Gopro for aerobatics
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gopro for aerobatics
Hi all!
I intend to get my aerobatic rating in Perth this December. May I know which gopro is better for filming inner and outer videos of my training?
Other brands and suggestions are welcome.
Thank you all!
I intend to get my aerobatic rating in Perth this December. May I know which gopro is better for filming inner and outer videos of my training?
Other brands and suggestions are welcome.
Thank you all!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the Nflight web site for a GoPro lens filter to remove the prop from the video.
iPhones are good for recording aerobatics. The video camera is good quality, and the sensors for height, G force, compass heading etc are great for recording data related to the aerobatic manoeuvres.
There is an iOS app called Vidometer that will record all of this data and display it as part of the video.
iPhones are good for recording aerobatics. The video camera is good quality, and the sensors for height, G force, compass heading etc are great for recording data related to the aerobatic manoeuvres.
There is an iOS app called Vidometer that will record all of this data and display it as part of the video.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i wouldnt use an iphone for filming aeros, an iphone gets heavy at 3G, not to mention the risk of FOD if you let go of it.... no loose objects remember..
Gopros do the job just fine.
Gopros do the job just fine.
Stanley 1985,
I suggest you look up previous threads on the general subject, and the particular subject that mounting any camera is an aircraft modification, and must be signed of by a CASA Approved Person.
To just plonk a suction cap of velcro mount or similar anywhere convenient cannot be done, and CASA have no sense of humour about this, particularly when the video turns up on uTube, which, sadly, is the starting point for many CASA prosecutions.
Tootle pip!!
I suggest you look up previous threads on the general subject, and the particular subject that mounting any camera is an aircraft modification, and must be signed of by a CASA Approved Person.
To just plonk a suction cap of velcro mount or similar anywhere convenient cannot be done, and CASA have no sense of humour about this, particularly when the video turns up on uTube, which, sadly, is the starting point for many CASA prosecutions.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EGNM
Age: 43
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For aeros I use the headstrap - the lens is wide enough to see the ASI etc and you can double check that you are looking in the correct location for the different manoeuvres. Additionally, no aircraft mods required.
The big disadvantage is that you look like a complete and utter tosser if anyone sees you, hence put it on as part of the HASELL checks and remove it as part of your pre descent checks!
The big disadvantage is that you look like a complete and utter tosser if anyone sees you, hence put it on as part of the HASELL checks and remove it as part of your pre descent checks!
Wish etc,
CASR Part Part 21M, and more other CASR or CARs than I am going to be bothered listing here.
Have you ever heard of what used to be "CAR 35 Engineers"??.
Any setting up of a camera is a modification to the aircraft, and all repairs and modification can only be to approved data, that is why you have to hire the services of a suitable qualified delegate of CASA, to develop the approved data, unless you already have something with an STC.
As I have already said, this has been covered at great length, with all the references, on previous threads.
Tootle pip!!
CASR Part Part 21M, and more other CASR or CARs than I am going to be bothered listing here.
Have you ever heard of what used to be "CAR 35 Engineers"??.
Any setting up of a camera is a modification to the aircraft, and all repairs and modification can only be to approved data, that is why you have to hire the services of a suitable qualified delegate of CASA, to develop the approved data, unless you already have something with an STC.
As I have already said, this has been covered at great length, with all the references, on previous threads.
Tootle pip!!
Its worth reading the CAAP on EFBs especially the bit about installations. Similar from an engineering point of view but applying the same rational to mount of internal cameras during aerobatics doesn't make sense to me.
There is a stupid AC 23-1 about external (camera) installations.
Fortunately I now see a new AC 21-08 covering the definition and approval of mods quite well. A mod is a change to the design. Nothing about temporary EFB installations being exempt as suggested by that CAAP.
There is a stupid AC 23-1 about external (camera) installations.
Fortunately I now see a new AC 21-08 covering the definition and approval of mods quite well. A mod is a change to the design. Nothing about temporary EFB installations being exempt as suggested by that CAAP.
Yes, body worn cameras relive the threat of prosecution, until they fall off and foul the controls
Errant cameras and straps have been suspects in a few filming/photo helicopter crashes.
So employ a secondary form of attachment as a backup if possible.
Try a go pro on your wrist looking back up at your torso, it will occasionally deliver some cool shots as your wrist movement rapidly pans and tilts the camera around.
Grannies and eggs but plan the filming so that you have done all the testing and are comfortable with the rig before you engage with any flying that is taxing or a flight that is unrepeatable or remarkable.
You want as little distraction as possible.
Statistically the threat of cameras falling off is minor compared to the pilot being distracted or succumbing to "must get the shot".
Whilst CRM training is meant to encompass such risks there is something about "being on camera" that distorts the good judgement of even the most experienced aviators.
Don't let it happen to you
Mickjoebill
Errant cameras and straps have been suspects in a few filming/photo helicopter crashes.
So employ a secondary form of attachment as a backup if possible.
Try a go pro on your wrist looking back up at your torso, it will occasionally deliver some cool shots as your wrist movement rapidly pans and tilts the camera around.
Grannies and eggs but plan the filming so that you have done all the testing and are comfortable with the rig before you engage with any flying that is taxing or a flight that is unrepeatable or remarkable.
You want as little distraction as possible.
Statistically the threat of cameras falling off is minor compared to the pilot being distracted or succumbing to "must get the shot".
Whilst CRM training is meant to encompass such risks there is something about "being on camera" that distorts the good judgement of even the most experienced aviators.
Don't let it happen to you
Mickjoebill
Fortunately I now see a new AC 21-08 covering the definition and approval of mods quite well.
Sadly, both with AC and even more so, MOS, we are seeing more and more documents that are not supported by their supposed head of power in the regulations.
While a CAAP or an AC is supposed to be an acceptable means of compliance with a CAR of CASR, as appropriate, this is not always the case, particularly depending on the CASA office involved, and who has the money to fight them on large matters, let alone small issues.
Getting a CASR Part 21m Approval is cheap and easy, compared with a retrospective stoush.
--- body worn cameras relive the threat of prosecution
As for various wearable headbands and similar, unrestrained camera's etc., and the trouble they can and have caused , I direct your attention to S20A(1) etc of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and elsewhere to the responsibilities of the pilot in command.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all!
Thanks for your replies! Sorry I was away, hence the tardiness in checking of posts.
Btw, may I know how many of you have aerobatics rating?
Thanks for your replies! Sorry I was away, hence the tardiness in checking of posts.
Btw, may I know how many of you have aerobatics rating?
When I am in a passenger seat I often use my iPhone held in my hand and it works OK. I sometimes use a camera on my headset, works fine (up to +6 and -3 G anyway).
Today we used two cameras: GoPro and Contour. Both useful to assist with training for competitions.
Today we used two cameras: GoPro and Contour. Both useful to assist with training for competitions.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<A bit tongue-in-cheek>
I'm worried that the watch-strap for my watch is not approved and it might become dislodged from my wrist during aeros. Where can I get an approved watch-strap? Am I being reckless if my watch strap is not approved for aeros?
<More silliness>
I've also heard that many pilots have problems with their wedding rings when flying to off-shore destinations but they inexplicable re-attach during the return leg. Are there any Advisory Publications on this phenomenon?
I'm worried that the watch-strap for my watch is not approved and it might become dislodged from my wrist during aeros. Where can I get an approved watch-strap? Am I being reckless if my watch strap is not approved for aeros?
<More silliness>
I've also heard that many pilots have problems with their wedding rings when flying to off-shore destinations but they inexplicable re-attach during the return leg. Are there any Advisory Publications on this phenomenon?
Absolute Fokker,
It is all a wonderful joke, often seriously illogical and sometimes stupid, but "the law" isn't interested in any of that, only if "it" is legal or illegal. Its relation to safety is only accidental.
I recall a case of a simple Davtron timer attached to a panel with a bit of velcro, by the time CASA had finished with the owner/operator and an illegal modification to the aircraft, the bill was in the tens of thousands of $$$.
I recall another case, a temporary repair to a C-172 nose strut for a ferry, the item at issue was whether the pop rivets used were "approved" ---- ie; there was paperwork, not whether the rivets were up to the job of one takeoff and one landing.
Over this issue, CASA prosecuted the LAME, then kept on at him until he finally went out of business. That is one country town that has not had a local maintenance service/LAME since.
I could go on with many more examples, CASA does not have the reputation so well documented in the recent ASRR (Forsyth) by being a warm and cuddly bunch.
Tootle pip!!
It is all a wonderful joke, often seriously illogical and sometimes stupid, but "the law" isn't interested in any of that, only if "it" is legal or illegal. Its relation to safety is only accidental.
I recall a case of a simple Davtron timer attached to a panel with a bit of velcro, by the time CASA had finished with the owner/operator and an illegal modification to the aircraft, the bill was in the tens of thousands of $$$.
I recall another case, a temporary repair to a C-172 nose strut for a ferry, the item at issue was whether the pop rivets used were "approved" ---- ie; there was paperwork, not whether the rivets were up to the job of one takeoff and one landing.
Over this issue, CASA prosecuted the LAME, then kept on at him until he finally went out of business. That is one country town that has not had a local maintenance service/LAME since.
I could go on with many more examples, CASA does not have the reputation so well documented in the recent ASRR (Forsyth) by being a warm and cuddly bunch.
Tootle pip!!
As warm and cuddly as one of these:
Boa constrictor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common similarities:
Habitat:
Boa constrictor flourishes in a wide variety of environmental conditions, from tropical rainforests to arid semi-desert country. However, it prefers to live in rainforest due to the humidity and temperature, natural cover from predators and vast amount of potential prey. It is commonly found in or along rivers and streams, as it is a very capable swimmer. Boa constrictor will also occupy the burrows of medium-sized mammals, where it can hide from potential predators.
Behaviour:
Boa constrictors will generally live on their own, and not interact with any other snakes unless they want to mate.
Diet:
Boa constrictors are ambush predators and as such will often lie in wait for an appropriate prey to come along at which point they will attack. However, they have also been known to actively hunt, particularly in regions with a low concentration of suitable prey, and this behaviour generally occurs at night.
Boa constrictor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common similarities:
Habitat:
Boa constrictor flourishes in a wide variety of environmental conditions, from tropical rainforests to arid semi-desert country. However, it prefers to live in rainforest due to the humidity and temperature, natural cover from predators and vast amount of potential prey. It is commonly found in or along rivers and streams, as it is a very capable swimmer. Boa constrictor will also occupy the burrows of medium-sized mammals, where it can hide from potential predators.
Behaviour:
Boa constrictors will generally live on their own, and not interact with any other snakes unless they want to mate.
Diet:
Boa constrictors are ambush predators and as such will often lie in wait for an appropriate prey to come along at which point they will attack. However, they have also been known to actively hunt, particularly in regions with a low concentration of suitable prey, and this behaviour generally occurs at night.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very unrelated to the thread but.....
I've also heard that many pilots have problems with their wedding rings
Mine was at Williamtown, with a mate on course. Lot of drinking, not much learning.
The day's activity was a CC08 sortie for meat bombing out near Boughton Is? I stand corrected.
The memory is at 10,000 ft, the open rear door, climbing turn, tremendous engine noise of course, spinning scenery below, cold shrinking fingers. My wedding ring rolling down the back and out into the ether, lost forever.
Bad omen maybe.
No harnesses, the jump guy dragging me back to watch the troops fly out.
Absolutely no need for OHandS in those days.
Ah and 43 years on..........
Re a body worn camera
A bodycam is one attached to the persons body, so no engineering regs apply.
Mickjoebill
Mickjoebill, How did you come to that innovative legal conclusion, or, put another way, which bush lawyer gave you that advice
Mickjoebill
At last, a sensible process for approval of camera installations - in the UK only.
"In light of the increased popularity of airborne photography and video recording, made possible by advances in digital camera design, the CAA previously provided guidance to assist owners and operators in how to safely install such equipment on CAA regulated aircraft as minor changes.
Based on the feedback we’ve received from the General Aviation (GA) sector, one of the key challenges faced is that each camera installation needs to be judged on a case by case examination to consider the airworthiness risks that could be posed (including installed aircraft and 3rd party risks), hence it can be difficult to cover all eventualities in guidance without seeming to be overly prescriptive or overly regulating what could, for one particular installation and location on a specific aircraft, be a fairly simple and low-risk design.
In view of the above and in order to be more proportionate our original guidance has been revised to provide this policy for an alternative route for the approval of light, simple and small camera installations, using a methodology whereby Licensed Aircraft Engineers, (LAEs) with a part 66 licence or BCAR licence will be able to examine such installations and to certify whether an acceptable airworthiness standard has been achieved. Note that the traditional minor mod approval route via the CAA or approved organisations remains available."
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf
"In light of the increased popularity of airborne photography and video recording, made possible by advances in digital camera design, the CAA previously provided guidance to assist owners and operators in how to safely install such equipment on CAA regulated aircraft as minor changes.
Based on the feedback we’ve received from the General Aviation (GA) sector, one of the key challenges faced is that each camera installation needs to be judged on a case by case examination to consider the airworthiness risks that could be posed (including installed aircraft and 3rd party risks), hence it can be difficult to cover all eventualities in guidance without seeming to be overly prescriptive or overly regulating what could, for one particular installation and location on a specific aircraft, be a fairly simple and low-risk design.
In view of the above and in order to be more proportionate our original guidance has been revised to provide this policy for an alternative route for the approval of light, simple and small camera installations, using a methodology whereby Licensed Aircraft Engineers, (LAEs) with a part 66 licence or BCAR licence will be able to examine such installations and to certify whether an acceptable airworthiness standard has been achieved. Note that the traditional minor mod approval route via the CAA or approved organisations remains available."
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf