Mounting a camera to a/c externally
Folks,
John T is trying to tell you the only way to do it legally, and Sunfish is trying to get the message across of the most likely (no improbable - most likely) result of you don't.
The potential list of offenses and their penalties, for the illegal modification of an aircraft are quite impressive ---- including the "not a fit and proper person" determination, which is all too often the icing on the cake of all the technical criminal offenses.
Quite apart from the immediate consequences, don't discount the long term consequences of a criminal conviction (or even a criminal charge --- if you are thinking of ever visiting USA).
Tootle pip!!
John T is trying to tell you the only way to do it legally, and Sunfish is trying to get the message across of the most likely (no improbable - most likely) result of you don't.
The potential list of offenses and their penalties, for the illegal modification of an aircraft are quite impressive ---- including the "not a fit and proper person" determination, which is all too often the icing on the cake of all the technical criminal offenses.
Quite apart from the immediate consequences, don't discount the long term consequences of a criminal conviction (or even a criminal charge --- if you are thinking of ever visiting USA).
Tootle pip!!
CASR 21 was modeled on the USA regs but the implementation is quite different. I could be a little rusty on the finer points after the last round of changes so JT will correct me if I get off track.
In the USA a mechanic with inspection authorization can decide whether a mod is minor and, if so, approve it. If not minor, then a FAA designee (like our reg 35 types) needs to approve the data etc.
CASA originally used the same definition as minor and major as the USA but I believe now use the EASA one - I'm not sure how that was achieved - JT? Anyway, we need a reg 35 type person to approve a minor mod. Worth considering how far the regs go in requiring such approval for trivial alterations.
Back in the old days when cameras were big and heavy it would clearly be a major mod. Small cameras perhaps the approver is happy with the minor mod process after assessment. I have one camera about the size of my thumbnail - still a minor mod and requires the same approval, even if only held on with sticky tape for a 10 minute flight.
Perhaps I should get back into the engineering approvals business - I'd have a sliding scale of fees depending on the size of camera and time it was to be fitted to the aeroplane.
In the USA a mechanic with inspection authorization can decide whether a mod is minor and, if so, approve it. If not minor, then a FAA designee (like our reg 35 types) needs to approve the data etc.
CASA originally used the same definition as minor and major as the USA but I believe now use the EASA one - I'm not sure how that was achieved - JT? Anyway, we need a reg 35 type person to approve a minor mod. Worth considering how far the regs go in requiring such approval for trivial alterations.
Back in the old days when cameras were big and heavy it would clearly be a major mod. Small cameras perhaps the approver is happy with the minor mod process after assessment. I have one camera about the size of my thumbnail - still a minor mod and requires the same approval, even if only held on with sticky tape for a 10 minute flight.
Perhaps I should get back into the engineering approvals business - I'd have a sliding scale of fees depending on the size of camera and time it was to be fitted to the aeroplane.
djpil,
Memory says the problem goes back a bit further, as to what an A&P can do, with reference to (amongst other acceptable data) AC43.13A/B versus when a 337 is required---- and what a LAME can do here.
Somewhere around early/mid '90s, the word "major" was quietly removed, ergo all damage, not just "major" damage, required the tender attention of a CAR 36 engineer.
The rest, as they say in the movies, is history.
Indeed, this was at the time that the then quite new CASA thought they could "engineer" a situation where all requests for repair schemes would have to go through CASA, who would farm all the work out to delegates , and collect a substantial margin in the middle ---- all in the cause of "safety oversight", you understand.
At that time, we had one extraordinary incident at YSBK, where a CASA AWI (ex-LAME) with a (in my opinion honorary) CAR 35 approval, took it upon himself to "design" a major repair to a Metro wing, the damage the result of a prop of an MU-2 hacking into the wing. Fortunately, the plug was pulled on that one, before too much "damage" was done, financially or otherwise, and real CAR 35 engineers took over the job.
The following is still on the books:
42U Modifications and repairs: approved designs
(1) A person may modify or repair an Australian aircraft only if:
(a) the design of the modification or repair:
(i) has been approved under regulation 35, as in force before 27 June 2011; or
(ia) has been approved by a modification/repair design approval; or
(ib) has been approved by an approval granted in accordance with a method specified in a legislative instrument issued under regulation 21.475 of CASR; or
(ic) is taken to have been approved under regulation 21.465 or 21.470 of CASR; or
(ii) has been specified by CASA in, or by means of,
an airworthiness directive or a direction under regulation 44; or
(iii) is specified in the aircraft’s approved maintenance data; and
(b) the modification or repair is in accordance with that design.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Tootle pip!!
Memory says the problem goes back a bit further, as to what an A&P can do, with reference to (amongst other acceptable data) AC43.13A/B versus when a 337 is required---- and what a LAME can do here.
Somewhere around early/mid '90s, the word "major" was quietly removed, ergo all damage, not just "major" damage, required the tender attention of a CAR 36 engineer.
The rest, as they say in the movies, is history.
Indeed, this was at the time that the then quite new CASA thought they could "engineer" a situation where all requests for repair schemes would have to go through CASA, who would farm all the work out to delegates , and collect a substantial margin in the middle ---- all in the cause of "safety oversight", you understand.
At that time, we had one extraordinary incident at YSBK, where a CASA AWI (ex-LAME) with a (in my opinion honorary) CAR 35 approval, took it upon himself to "design" a major repair to a Metro wing, the damage the result of a prop of an MU-2 hacking into the wing. Fortunately, the plug was pulled on that one, before too much "damage" was done, financially or otherwise, and real CAR 35 engineers took over the job.
The following is still on the books:
42U Modifications and repairs: approved designs
(1) A person may modify or repair an Australian aircraft only if:
(a) the design of the modification or repair:
(i) has been approved under regulation 35, as in force before 27 June 2011; or
(ia) has been approved by a modification/repair design approval; or
(ib) has been approved by an approval granted in accordance with a method specified in a legislative instrument issued under regulation 21.475 of CASR; or
(ic) is taken to have been approved under regulation 21.465 or 21.470 of CASR; or
(ii) has been specified by CASA in, or by means of,
an airworthiness directive or a direction under regulation 44; or
(iii) is specified in the aircraft’s approved maintenance data; and
(b) the modification or repair is in accordance with that design.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 1st Jun 2012 at 03:19.
Moderator
so JT will correct me if I get off track.
I think I've been out of the CAR35 game longer than you have now, Dave. Probably we both need to give the colleagues still in the sandpit a call from time to time to find out what's what and on at the coalface.
For the keener folk who think it is all beer and skittles .. the problem is knowing when you don't know enough about whatever it is you are planning to do and, as a result, you get bitten on the tail. The secret of the expert is to make this call and then go seek the advice of a more expert expert when the expert realises that he is not quite expert enough for the task at hand ... if that makes any sense at all.
When looking at hanging things outside sometimes you can end up with strange and unexpected effects. The idea is that the specialist folk might just have a better chance of twigging to a potential problem than the amateur.
For instance, hanging a bigger lump of something on the wing might just alter the wing dynamics in a not so nice way. Better not to find out in flight.
Even the expert experts sometimes get it wrong. A couple of anecdotes I can recall ..
(a) military jet which had a flutter problem and resulted in the loss of a few. Rework and test program to fix the problem. Flight test with a chase plane .. you guessed it right ... the chase plane was an unmodded example .. and the control bits departed company right about when they would be expected to do so. MB letdown saved the day.
(b) big military jet had a bit of stuff hung outside on the fuse. Unfortunately the static ports were downstream and the stuff hung outside changed the PEC dramatically. TP fortunately twigged to the wind in the wires not sounding quite right on takeoff and rejected.
Thinking we know more than we really do is a major problem everywhere and it is the rare person who can be truly objective in his/her self assessment of competence.
Bob Smith's reminiscences are worth a read in the chair whilst smoking one's pipe .. puts a few things in perspective, I suspect.
I think I've been out of the CAR35 game longer than you have now, Dave. Probably we both need to give the colleagues still in the sandpit a call from time to time to find out what's what and on at the coalface.
For the keener folk who think it is all beer and skittles .. the problem is knowing when you don't know enough about whatever it is you are planning to do and, as a result, you get bitten on the tail. The secret of the expert is to make this call and then go seek the advice of a more expert expert when the expert realises that he is not quite expert enough for the task at hand ... if that makes any sense at all.
When looking at hanging things outside sometimes you can end up with strange and unexpected effects. The idea is that the specialist folk might just have a better chance of twigging to a potential problem than the amateur.
For instance, hanging a bigger lump of something on the wing might just alter the wing dynamics in a not so nice way. Better not to find out in flight.
Even the expert experts sometimes get it wrong. A couple of anecdotes I can recall ..
(a) military jet which had a flutter problem and resulted in the loss of a few. Rework and test program to fix the problem. Flight test with a chase plane .. you guessed it right ... the chase plane was an unmodded example .. and the control bits departed company right about when they would be expected to do so. MB letdown saved the day.
(b) big military jet had a bit of stuff hung outside on the fuse. Unfortunately the static ports were downstream and the stuff hung outside changed the PEC dramatically. TP fortunately twigged to the wind in the wires not sounding quite right on takeoff and rejected.
Thinking we know more than we really do is a major problem everywhere and it is the rare person who can be truly objective in his/her self assessment of competence.
Bob Smith's reminiscences are worth a read in the chair whilst smoking one's pipe .. puts a few things in perspective, I suspect.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skip the suction mount. I attached one on a Electric lazair at last years Oshkosh on the fiberglass mono float and it came off after a few minutes. Lucky i had put a bit of safety string on it. Humid air and not so flat surface was the problem. Also all go pro quick mounts vibrate a bit.
There are a couple of good after market ones around like the fully adjustable one from "Cookie Helmets". Not to hard to fabricate a simple mount out of a piece of flat metal half inch wide and 2 inches long with a couple of pieces welded on in the right place and drilled to take the housing. Best to safety it on. If it fell off and hit someone or the like it is big trouble. More than the not having a mount signed off. Fabricating a thicker inspection panel would be a good idea. Plenty of footage out there of RAAus aircraft with cameras mounted all over the place. I have two mounted on my helmet for jumping one for vid and one for stills. I have been tempted to mount them on my grass roots type U/L but i'm not into providing evidence. I'll wait until i go to the states next year for three months of FAR103 adventures.
FH
There are a couple of good after market ones around like the fully adjustable one from "Cookie Helmets". Not to hard to fabricate a simple mount out of a piece of flat metal half inch wide and 2 inches long with a couple of pieces welded on in the right place and drilled to take the housing. Best to safety it on. If it fell off and hit someone or the like it is big trouble. More than the not having a mount signed off. Fabricating a thicker inspection panel would be a good idea. Plenty of footage out there of RAAus aircraft with cameras mounted all over the place. I have two mounted on my helmet for jumping one for vid and one for stills. I have been tempted to mount them on my grass roots type U/L but i'm not into providing evidence. I'll wait until i go to the states next year for three months of FAR103 adventures.
FH
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive got a go-pro mount on the side of my right ear cup of my DC H10-40's. The weight of a go-pro is not really felt too much, the DC's are heavy to start with. Works great for seeing the panel, forward view in flight and looking out the door as skydivers depart. Once I work out how to edit and actually get around to it, Ill post a vid of skydive flying in a C182 from the pilots view.
Id love to stick some outside somewhere for various views but . . . given the consequences of doing it without approval, I'll give it a miss.
Id love to stick some outside somewhere for various views but . . . given the consequences of doing it without approval, I'll give it a miss.
Last edited by Lancair70; 1st Jun 2012 at 07:56.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a CAR35 approved installation. The camera is attached using a slightly modified bracket that came with the camera. The video is recorded upside down and is flipped with editing software.
The approval is aircraft specific but as I read it other aircraft and types can be added to the current EO according to the engineers:
The approval is aircraft specific but as I read it other aircraft and types can be added to the current EO according to the engineers:
The approval will be specific to your aircraft but I can add additional regos onto the EO under your jurisdiction. CAR35 approval is for an aircraft rather than an aircraft type and this is the reason why it cannot be blanketed to cover all M20's.
I'm disappointed that it's been so long since we've seen a video from the ForkMount Mk4 (PP)
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 1st Jun 2012 at 11:04.
Moderator
The approval will be specific to your aircraft but I can add additional regos onto the EO under your jurisdiction
A matter of checking for conflicting aircraft detail.
(a) for a one-off aircraft (or a group which are checked out by the CAR35 org) the design looks at the appropriateness of a mod on that (those) particular aircraft. Hence the normal restriction usually by individual S/N or tail feathers.
(b) if one wants something a bit more general, one goes for an STC. In this case the applicability typically (but not necessarily) is for a larger S/N range (or similar control) and the design org has to establish that the STC mod is applicable to all the S/N range specified. Caveat - the STC will be looking at the stock standard aircraft and, perhaps, OEM STCs. Hence, if you intend to put an STC mod on your bird, then if the bird has non OEM mods (eg non-OEM STCs, CAR35 mods, etc) someone (the CAR35 org) has to check that the proposed mod doesn't represent a contraindicated problem due to pre-existing mods.
As before, traps for young players which the CAR35 guys and gals should be able to protect against.
Some of the camera mods can be fun.
For instance, going back a long ways, I put cameras in the tail and cockpit of several Types for a particular set of flight test programs which worked real fine.
Similarly it is pretty standard to use cockpit installations for most FT programs and we have done a few wing installations for ground data monitoring and subsequent analysis.
Likewise a bunch of early TAA and other in flight videos of company aircraft for advertising purposes were done using an O/B installation in a LearJet (as I recall) in which we set the camera up in the forward cabin area and filmed through the removed emergency exit. Some great TV video clips came from that program.
For those who may recall an Oz takeoff from the Indiana Jones range of movies, the 'stang video (with Jack M's grisly visage in the cockpit) was done from the ramp of a C212 in Melbourne as Jack put the nose just about into the ramp opening. Sitting on the ramp at the time I found it all quite good fun. Unfortunately the Regulator of the day wouldn't let us do the DC3 exit through the overhead hatch due to a particular Reg which they wouldn't bend so it had to be done O/S where the rules were a bit more flexible. The RAAF did something similar with a Hornet and Herc in which the pilot must have sat the radome on the ramp or very nearly so.
A matter of checking for conflicting aircraft detail.
(a) for a one-off aircraft (or a group which are checked out by the CAR35 org) the design looks at the appropriateness of a mod on that (those) particular aircraft. Hence the normal restriction usually by individual S/N or tail feathers.
(b) if one wants something a bit more general, one goes for an STC. In this case the applicability typically (but not necessarily) is for a larger S/N range (or similar control) and the design org has to establish that the STC mod is applicable to all the S/N range specified. Caveat - the STC will be looking at the stock standard aircraft and, perhaps, OEM STCs. Hence, if you intend to put an STC mod on your bird, then if the bird has non OEM mods (eg non-OEM STCs, CAR35 mods, etc) someone (the CAR35 org) has to check that the proposed mod doesn't represent a contraindicated problem due to pre-existing mods.
As before, traps for young players which the CAR35 guys and gals should be able to protect against.
Some of the camera mods can be fun.
For instance, going back a long ways, I put cameras in the tail and cockpit of several Types for a particular set of flight test programs which worked real fine.
Similarly it is pretty standard to use cockpit installations for most FT programs and we have done a few wing installations for ground data monitoring and subsequent analysis.
Likewise a bunch of early TAA and other in flight videos of company aircraft for advertising purposes were done using an O/B installation in a LearJet (as I recall) in which we set the camera up in the forward cabin area and filmed through the removed emergency exit. Some great TV video clips came from that program.
For those who may recall an Oz takeoff from the Indiana Jones range of movies, the 'stang video (with Jack M's grisly visage in the cockpit) was done from the ramp of a C212 in Melbourne as Jack put the nose just about into the ramp opening. Sitting on the ramp at the time I found it all quite good fun. Unfortunately the Regulator of the day wouldn't let us do the DC3 exit through the overhead hatch due to a particular Reg which they wouldn't bend so it had to be done O/S where the rules were a bit more flexible. The RAAF did something similar with a Hornet and Herc in which the pilot must have sat the radome on the ramp or very nearly so.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't for the life of me see why you need a medical to fly an aircraft. I can ride a motorbike with nothing more than a eye test every so often.
Same with instructor's ratings... anyone that can fly should have the knowledge to be able to coach a learner. Same as we do when teaching the kids to drive.
I realise the regs have been around for years and have provided a protocol for safe operation of aircraft.,- they do come with some expense however.
My logic is telling me that if owners and operators are quite happy to ignore the regs when it comes to things like modifications then surely they must be doing backyard maintenance and not wasting time and money on doctors and renewals.
Generally the aircraft, or operation, would have trouble with insurance in that case so that would be another savings. No need for those annual premiums.'
Aviation can be cheap... you may just need to operate outside of the regs.
It seems any number of contributors here are already doing just that.
Same with instructor's ratings... anyone that can fly should have the knowledge to be able to coach a learner. Same as we do when teaching the kids to drive.
I realise the regs have been around for years and have provided a protocol for safe operation of aircraft.,- they do come with some expense however.
My logic is telling me that if owners and operators are quite happy to ignore the regs when it comes to things like modifications then surely they must be doing backyard maintenance and not wasting time and money on doctors and renewals.
Generally the aircraft, or operation, would have trouble with insurance in that case so that would be another savings. No need for those annual premiums.'
Aviation can be cheap... you may just need to operate outside of the regs.
It seems any number of contributors here are already doing just that.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you were being sarcastic Baron, but I actually believe this (at least for private flying in Class G anyway). Despite what the egos of many pilots tell them, the skill required to safely fly a Cessna 172 from A to B is not brain surgery.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not difficult at all, - as we all know.
Unfortunately the whole scene needs some form of regulation..... we have seen what the cowboys are capable of.
I have been involved in many mods. Generally if it a good idea and has been thought through then the process is straightforward and painless.
The initial question was asked about what was involved in raising a legal mod for the fitment. I think it has been answered pretty well here.
Unfortunately the whole scene needs some form of regulation..... we have seen what the cowboys are capable of.
I have been involved in many mods. Generally if it a good idea and has been thought through then the process is straightforward and painless.
The initial question was asked about what was involved in raising a legal mod for the fitment. I think it has been answered pretty well here.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to have one mounted to the wing strut on a C208. Worked fine. Had it cable tied to the tie down point just in case.
Came off once, but it did not flap around wildly, just sort of rolled lazily around.
Got some pretty epic videos from it. Usually only mount it on the inside now though. New company, new country, don't want to get any grief from the boss!
Came off once, but it did not flap around wildly, just sort of rolled lazily around.
Got some pretty epic videos from it. Usually only mount it on the inside now though. New company, new country, don't want to get any grief from the boss!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The attached images will give you an idea of the work involved in a CAR35 Approval. Pages 6-8 are not loaded as they are pictures of the camera mounted on the aircraft and one is already loaded on this thread.
I would guess that a lot of the information is "boiler plate" that could equally apply to other modifications, but they have their name and reputation on the line once they sign off.
I would guess that a lot of the information is "boiler plate" that could equally apply to other modifications, but they have their name and reputation on the line once they sign off.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
hey Ovation
was that your lovely machine in the Aero Services hangar at YPPF last week?
I was tempted to leave a note on the seat from Jaba
But that may have been wasted if not!
If I knew now I would have looked for the mount!
Arnold.........secretly Forkie does like a pole around in a Retard Vehicle, but his Fork Tailed personna can't bear public admission!
was that your lovely machine in the Aero Services hangar at YPPF last week?
I was tempted to leave a note on the seat from Jaba
But that may have been wasted if not!
If I knew now I would have looked for the mount!
Quote:
When I get my hands on a decent aeroplane again,
Getting an RV then are we??
When I get my hands on a decent aeroplane again,
Getting an RV then are we??
Moderator
one mounted to the wing strut
please do be a tad careful hanging things off wing struts .. they can have very interesting flutter characteristics. I have even seen abnormal icing buildups cause problems ..
the work involved in a CAR35 Approval
having known Graham for decades, I can vouch for his appropriately conservative engineering nature ..
please do be a tad careful hanging things off wing struts .. they can have very interesting flutter characteristics. I have even seen abnormal icing buildups cause problems ..
the work involved in a CAR35 Approval
having known Graham for decades, I can vouch for his appropriately conservative engineering nature ..