Suction mounted cameras on aircraft...

[Sam Rutherford]

...are legal in FAA land.

https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/FAA-camera-memo.php

Same for EASA land? (we live in hope!)

[B2N2]

Typical FAA fuzzy lingo.
Yes/No definitely maybe...
So a suction cup on an Ultralight?
A hose clamp would still be an alteration?

[alex90]

Pretty sure that suction mounted cameras aren't allowed in EASA. I was told that I would need to get a mod approved for fitting any cameras on the plane...

[GBEBZ]

Policy and guidance on mounting cameras on
aircraft

CAP 1369

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf


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 also provides a statement of
the general categories of aircraft that are excluded from European regulations and
so remain subject to national rules under Annex II to the basic Regulation (EC) No.
216/2008).
We have also reviewed the camera installation guidance and policy material that has
been generated by the BMAA, LAA, and BGA and have incorporated certain
elements of that material in the following sections. In the case of types that are under
the oversight of BMAA and LAA, the material generated by those organisations
should be used.

Note – 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; if EASA do update CS-STAN we will
review whether further updates should be made to this guidance. In the interim the
current EASA rules will continue to apply for EASA Aircraft and Modification approval
will still need to be sought via EASA HQ for camera installations on those applicable
types where there is no existing CS-STAN requirement to address



6.The use of suction mountings is not generally acceptable for
externally mounted cameras.

7. 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.

8. 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

[alex90]

GBEBZ,

I believe Sam is looking at external mounted cameras, as the first question on the memo specifically states externally mounted camera. In which case, number 6. of what you posted would be the key:


6.The use of suction mountings is not generally acceptable for
externally mounted cameras.

[Sam Rutherford]

Calling the FAA's letter 'fuzzy' is a bit harsh given the EASA position of: "not generally acceptable".

What, exactly, does that mean?! :-)

That leaves space for 'is acceptable under certain circumstances' - without actually defining what they might be.

[GBEBZ]

I believe Sam is looking at external mounted cameras

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf

(again only applies at the moment to non-easa, but has "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;"

The installation must be inspected by an LAE who will review the camera installation
against the points below and complete and sign the sections below to confirm that
the installation is satisfactory

In addition external cameras should
be subjected to a proof load test in the drag direction prior to
flight - a minimum drag load of 2 kg should be used. The drag
load should be checked to be appropriate for the size of the
camera and the maximum design speed of the aircraft; for
example, (using a drag coefficient on unity at sea level), a 4
cm by 10 cm = 40 cm2
cross section normal to a 150 knot
airstream would generate ~ 1.5 kg drag load. This value will
scale up directly with area so a camera/mount that is 2 times
the area will see 2 times the drag load, whilst an increase in
the airstream will increase drag by the square of the airspeed,
thus 2 times the airspeed gives 4 times the drag. Note that
installations mounted in areas affected by propeller slipstream
will need to be designed to withstand increased drag loads.

[alex90]

I think that means "it depends on the person reviewing your application's mood" haha!

I think you'll find this useful --> https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf

Hope it helps!


AAAAAHHH!! GBEBZ beat me to it!! well done!

[ETOPS]

So - you know all those Youtube videos..........:hmm:

[9 lives]

The installation of a camera, even temporary, is a modification (albeit a very simple one). As such, it is bound by the requirements to be accomplished in accordance with suitable data. If a modification is done to an aircraft, and not suitably documented, it is the pilot flying that aircraft who assumes all of the responsibility for flying a modified aircraft, which lacks the proper approval.

I know for certain that these cameras have been specifically approved on certain aircraft, as the operator (commercial) insisted on doing it right.

[tmmorris]

Meanwhile, suction-mounted GPS...

[9 lives]

Meanwhile, suction-mounted GPS...

'Same considerations, and for Ipad mounts too. The fact that it's being done, does not mean it's being done with compliance.

I was about to fly a Bell 206 years back, which had an Ipad mount on the instrument panel side. The mount was made by a well known manufacturer of such things. When I did a control check, the cyclic collided with the Ipad, and arranging for no collision was not pilot possible. The mount was removed, altered, and reinstalled, so it could not collide with the cyclic. The pilots who had flown that helicopter before me either did not notice that full control would not be available, or were not concerned. I was concerned.

[tmmorris]

Hmm. I use a yoke mount. All you have to do is fit it before the controls full & free test. In fact, I always fit it slightly loose then push the yoke all the way forward to check before tightening. But I have had some hairy suction mount failures in a Firefly and DR400

[Ebbie 2003]

suctions mounts are useless - they suck!

[Dan Winterland]

suctions mounts are useless - they suck!

But not enough! Bear in mind that they rely on a differential pressure which reduces as you climb - making the mount less effective. Several glider pilots have lost go-pros as a result.

[rans6andrew]

I have in the back of my mind something about external items added onto aircraft should have a tether as a backup should the primary attachment (sucker/clamp/double sided tape etc) drop off. When I saw it I thought that such a secondary fixing might cause even more problem as a camera on a short tether dangling in the slipstream may well oscillate around and bang on the structure of the aircraft doing neither any good. However, dropping anything from an aircraft in flight, without the proper paperwork, is a no no.

Rans6....

[patowalker]

... However, dropping anything from an aircraft in flight, without the proper paperwork, is a no no.

Rans6....

Where do I find the rules on how to secure the paperwork to the device being dropped? :-)

[Hot and Hi]

Patowalker: Try a paper pusher, typically that would do. :}

[thing]

Can I just add a word of caution for those who use suction mounts for their iPhones/GoPros etc. Don't mount them to the side windows of any side window opening a/c such as 150/172/182 etc. They can blow open with an accidental nudge of the elbow or just a loose latch.. I know someone sitting not far away from me who lost his iPhone running Skydemon in exactly those circumstances. Luckily it fell on open ground. Said person ordered a RAM yoke mount that afternoon and has had no other losses...