. Seemed ten times easier than earlier EOs, so I assume the regs have changed in the past few years.

[Jack Ranga]

And don't post the films on YouTube :ok:

[djpil]

FAA Form 337 is for a major mod which must be approved by the FAA (typically do an STC for the same mod on multiple aircraft).
Minor mods, see my earlier post.

[Jack Ranga]

Why are you worried about putting a go pro on externally if your aircraft is experimental? If you built 51% of it you're the manufacturer and you can put it where you want.

[Old Akro]

Why are you worried about putting a go pro on externally if your aircraft is experimental? If you built 51% of it you're the manufacturer and you can put it where you want.

We need someone like DJP to comment. But I think CASA would say that a homebuilder may be the manufacturer, but not the designer and that if there is a modification to the design that it requires design approval.

DJP posted recently (on FB or here - forget) about one of his friends who found CASA inspecting the aircraft to determine where the camera had been fitted to take video after the CASA FOI saw a video clip of the aircraft somewhere. Camera's are clearly flavour of the month and CASA seem to be looking for blood.

[LeadSled]

---- and that if there is a modification to the design that it requires design approval.Folks,
Due to CASA lack of knowledge of what their own rules say and mean re. Experimental Amateur Built, CASA are saying the above, and they are wrong.
This is part of the trials and tribulations of RAOz right now, CASA making up rules that do not exist.
If you want to fit a camera to an Experimental Amateur Built, as the minimum 51% builder, you are responsible for the mod., you must talk to whoever issued the certificate, they will determine whether any test flying must be done to re-issue the Operations Limitations Annex to the certificate.
Tootle pip!!

PS: PeterC005,
I know what the title of the 337 says, but it doesn't have to be a "very" major mod, for -337 to apply, but in many cases, a DER will not be required, the changes will be signed off by an IA, having been accomplished by an A&P, using the guidelines of AC43.13A & B.

[Jack Ranga]

You are right lead, you must talk to the AP, post fitment. Matter of logging it as well. We had 3 permanent hard wired external mounts prior to issue of CofA, all good :ok:

With a decent AP who's prepared to challenge CAsA's blatantly wrong interpretation of their own 'rules' things may change but it may take a challenge. I know of one chap who'll be taking CAsA to the small claims tribunal after he obtains his IFR CofA. Can't wait for that :ok:

[peterc005]

Where do you draw the line about temporary installations?

If I use velcro to fasten an internal battery powered Personal Locator Beacon (hand held ELT) in the luggage compartment do I need an EO?

If I temporarily clamp a GoPro to the inside of the canopy roof behind my head do I need an EO?

If I attach a GoPro to the wing with a suction cup do I need an EO?

[Jack Ranga]

My guess:

YES

NO (maybe YES)

YES

[Old Akro]

Where do you draw the line about temporary installations?

Where the CASA FOI wants to on any given day.

[djpil]

I agree with recent posts wrt Experimental Cat aircraft for installation of small cameras.

As for temporary installations of anything - the CAAP on EFBs describes CASA's policy wrt temporary EFB installations so therefore I assume somewhere they have their own definition of a mod per that section of the regs. The EFB CAAP only mentions EFBs, not cameras or anything else. That CAAP also states that airworthiness approval is required for anything installed on the structure (no exemption for temporary mounts) but I don't see that CASA has defined "structure" anywhere. For example, the canopy on an Airtourer is structural as it takes the airloads (its own shape plus carry over of wing lift - refer Henry Millicer's data).

[peterc005]

So, if I mount the GoPro temporarily on a non-structural point there is no need for an EO?

Say the rear parcel tray or the dash panel glare screen?

[Jack Ranga]

..............maybe.

[VH-XXX]

So, if I mount the GoPro temporarily on a non-structural point there is no need for an EO?


Depends how you mount it.

Bluetack and duct tape is temporary.

Drilling a hole is not temporary.

[peterc005]

Sounds reasonable to me.

If I pull up at the fuel bowser and a CASA representative asks about the camera I'll say don't worry about the regs, I read it on Pprune.

[VH-XXX]

If I pull up at the fuel bowser and a CASA representative asks about the camera

Perhaps you should use the camera as a diversion so that they don't look too closely for any amateur installed avionics whilst they are there ;) :ok:

[LeadSled]

PeterC005,
Perhaps you could use the following as a guide:

A small aircraft at YSBK had a small DAVTRON clock/timer ( they weigh a couple of ounces, whatever that is in new money, maybe 25gms.It was on instrument panel using a couple of Velcro spots .

During a "spot" inspection of a number of aircraft parked at Bankstown by a couple of AWIs, the aircraft with the DAVTRON fitted was issued with a grounding notice, because of unapproved modifications, the mounting of the clock.

On the same day, a number of RCAs (whatever they were called at the time) were issued against aircraft for defective registration letters on the fuselage, the letters were slanted, instead of vertical.

Protests that the rego letters had been like that since the aeroplane was delivered many years ago cut no ice with the AWI. In the case of one helicopter, it was pointed out that there was no vertical surface big enough for the "regulation letters", the short sharp answer was "You're nicked", or words to that meaning, "You should have got an exemption" being the "proper procedure".

This was the first time I came across the CASA "requirement" that all canopy covers have to have a placard, on the inside of the canopy cover, "in the clear view of the pilot seated in the normal position", saying "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT".

This is the same mob that decided a C.of A should be cancelled, if an aircraft was parked with the battery removed, as the battery was part of the TCDS equipment, no battery meant the aircraft did not comply with its certification, therefor the C.of A was cancelled.

It is bleeding expensive to do a C.of A inspection all over again.

Tootle pip!!

[Caedus]

On the topic of cameras, if I mounted this (http://www.replay-xd.com.au/replay-xd-cameras/replay-xd-1080-mini/) on my cap/headset/glasses/whathaveyou, can anyone object to it?

[VH-XXX]

I'd like to think LeadSled that we no longer live in those dark years of aviation and I'd go as far as to say that those days are long since over.

[LeadSled]

I'd like to think LeadSled that we no longer live in those dark years of aviation and I'd go as far as to say that those days are long since over. I would like to think so, too, but it ain't so, they seem to be getting worse.

I will go so far as to say that some of the deviations from manufacturers published procedures demanded by CASA, essentially the AFM, are really quite dangerous, and largely reflect the lack of training and experience of the FOIs/AWIs involved.
Tootle pip!!

[mickjoebill]

Depends how you mount it.

Bluetack and duct tape is temporary.

Drilling a hole is not temporary.
Compression clamps, suction mounts and heavy duty (hard plastic) velcro are not permanent.
I would hope that someone somewhere will make an approved, one size fits all compression fitting for skids.


CASA could be more proactive in affecting flight safety if they produced a guide for temporarily mounting of cameras inside a cabin;
1/ equipment should not interfere with compass or other instruments
2/ if items detach they should not be a threat to jamming of flight controls
3/ warning! the use of cameras can contribute to pilot distraction
4/ Video footage will be sought in accident investigations(!)


Mickjoebill

[LeadSled]

If I use velcro to fasten an internal battery powered Personal Locator Beacon (hand held ELT) in the luggage compartment do I need an EO?Peterc005,
Keeping it in a pocket on your person is a much better place, in the remote but real chance of you needing to exit the aircraft in an extreme hurry, it can be virtually guaranteed that you will not remember to retrieve it.
That's why it is also a bad idea to have it in a flight bag.
Tootle pip!!

[peterc005]

Carrying items in a pocket really isn't practical for aeros. It's bad enough have pens and coins floating around.

Might have to try and squeeze it into one of the map pockets I guess.

[Horatio Leafblower]

How do you like this:

STC's pod for up to 4 GoPros (http://www.airbornesensor.com/)

:ok:

[aroa]

You couldnt be more wrong. Time and again there are continuing examples of the cretinous Tarmac crawlers looking for a nit-pick and a hit.
Is all in the name of "safety" of course and its their "job"...if you can call it that, but it pays well to be a prick.

For example. Local pilot topping up brake hydraulics..as allowed under Sched 8 pilot maintenance. But he was pushing the fluid up from the wheel into the reservoir, as opposed to adding fluid at the top. Shifts any bubbles up...as you do.
This was deemed to be.."adjusting the brakes" by the TT/Tarmac T*rd, thus maintenance to be done LAME.
At the end of the argument the pilot got done $550 penalty for not entering this "top up" into the MR.:mad:

SO be warned ,,in the latest edition of Sched 8 is a new clause..where it says..action to be entered into the MR.... "where appropriate "...but what is not specified. In this case the TT made the call.:mad:

Now of course, there is one seriously pissed of GA pilot and the sky is now much safer from falling aeroplanes.

Sing the chorus then.." Safety, safety, safety, Empty skies for all....":mad:

[yr right]

aroa
well these clowns we now have to deal with most are ex military or airlines. The lack of common sense has been lost in there own indoctioation in the military follow and we look after you, you are the best etc etc.
They clowns most have zero idea and read regs as their favourite past time.
Heard years ago of an AWI wonting to know who dose the dual inspection on a hot air balloon for tie the knots to the upper vents, or my all time classic a guy washing his aircraft and not putting it on the M/R cause this technically is a maintenance action.
So technically you cannot add anything to the out side of the aircraft with out an E/O unless its in the M/M IPC etc.
Now if you add it to the cabin well you in the lap of the Gods if something happens and goes wrong and there is a case that some one was hurt or it was the cause of the accident ?
Beware .