This seems to be the official action to follow on from this magazeine article
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_Gu...C%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.