Reading the advisory circular I'm not sure if they are more interested in how the aircraft performs with additional kit dangling in the wind or if they are interested in ensuring the kit is adequately attached so it doesn't fall off.


If it is the former what have they got to say about 100 years of hand held aerial photography where potentially much larger interference with slip stream occurs?



Mickjoebill

Volumex has referred to the spats a couple of times.

I would think there is ample provision for this procedure, just as there always has been.
The TCDS and other manufacturer data would be referred to as part of the certification required by the local regulators.
Some aircraft have requirements that need to be met, exactly the same as the engineer must check when thinking about releasing an aircraft with the spinner removed.

The TCDS are all available online, under the FAA website for most aircraft.

Seems the Americans don't care about mounting GoPro's... in my inbox this morning...



http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/gca1.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/gca2.jpg

WingItMounts GoPro-01 Products Page

link to the product.

like that a logbook entry may be required from your LAME and no responsibility accepted if your fitment results in damage...as if that will keep the sharks away....other than that, a bloody solid looking piece of kit.

Lol I should have looked a bit further like you did!

I wonder how many would go to the effort of talking to their LAME. Hire Cessna, affix mount, remove mount, return aircraft.

Reading between the lines...a couple of young bucks get together and come up with a brutally simple mount for a popular camera. Hope it makes them a boatload of dollars:ok:

Too bad for PA28 drivers .. hehe ;)

:E....yeh but you could make one to wrap around the inside of the step.

Page 28 of the Jan/Feb 2014 FAA Safety Briefing gives quite clear advice. http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_brief...janfeb2014.pdf
Very similar rules there and a similar approach - the difference is that the FAA's advisory documents are very clear and it is much easier to get approval for a minor mod there than it is here.

Latest from CASA, in Flight Safety Australia of Mar/Apr 2014:
Obviously, CASA know little about their own rules. TSO is the USA's Technical Standard Order "A TSO is a minimum performance standard for specified materials, parts, and appliances used on civil aircraft."

Australia has ATSO "As per CASR Part 21, Subpart O, an Australian Technical Standard Order contains minimum performance standards for specified articles (ie. materials, parts, processes and appliances) used on civil aircraft."

The main point is that “all installations ... require formal engineering approval.” Nothing about temporary installations excepted as stated in the CAAP on EFBs.

Does this mean temporary camera mountings don't require an EO?

Would this be different for, say, temporary mountings on a wing or inside the cockpit?

Sometimes PeterC it's better to get someone who is qualified to do the job for you and do it properly the first time....

Peterc005,
The answers are NO and NO.
Every mod. to an Australian aircraft requires a minimum of an Engineering Order or an STC. The US system for minor modes is far more simple, with a thing called a "field approval" via FAA Form 337 ( I hope I remembered the form number correctly)

Tootle pip!!



Had to tidy up your post Leadie due to, sadly, near miss no longer being active in this thread!

Tail Wheel

@Leadsled - I thought the FAA Form 337 was pretty much the equivalent of a CASA Form 442?

Recently I had another EO done for a fuel level indicator and, apart from needing an electrical load analysis, it seemed much easier that earlier EOs.

Bob MacGillivray down at West Sale did the EO. Great job and he was very fast in knocking it over. Seemed ten times easier than earlier EOs, so I assume the regs have changed in the past few years.

And don't post the films on YouTube :ok:

FAA Form 337 is for a major mod which must be approved by the FAA (typically do an STC for the same mod on multiple aircraft).
Minor mods, see my earlier post.

Why are you worried about putting a go pro on externally if your aircraft is experimental? If you built 51% of it you're the manufacturer and you can put it where you want.

We need someone like DJP to comment. But I think CASA would say that a homebuilder may be the manufacturer, but not the designer and that if there is a modification to the design that it requires design approval.

DJP posted recently (on FB or here - forget) about one of his friends who found CASA inspecting the aircraft to determine where the camera had been fitted to take video after the CASA FOI saw a video clip of the aircraft somewhere. Camera's are clearly flavour of the month and CASA seem to be looking for blood.

Folks,
Due to CASA lack of knowledge of what their own rules say and mean re. Experimental Amateur Built, CASA are saying the above, and they are wrong.
This is part of the trials and tribulations of RAOz right now, CASA making up rules that do not exist.
If you want to fit a camera to an Experimental Amateur Built, as the minimum 51% builder, you are responsible for the mod., you must talk to whoever issued the certificate, they will determine whether any test flying must be done to re-issue the Operations Limitations Annex to the certificate.
Tootle pip!!

PS: PeterC005,
I know what the title of the 337 says, but it doesn't have to be a "very" major mod, for -337 to apply, but in many cases, a DER will not be required, the changes will be signed off by an IA, having been accomplished by an A&P, using the guidelines of AC43.13A & B.

You are right lead, you must talk to the AP, post fitment. Matter of logging it as well. We had 3 permanent hard wired external mounts prior to issue of CofA, all good :ok:

With a decent AP who's prepared to challenge CAsA's blatantly wrong interpretation of their own 'rules' things may change but it may take a challenge. I know of one chap who'll be taking CAsA to the small claims tribunal after he obtains his IFR CofA. Can't wait for that :ok: