Fitting a Go-Pro on a Helicopter - Any Issues?

[FLY 7]

The little Go-Pro HD cameras are brilliant.

We routinely attach them to race cars, motor bikes, ski helmets......you name it, with great results. They are also regularly used in aircraft cockpits.

But, can you attach one to the outside of a helicopter, say to the skids or a step for private use/training? Are there special rules, does an engineer need to check it, etc?

They are tiny - about the size of a match box, weigh nothing, and can be attached with total security (ie it will not move or fall off).

[Wageslave]

I think you'll find that anything "attached" to the aircraft requires an exemption and/or certification of the kit from the CAA, so best ask them, they'll be happy to show you the correct way. But heaven help you if anything happens and you haven't followed the correct procedure.

No doubt others will be able to quote chapter and verse.

[TeeS]

Hi Fly

Rather than thinking:

.....can be attached with total security (ie it will not move or fall off).


Start from 'when it falls off, where can it go, what can it jam, who can it hurt, what secondary restraint can I use'.

Personally, in this day and age, I would not fit it outside without suitable engineering advice - the days of gaffer tape attachment are gone.

Regards

TeeS

[Max Contingency]

and can be attached with total security (ie it will not move or fall off).

Are you willing to bet your life on it? :ooh:

[FLY 7]

Yes. The location and security of the item would give me as much confidence as anything else on the helicopter. However, it would be useful to know if any one had encountered the specific rules.

[Thracian]

Well, I do not now the specific rules, but attaching something (FLIR, rocket launchers, Movie-Camera Guimbals, GoPros, ...) to the outside of a helicopter will definitely change it´s weight&balance-situation and - even more important - it´s aerodynamics.
This change may not be relevant for the flight characteristics, but we as pilots are not allowed to judge it.
I can imagine, that "aerodynamical changes" need at least a certified workshop or even the manufacturer to evaluate the grade of change and issue an "STC" or something similar.
Remember: This should have to be done for every single mounting point, cause mounting a GoPro to the skid may be totally different from mounting it to the tip of a rotor blade (well, for the rotor to stay in balance, you should mount one GoPro to each tip of each rotor blade ;-) )...

So, mounting any "non certified" external equipment with any "non-certified" method at any "non certified" mounting point, may put at stake the type certification (and insurance!) of this very helicopter.

Anyway: Of course you just can give it a try and hope for the best, but please, don´t complain if this went out to the worst.

I´d rather be using the GoPro from inside the cockpit...

Thracian

[gootybalajiniranjan]

we have tried it
gopro hero 4 black
excellent recording however slight amount of vibrations may be there
i dont think any certification would be required because its not altering any flying characteristics and interfering with nav eqpt

[Radam559]

Wow! I am kind of surprised by the responses to this so far... Its like a bunch of members of the FAA or international equivalent just spoke up at the same time.


That being said, I have never personally attached a go-pro or anything to the aircraft I fly, but that's not so say I wouldn't...I know many people who have and have seen many videos of people who have. Obviously its an added hazard because yes it could come loose and fall off. If it hit the main rotor or tail rotor, then you would be having a very bad day...If it falls off and hits someone or something on the ground...yes its possibly going to do some serious damage... Yes the FAA or someone may see it and be a little upitty or a lot upitty since they like to react that way. That being said if your smart about it, mount it solidly then there is no reason why you couldn't do it. I would never use the little sticky pads to slap it on the fuselage somewhere, but they make some pretty bomber roll bar mounts or the mounts are extremely versatile and easy to make custom. The weight and balance issue is nill... its not like were talking about a HD movie camera for professional work...we are talking about a little camera and mount that maybe weighs in at 2lbs (on the heavy side if you made a bomber mount) I loose 2 lbs when I take a dump sometimes and I am not going to redo my w&b for that... I fly with spray booms with all sorts of things that "could come loose and fall off"...But yes there is probably a "rule" against it...just like I shouldn't go 60 in a 55mph zone...

[RyRy]

GoPro makes a suction mount that has been shown to stay attached at over 200mph. The same mount has also been shown to fail at 50mph lol.

And their adhesive mounts are pretty much permanent... a fact they don't really explain in any detail. There is a S76 in Malabo with my adhesive mount still stuck above the PIC seat on the ceiling lol. Owed the engineers a few beers for that little 'Whoops!' haha.

[wallism]

Why attach it outside? We all have panoramic views and permanently clean transparencies don't we? You could ask PW if this is a Go Pro:
Golf Ball Drop for the Langdon Charity by FlyingPigHelicopters | YouTube Channel Embed (http://ytchannelembed.com/video.php?id=YyVHxz1_5co&t=#.Vpabu7aLTIU)

[tqmatch]

Provided you are not breaking into any aircraft systems or structure, or making permanent changes, there is no requirement for any STC or issue of a CRS for the work to fit the go-pro or its mount.

I regularly use one both inside the cockpit and externally, I would reccomend a bolt down type clamp for external mounts, similar to the type of clamp used to mount ipad holders to control yokes in the fixed wing world - RAM mounts do some good products.

[chopjock]

tq
Provided you are not breaking into any aircraft systems or structure, or making permanent changes, there is no requirement for any STC or issue of a CRS for the work

That seems pretty logical and straight forward thinking, but would you or anyone else know where it may be legislated?

I would not want to ask the CAA as they will just say "you can't do that" by default.

[Radam559]

I guess my biggest concern would be if you violated something... Then you have it caught on tape...

[Wageslave]

I would not want to ask the CAA as they will just say "you can't do that" by default.

So the answer when faced with something you anticipate to be illegal is what? Don't try to find out, just go ahead and do it anyway and if caught pretend you "didn't know"?

It won't work!

But why would the CAA say you cant do it if you can?

I'm afraid I don't think attaching things to the outside of aircraft can be done without permission. A go pro is just a camera after all. So is a 16mm Arriflex, do you just "attach" one of those and go flying without proper procedure and hope it doesn't fall off? I don't think so.

Either way, before doing this with a gopro I think it would be extremely unwise not to check with the CAA first, especially if you're creating evidence of the act by filming. Your insurance company would undoubtably have something to say about it too.

[chopjock]

Wageslave
I'm afraid I don't think attaching things to the outside of aircraft can be done without permission.
tqmatch
Provided you are not breaking into any aircraft systems or structure, or making permanent changes, there is no requirement for any STC or issue of a CRS for the work

So which is it? what do the regs say?

Apparently it's perfectly ok to remove a door and have a cameraman hang his feet out with a camera on his lap though.

[NutLoose]

I can't remember off hand, but I remember fitting a gps clamp to a control wheel and powering it from the fused ( and that is important ) cigarette lighter plug, this was pre EASA, but the requirement at the time was it was ok as long as it was a temporary and removable fit and not permanent. But that was internal, see link in next thread

[NutLoose]

I realize this is the NZ CAA but as they all roughly follow the EASA system this will be a good basis to go from

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Publications/Vector/Vector_2014-4.pdf


http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-confirms-external-camera-ruling

[FLY 7]

Yes, that kind of sums it up.

I've flown helicopters with external side baskets with bags secured with elastic cords.

The Go-pro is tiny. There really is no issue with weight, aerodynamics or security in the proposed location.

The concern is the legality, and I'm assuming it's something that requires 'approval'. But, before asking the CAA, I just wondered if anyone has had any previous experience - fixed wing or helicopter?

[n5296s]

Good article here about the FAA view:

Camera Mount Common Sense - AVweb Insider Article (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Camera-Mount-Common-Sense-222739-1.html)

Main point:

"Basically, the memo says camera mounts aren't major alterations since they don't appreciably change flight characteristics, performance, weight and balance or basic airworthiness. They also don't represent changes to the aircraft's basic type certification, so no STC is necessary."

It goes on to say that if you get it wrong and something bad happens, the FAA can always use 91.13 (careless and reckless operation) anyway.

The absolutist view that ANY external temporary modification requires approval doesn't really pass the common sense test. What about the vinyl 12" numbers I used to make my plane legal to visit Mexico? What about a sticker from a sponsor?

[Stitchbitch]

If you fly in a headset this won't apply. You can get go pro mounts to fit the NVG bracket on most helmets, although the PoV will be above eye level. Hope this is helpful.

[TeeS]

Thanks for that Stitch.
I looked around for these mounts some time ago and could only find the mounts for ground troop helmets. Quick search now has found what I wanted, fairly newly released.
TeeS

Actually, disregard the above, the release I found was from 2011 and is the one I had previously seen, the wording says GoPro’s NVG Mount Makes it Easy to Attach a GoPro Camera to any Military or Civil Service Helmet Outfitted with a Night Vision Goggle Mounting but it doesn't seem to be compatible with the FENS system which is what I am after. TeeS

[BOBAKAT]

I flew with 5 or 6 gopro attached on my helicopter on the same time for a video shooting.
No problem, just be carefull for good mount and secure it with tirap, that's all.
I had one on the top of the head and very interesting to see the blade movement up and dawn when rotor running :ok:

[Nubian]

I had one on the top of the head and very interesting to see the blade movement up and dawn when rotor running

:eek:

I take it that you're a proper test-pilot then...... :suspect:

[tqmatch]

Hello everyone, sorry - not logged in for a while, so not seen the requests for the legislation which allows this.

I will dig through my books tomorrow and see what I can find, as a licensed engineer I had to learn about this cr@p before becoming a member of the two wing master race!

[Decredenza]

In Canada everything attached to the aircraft must be approved

Part V - Airworthiness Manual Chapter 551 - Aircraft Equipment and Installation - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-551s-1810.htm#551_01)

Interpretation Provision for Part V Standards
In these Standards:


(a) The passages giving the Minister power to determine, approve or authorise something without stating criteria for the use of such power are to be interpreted as requiring that the power be used in consideration of two factors only:
the airworthiness of the aircraft that is the subject of the determination, approval or authorisation, or on which an aeronautical product that is the subject of the determination, approval or authorisation is to be installed, and the aircraft's level of safety;
(b) The word "approved", when used without any indication of a method of approval, is to be interpreted as referring to an approval granted under the Aeronautics Act.

[tqmatch]

Ok, so tucked away in the back of the EASA website, I found the definition of modification:

A permanent change to the construction, configuration, performance, environmental characteristics, or operating limitations of the affected civil aeronautical product

As they say, the devil is in the detail, with the word permanent.

When I am at a PC tomorrow I'll post a link (if I remember)

[chopjock]

When I am at a PC tomorrow I'll post a link (if I remember)

Yes please.:ok:

[Rigga]

I see all you pilots have individual opinions but, as a QM in several UK companies, I've had to deal with several GoPro cameras mounted in a variety of rotorcraft for Reality TV purposes.

One enterprise fitted four cameras to one of our Helis before informing the company (the pilot just let them modify the aircraft while it was on-line - but what do pilots know about aircraft maintenance?)

When the cameras were reported at the head office they were all immediately removed.

The TV producers (who the Pilot let crawl all over his cockpit?) had fitted them around a cockpit/cabin all linked to a single battery to extend their cameras lives over a full shift - this breached Dangerous Goods rules by the size of the central LiPo battery and they had to provide a detachable pouch in case of battery overheat.

'They' also routed camera power cables around crew door frames where they could cause foot or neck entrapment - again, in breach or door clearance regs.

Another enterprise at another company tried to install home-made bracketry to the frames/fixtures - and this constituted both an unapproved mod and a permanent fixture. The camera team had to get their bracket, and where they wanted to mount it, approved as an STC before they could install it.

As for mounting on the outside using only the device for mounting on a car! Well, I'm not really surprised at some of the unqualified speculation here...

[chopjock]

Rigga
The camera team had to get their bracket, and where they wanted to mount it, approved as an STC before they could install it.

So there should be legislation somewhere stating this right?

Another enterprise at another company tried to install home-made bracketry to the frames/fixtures - and this constituted both an unapproved mod and a permanent fixture.

Presumably then the bracketry was mounted permanently by drilling holes in the airframe?

[tqmatch]

Actually Rigga, mine is not unqualified speculation! I suspect from your screen name, you and I both started life in the Air Force as the same trade? I left, passed my BCAR Sect L, converted to a restricted 66 B1.3 licence, removed my electrics restriction and also added B1.4 & C categories to my engineers licence, before going on to learn to fly!

I've seen many "non permanent" mods to airframes fitted by far more cowboy engineers than discussed here. Simply put, a non permanent, removable Gopro mount that does not make ANY permanent changes to the airframe do not require any approval, nor a CRS for fitting & removal - you can buy ipad mounts on the web which fix to control columns for heaven sake - these have far more hidden danger than a 250g camera fitted to a skid tube!

[TeeS]

I see all you pilots have individual opinions but, as a QM in several UK companies

Um! Not like individual quality managers have different opinions then Rigga!!

Edited to say: 'Sorry that should have been compliance managers, I believe we don't do quality anymore ;) '

[TeeS]

Totally agree tqmatch

Fly 7, this is almost the greyest of grey areas.

Carry a camera on board - no problem.

Rest it on the vacant seat next to you with it filming, don't think that would be a problem.

Rest it on the window frame, OK - however, it won't stay there but a bit of bluetac might sort it? No, OK I'll try a bit of double sided sticky tape. No, how about one of those GoPro sticky pads? A clamp etc. etc.

Hang on though - don't those GoPro 4 use Bluetooth and Wifi? Can I use those during all/any stages of flight - Ah, that is up to the operator - is he aware this is a portable electronic device?

Hence my original response - I tried to avoid the term 'risk assess' but in the end, it comes down to you trying to think what might happen if your stress/bonding analysis fails, your secondary restraint method fails and the outcome is bad.

Cheers

TeeS

[Stitchbitch]

TeeS the mount I found was for an ALPHA, should work with anvis & fens although it will depend on what mount system you use on your lid.

[TeeS]

If you have a link to that Stitch, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks

TeeS

[NutLoose]

Beware

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/549210-dangers-helmet-mounted-cameras.html

[Spunk]

Wasn't C. MEEKER working on a STC'd nose mount for the R44 for cameras up to 15 lbs? A Go Pro should have less than that.:}

[chopjock]

tqmatch
When I am at a PC tomorrow I'll post a link (if I remember)
Did you remember yet?:)

[southerncanuck]

we are working on a variety of approved STC'd light weight camera mounting platforms, specifically for the R44/R66, AS350/355, 206/407 etc. we already have our sister company making a high speed case specific for the GoPro at the following:
PEOVI | Go faster?Way faster? (http://www.peovi.com). we have run the Peovi cases over 300MPH on top fuel funny cars. they use ultra slow video motion to review the color of exhaust to determine how cylinders are functioning.


we would not agree with the statement concerning mods that non permanent changes do not need an approval. we cannot speak for every aviation agency, but from experience, you will need approvals for anything hanging outside the airframe. many of our mounts do not require permanent mods, but they DO need STC's.

Cal Meeker. Meekeraviation.com

[chopjock]

southerncanuck

but from experience, you will need approvals for anything hanging outside the airframe. many of our mounts do not require permanent mods, but they DO need STC's.

Yes, there is a lot of hearsay about that. But where is the legislation?

[Rigga]

TQ.
You seem to have misread my post because I did not mention suction mounts untill I said about mounting cameras outside. I also did not mention carry-on cameras. I described camera mounting that, in my opinion as the company QM, was a hazard to crew.
FYI I was an A&C Turbine Helis in 1986 followed by piston light aircraft and large turbines and pressurised aircraft before converting to EASA 66 B1.1, B1.2 and B1.4. I have type ratings on B737 and EC145. Your opinions don't really concern me unless you are in my company, in which case I would ask you to visit me for a chat. I was simply giving my experiences and how I dealt with them.

[Wageslave]

I find it hard to believe that on this forum, a "Professional Pilots'" forum after all, that such a question can be asked and attract such a slew of rubbish, illegal, utterly unprofessional and downright dangerous suggestions, surmise and guesswork on such a serious subject.

Is there truly no Professional here who can quote the rules regarding hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter as opposed to surmising about what they might want to, hope they could do, think they ought to be able to do, hope they could get away with or have decided is safe simply because it suits them to say so?

Professional? For shame.

[BOBAKAT]

you never bonded advertising stickers on your Helo?

You need a STC for stickers ?

[Stitchbitch]

I can't find anything yet from the caa about go pros, but looking at electronic flight bags (bear with me), I'm getting the feeling that any item not accessible during flight by the crew needs to be installed as certified equipment covered by the type certificate, but if mounted device is secured either on the flight crew (for example, a kneeboard) or in/to an existing aircraft part (for example, utilising suction cups), with the intention to hold charts or to hold acceptable light mass portable devices it doesn't...

Light mass portable devices attached by suction cups could be read across as GoPro?

[tqmatch]

Morning everyone, bear with......I can't find the same page as I did previously, but will look later - have domestic duties to see to first :ugh:

[John Eacott]

From the CAA: CAP1369 Camera Mounts Guide (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7204)

Reference: CAP1369
Title: Camera Mounts Guide
Description: If you wish to attach a small camera (such as a GoPro) to a non EASA certified GA aircraft then the attachment needs to be inspected by a Part66 licensed aircraft engineer or via the CAA as a minor modification to the aircraft. To approve any installation the engineer will need to complete a maintenance release checklist and complete the aircraft logbook entry. For aircraft overseen by the British Microlight Aircraft Association or Light Aircraft Association those organisation’s requirements apply.
Status: Current
Review Comment: None
Version: 1
Date: 27 January 2016

Worth noting

This policy is applicable to non-EASA GA aircraft that are subject to UK CAA regulatory oversight, (CAP 747- Mandatory requirements for airworthiness contains the list of specific EASA and non-EASA aircraft types

snip

it is intended that CAA will provide a copy of this CAA policy document to EASA for potential inclusion in a future update to CS-STAN so that the camera mount policy can be extended to EASA aircraft

[lowfat]

The devil is in the detail..
the reality is this.. You can do what you want to your helicopter and YOU are responsible for that.Stick a tomtom or a gopro wherever you want but if your actions cause an incident (Not Accident because you have deviated) you will be held responsible.

When I come across illegal mods to aircraft I remove and reinstate the machine to the documented standard .

As soon as you secure it to the machine or hard wire it you need a STC.

And all you pilot maintainers remember you are only allowed to follow the approved maintenance program so you cant install a camera unless the paperwork says it can be there.

But what do I know?

[chopjock]

lowfat
The devil is in the detail..

As soon as you secure it to the machine or hard wire it you need a STC.

What is the interpretation of "secure" or "attach ? (You can get around the hard wire by simply using a battery or a cigarette lighter socket).

"Cap1369 camera mounts guide", appears to be just a guide and does not apply to EASA aircraft anyway.

Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?

[SilsoeSid]

Chops, do you ever read the posts of others and the documents that you refer to in your own posts?

"Cap1369 camera mounts guide", appears to be just a guide and does not apply to EASA aircraft anyway.

Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?


Having read the CAP, I notice that it says:

"In light of the increased popularity of airborne photography and video recording, made possible by advances in digital camera design, the CAA previously provided guidance to assist owners and operators in how to safely install such equipment on CAA regulated aircraft as minor changes.
Based on the feedback we’ve received from the General Aviation (GA) sector, one of the key challenges faced is that each camera installation needs to be judged on a case by case examination to consider the airworthiness risks that could be posed (including installed aircraft and 3rd party risks), hence it can be difficult to cover all eventualities in guidance without seeming to be overly prescriptive or overly regulating what could, for one particular installation and location on a specific aircraft, be a fairly simple and low-risk design.

In view of the above and in order to be more proportionate our original guidance has been revised to provide this policy for an alternative route for the approval of light, simple and small camera installations, using a methodology whereby Licensed Aircraft Engineers, (LAEs) with a part 66 licence or BCAR licence will be able to examine such installations and to certify whether an acceptable airworthiness standard has been achieved. Note that the traditional minor mod approval route via the CAA or approved organisations remains available."

"This policy is applicable to non-EASA GA aircraft that are subject to UK CAA regulatory oversight ...

... it is intended that CAA will provide a copy of this CAA policy document to EASA for potential inclusion in a future update to CS-STAN so that the camera mount policy can be extended to EASA aircraft."


What is the interpretation of "secure" or "attach ?

Read the document :ugh:

[chopjock]

sid
Chops, do you ever read the posts of others and the documents that you refer to in your own posts?
Yes of course.

Still no answer to my question though.
Where is the LEGISLATION that states carrying a non permanently attached (i.e. no mod to the airframe) internal or external for that matter, camera / mount requires an STC?

Perhaps there is no Legislation (only guidance), that's why we can't find it.
Which would mean mounting it anyway would not be illegal. The only way it could be made illegal is if a CAA representative declares it unsafe and issues a prohibition to fly notice, then if flown with said mount rigged, then becomes an offence, all be it a different offence.
That is my experience anyway.

[SilsoeSid]

The only way it could be made illegal is if a CAA representative declares it unsafe and issues a prohibition to fly notice, then if flown with said mount rigged, then becomes an offence, all be it a different offence.

That is my experience anyway.

You naughty boy :=

[Geosync]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fs3CC5FXu28

Sure, U.S. Air Force plays by different rules, but it can be done quite well, physically.

[wigglyamp]

The legislation some of you are looking for is most likely addressed by FAR/CS 27.561 ( and the equivalent FAR/CS 23 for fixed wing) which effectively states that any item of mass in the cabin which could break free in the event of an accident and cause injury, must be secured to specified G loadings. It really doesn't matter if it's a clamped-on camera or a fire extinguisher, the regulation is the same. In the new CAA guidance document, they have provided a route to ensuring compliance with this requirement for small cameras within prescribed weight limits without the need to have an approved modification in place. However, this only applies to CAA regulated annex 11 aircraft and not EASA types.

[mickjoebill]

Of the 150 accidents between 2000 and 2013 where filming or photography was taking place, none were found to be caused by poorly fitted cameras on the airframe or inside cabin.

But go pros are fairly new and their use is becoming common place so it is early days.

I suspect two cases where the use of hand held cameras could have fouled controls. (One pilot argued in court that a hand held camera fouled the controls).
So in principle, small remote cameras are a safer option than a cameraman in the front seat :)

Cabling from the Cineflex control box to pilot and director monitors should be carefully inspected.
Mention in this thread was made of a cable run around the door sill as being a potential entrapment hazard, but the other option is routing it between seats and so very close to the collective....

Two cases where cameraman drowned when they became trapped in a non regulation harness. Avoidable deaths had regulations been adhered too....but that could be said for the majority of rotary accidents:(

Michael Schumacher's camera helmet broke, so attach a camera using a sticky pad at your own risk.

Suction clamp with a saftey tie to prevent the camera falling and jamming pedals or collective is my preference. If no saftey tie, then gaffer tape around the suction pad that will delay the camera falling.
A length of string and gaffer tape makes a worth saftey tie for interior fixing.

I'm surprised of the apparent casual attitude of majority of pilots to the threat of cameras, monitors or gps kit falling into their lap, it seems pilots are accustomed to trusting techs and trust that a camera tech knows what he is doing. If a multicamera interior setup is needed, it's wise for an engineer to be present before the rig starts rather than (only) at the end.

Mention made of (Li ion?) batteries being dangerous cargo. Easily avoided by using nicads. But beware, without an internal fuse a nicad can deliver in a blink, enough amps to cause a fire.
Due to airline carry-on restrictions regarding Lithium, travelling TV crew are reverting back to nicads or Nickel metal hydride batteries. Be particularly aware of home-made block batteries.

I can think of a couple of accidents where the cause could have been hand held cameras or errant cables but post crash evidence is non existent due to the mobility of a temporary fixing and fragility of cameras in a post crash fire.

However, there is no lack of evidence that the prescence of a camera in a cockpit can, at least, be a distraction and at worst have a narcotic effect on the pilot.

So as you rig your make-me-famous cam, remember the scores of pilots killed in the past decade in a cockpit filled with luvvie fever.


Mickjoebill

[tartare]

Interesting point.
Son just came back from air-cadets flying camp.
No Go-Pros allowed in cockpits - either in powered aircraft or gliders.
"Because they're too distracting and you'll focus on looking good, not flying..."

[Gustosomerset]

As Fly 7 says: "I've flown helicopters with external side baskets with bags secured with elastic cords.". So have I, because the Hughes 269/Schweizer 300 has optional external luggage carriers designed specifically for that purpose. The side baskets attach securely to the aircraft and are certified to do so.

But their design and purpose is specifically to then allow other things (luggage, freight, cameras?) to be subsequently attached to them. All things that Wageslave might consider "hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter".

Clearly there is a weight and balance issue and a safety issue in terms of how luggage is attached to the luggage carrier, but I cannot believe that each piece of luggage (one of which might, for example, be a camera) would need an STC?

[wigglyamp]

Typically an STC which covers an external payload mount won't list the specific items (e.g Cineflex V14) but rather a stated maximum mass and frontal area on the mount that has been established by flight test during STC certification. Certainly that's how all of the ones I've been involved in writing have been constructed, to provide maximum flexibility to the end user. The specific mass and area limitations are given in an RFMS.

[FLY 7]

The plot thickens.

Looking at this thread, on another forum - Approval required for camera mounts.*-*FLYER Forums (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=98695)
it seems that the rules are equally confusing about internally mounted devices. Although, at least the FAA have reasonably pragmatic guidelines (p. 3).

[mickjoebill]

"Typically an STC which covers an external payload mount won't list the specific item"

In respect to camera mounts there appears to no requirement for the payload itself to be approved. In UK, Pre EASA you needed a Proof of Design and Performance for the payload. This was meant to prove the payload could cope with the rigours of flying and wouldn't fall apart. I wrote one myself for a particular gimbal:)

But now there is apparently/could be wrong/grey area :) no requirement from EASA for the payloads dangling from hard points to be "certified". However the payloads do need to conform to whatever the STC of the mount or bracket stipulates. If the mount details a model number then you can't bolt anything but that piece of kit. If the wording is more generic, ie payload of 30kg with max surface area of 600sq cm then you could attach a mini gun or a expresso machine:)

So it would be helpful if helicopter manufacturers had interior hard points with a spec that could allow fitting of a wide range of useful kit. 3/8 whitworths dotted around the cabin would be handy.....

Mickjoebill

[southerncanuck]

Short overview from what we see and know.

- there are payload specific stc's and payload size defined stc's (we have both)
- most are payload sized defined
- payload specific(all up stc's) are usually more common on searchlights that need lots of wiring and draw big amps
- to install payloads that are at or below the parameters of the size stipulated in the rfm, what we almost always see is a full structural / electrical engineering reports, do160 testing and in many cases awrs to back up the payloads ability to do the job.
- in addition, with our stc's we have a check list of ground and flight tests that must be done with any new payloads. 100% we see people taking the high road and not short cutting. in other words, we dont see stupid stuff often.
- we have many very large mounts that DO NOT require any airframes mods, but they 100% do have stc approvals.
- bottom line, if its on the outside and has drag, best to have an stc, engineeering, testing, etc
- yes, there is alot of grey areas in wording from various governing agencies and what is done in the field. with over 3000 mounts in service and having been in the industry since 1984, cant remember the last time i really was taken back by an install. just the opposite

[chopjock]

southerncanuk
- we have many very large mounts that DO NOT require any airframes mods, but they 100% do have stc approvals.

Do the very large mounts have STC approvals because the law demands it, or because it will stop the authority from prohibiting flight when rigged without one?

bottom line, if its on the outside and has drag, best to have an stc, engineeering, testing, etc

"Best to" or a legal requirement?

[southerncanuck]

Chopjock,

-with the FAA, the rule is, (simplified wording): if its on the outside of the airframe and effects the performance, you need an STC. FAA stc's are recognized by most agencies via reciprocal and/or submission of the same data for approvals in other countries

- we could go on for days about wording and regs, also depends on where your feet are planted and the aviation agency you work with. our customers (literally world wide) demand an STC about 90% of the time, so im going take and educated guess and say, its a requirement

cal

[skadi]

How not to do it ( video ):

Kamera fällt während Aufnahme aus Flugzeug (http://www.nwzonline.de/videos/kamera-faellt-waehrend-aufnahme-aus-flugzeug_a_6,1,524389571.html)

The device was found by a pedestrian about four month after it fell off a gyrocopter. Now they want to know who is missing his camera...

skadi

[Hughes500]

Sorry guys really late to this one but

I was the pilot that dropped Gary Connery with no parachute into 18000 cardboard boxes. We had go pros on the skid ( clamp, backed up by 3 miles of duck tape) one attached to the airframe clamp and duck tape ) one on my helmet and one on the cargo hook.
The CAA inspectors were there in force, I asked them if this was legal in front of a load of people there view was as they were not permanent fittings and removable there was no problem ! So that is it from the horses mouth
Health warning here though be sensible with what you do and have a couple of attachment methods including wire locking !

[Oldlae]

It used to be that anything fitted externally, according to the UKCAA was a major modification, I doubt that has changed since I retired.

[chopjock]

Oldlae
according to the UKCAA
There you go, you just hit the nail on the head. "according to the UKCAA", but not according to LEGISLATION.