View Full Version : New policy on mounting cameras like GoPros to GA aircraft
News Just in...
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.
More detail at CAP1369: Camera Mounts Guide (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7204)
Important note:
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 .......
– 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;
flybymike
2nd Feb 2016, 15:41
Worth mentioning that it applies to externally mounted cameras only.
Worth mentioning that it applies to externally mounted cameras only.
No you are wrong about that, did you even read it??? - it clearly states in the document...
This guidance addresses small camera installations mounted internally or externally on aircraft structures
If suction mounts are used inside the cockpit or cabin, a
suitable secondary retaining lanyard or strap should be
attached to the mounting to prevent damage or a control jam
should the primary suction mount become detached.
Cameras mounted inside the aircraft in occupied areas should
be installed so as to meet the requisite crash load
requirements so that they will not detach and cause injury in
the event of an emergency landing - for suction mountings the
primary suction mounting and secondary lanyard /strap should
be assessed so that each is independently capable of carrying
the loading, (see item 13 below). Pull testing should be used to
confirm the integrity of the secondary retention to at least 10
times the weight of the unit. Periodic re-checking of the primary
mount integrity is advised.
If the camera is fitted in or near the cockpit, it must not interfere
with any cockpit controls, nor obstruct the pilot’s view of
instruments, the pilot’s external view or cause a distraction,
(the flash window / gun should be taped over)
and no wifi/bluetooth remote controls!!!
. In order to reduce the risk of electromagnetic interference
(EMI) with aircraft systems, cameras that are equipped with
wireless interface and activation systems (including WiFi /
Bluetooth and similar wireless technologies with potential for
transmitting EMI) should be placed in a ‘flight safe mode’ with
the wireless functionality disabled; a limitation note to this
effect should be recorded by the LAE below for the attention of
the pilot/owner.
Camargue
2nd Feb 2016, 17:18
and how many people in group or privately owned (and even club) aircraft are likely to comply I wonder......
fatmanmedia
2nd Feb 2016, 19:19
from what's been quoted, the new guidance seems to be just common sense, I haven't read the document yet so it will be interesting to see what else is in there.
Fats
Cows getting bigger
2nd Feb 2016, 19:49
Sucky things for GPS OK, sucky things for Cameras not OK? Hmmmmm.
flybymike
2nd Feb 2016, 23:08
did you even read it?
Guilty as charged. I must admit I only read as far as this;
This policy does not apply to hand-held carry-on cameras, nor devices worn by the pilot e.g. helmet-mounted cameras, which do not require any particular approval
Interestingly hand held cameras are apparently permissible as long as they are not actually used by the pilot.
During the flight, the pilot should not use or operate a handheld camera or other handheld remote sensing equipment.
As has been remarked, how many will actually comply with this requirement, particularly if the logical extension to GPS/tablet installations is included, leading to widespread "uncertainty of present position" except when infringing controlled airspace.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how much it cuts down the amount of stuff posted on you tube.
from what's been quoted, the new guidance seems to be just common sense, I haven't read the document yet so it will be interesting to see what else is in there.
common sense? It now requires the payment to a Licensed Engineer to load test up to 10 times the weight, and sign for, and document in your aircraft logbook his testing, of any mount you use, even suction, repeatedly testing to ensure it stays "safe" over the period of use, and having to have a second tether, even on an internal suction mount, that can withstand 10x the load as well...
Paperwork and payments to engineers...
Hardly a common sense approach.
In a crash situation, having a GoPro come and hit me in the back of the head would be the least of my worries...
Meldrew
3rd Feb 2016, 08:51
It states "no bluetooth" so we can no longer use a Garmin GPS to link via bluetooth to an i pad for using Sky Demon!!
Terrific!
flybymike
3rd Feb 2016, 09:05
It's crackers.
CAA arsecovering.
The real world implications have not been thought through.
What about all the other loose stuff on board. Does that have to be secured to the airframe?
alex90
3rd Feb 2016, 10:30
That is quite funny...
How is a go-pro more damaging than my kneeboard, charts, pens, calculator, phone, torches, life rafts, life jackets, portable radio, spare headsets, bags, fuel, DSLR camera, iPads, GPS trackers, strainers with sharp bits including all other loose item in the plane?
I can understand the regulations applying to outside the aeroplane, there is bound to be someone stupid enough to stick a suction pad on the aileron, or someone silly enough to tether the camera to the plane (and as it starts to flap in the wind make great big holes in the plane).
But inside the aeroplane - I don't get it.
Also what is it with regards to Bluetooth, Wifi? I don't understand - the only thing that is really annoying is the noise that comes through the headsets when a phone is interfering with the sound. I have never come across any other issues. I have had someone in the back seat sending work emails, and often loading googlemaps to find a particular house or feature they wanted to look at from the sky - never has any instrumentation been even remotely affected by any of this. Most of the planes I fly are more likely to be affected by faulty suction lines / instruments that never seem to read anything useful (I once was told that I was 40miles north of a VOR when I knew I was about 45miles south west - that's always fun in solid IMC!). In NZ - they even let you use your phone during takeoff and landing on commercial planes! Has there ever been an accident attributed to interfering signals from portable devices? I know they tried to prove that but I dont think they ever did?
Romeo Tango
3rd Feb 2016, 13:59
How is a go-pro more damaging than my kneeboard, charts, pens, calculator, phone, torches, life rafts, life jackets, portable radio, spare headsets, bags, fuel, DSLR camera, iPads, GPS trackers, strainers with sharp bits including all other loose item in the plane?
I expect that if you read through the regs (that is if anyone had the time or a brain big enough to remember them) it states somewhere that everything in the aircraft should be tied down. So in CAA world they are not specifying anything very odd.
rnzoli
4th Feb 2016, 09:33
Strange. The cameras are a risk on their own right, but carry a safety advantage as well, that on-board cameras provide in objective flight de-briefs, self-learning, incident and accident investigations.
I am missing the role of the aircraft designers / manufacturers here. It would be far more efficient for everyone, if they provided approved internal / external camera mounting kits for designated attachment locations for their own designs. I am sure they could team up with the camera / mount makers, just to rip off a few more bucks from the camera users in exchange for certified combinations.
newaviator
4th Feb 2016, 13:26
More bureaucratic buffoonery , I'd like to think the person flying the aircraft would always have the common sense ( that's all it needs )to ensure best security and fixing of any internally mounted camera ....... more over the top H & S BxxxxxxT
Have I been hiding under a rock? The idea that a pilot may not take photos is new to me - whilst I can see the obvious risks of doing so at low level or in a high workload environment.
n5296s
4th Feb 2016, 18:29
What does "should" mean in CAA speak? Does it have regulatory power?
I mean, "a pilot should adequately micturate before embarking on a lengthy flight" is good advice, but could you get busted if you didn't?
n5296s
4th Feb 2016, 18:52
Actually given what's going on with GoPro right now, this is likely soon to become irrelevant, at least with regard to the original thread title.
Whopity
5th Feb 2016, 19:12
Interesting video showing the Head of GA surrounded by GoPros (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4AS_61UkA)
I wonder if this triggered the CAP!
BoeingBoy
7th Feb 2016, 14:44
For me this is total overkill of a subject that deserves addressing but could have been handled with simple guidance and not the ridiculous proscriptive level of rule making that this notice involves.
The CAA are pledging to reduce regulation and gold plating and on one hand have rescinded the notice regarding charity flights that laid down strict limits and replaced it with general guidance. On this subject they are grossly over killing a subject that lent itself to be dealt with in a similar way.
I note the video involves flight in an EASA type, which for now, is exempt.