From an aerial camera operators perspective.
"We" can justify the mechanical probity of lashup camera mounts with a few engineers tugging and pulling at the thing. The rule of thumb is if the rigging fails will it effect flight? In some countries this kick the tires test is all that is required for permission for a particular flight. It helps if there are no welds or complicated cross bracing and the rig looks like it has a very high safety factor and simple WYSIWYG fixings.
However I think it reckless from a business standpoint, as in the event of an incident as the onus will be on the operator to prove installation had no adverse effect on
1/Aircraft performance- could the aircraft have made a successful emergency landing without the rig?
2/Crash worthiness- did the rig contribute to injuries in the cabin or delay egress?
For instance, a camera man was killed last year when the helicopter crashed during a shoot. Other occupants survived but the cameraman was pinned/crushed by a (fully approved) side camera mount.
Imagine the implications to this case if an unapproved mount was used.
In contrast in 2004 a cameraman died when his home made camera mount prevented him egressing the fixed wing that had to ditch. Three other occupants escaped but the cameraman was snagged on his own lash-up rigging and drowned.
From a moral perspective I consider it wrong if one is flying with others onboard (who are not aware that their safety if not their insurance! is being compromised) or when flying over a built up area with anything but an approved mount.
Having been through the process of commissioning designing flight testing and gaining CAA approval there are numerous engineering and legal gotchas that are not immediately apparent.
For instance, it is interesting to note that some helicopter manufacturers do not even rate the load capacity of in-floor cargo hooks, yet operators ratchet strap down precious cargo and then fly with doors off.
But the world of approved mounts is not all rosy.
There are varying standards of engineering and design with a range of design safety factors starting as low as 1.1.
One locally approved design in Scandinavia pays no respect to the notion that their can be a power failure as the bracket puts the camera so low if the camera is not tilted up for landing it actually touches the ground!
A common nose camera mounting point for the bell 206 and (I think ) 4 series uses fixings designed to retain nothing more than panels in an area where Bell did not envisage any exterior load. Bell will state that that part of the aircraft is not designed to hang cameras from yet their has been a number of mounts approved partially or wholly using these fixings.
To prove this particular example, after consultation with engineers and Bell a European operator went to the trouble and great expense of reinforcing the nose of his Bell 206 so he could fit a relatively lightweight 20kg gimbal.
Ditto the R44 side camera mount. Last time I enquired Robinson said that they do not recommend bolting cameras to the side of their R44 yet there is an approved mount to do so.
Aviation laws and their enforcement are inconsistent, but a few things are cast in stone when going off road with a lash-up mount.
You are as sure as hell not improving flight safety or heli performance and probably compromising crash survivability of the occupants and your business.
So maybe it is a little reckless?
Mickjoebill