|
GoPro mount Engineering Order
Would anyone have any idea how much an EO for a simple plastic stick on GoPro mount for inside a cockpit in a VH registered aircraft would cost?
Cheers AWB |
This might not be anywhere near what you're after but …
I seem to recall that some of the video from the Roulettes was taken with 'temporarily' attached GoPros I know it's military v civilian, but if a removable mount can survive a 15 minute aerobatic program, it might survive 'normal' civilian usage regards layman |
layman,
That's not the point, the point is the cost of the EO, I would guess anything from $500 up. Without that bit of paper, you are a criminal. Tootle pip!! |
Howabout if you simply strap it to your chest / helmet...??
i.e. You wear it. Cheerrss… |
For Experimental, just bolt it on before C of A issue, I think. However it’s moot since you are taking your life in your hands posting the video on the net or letting it get into the public domain by sharing with anyone. Thus CASA suppresses even the advertising of the joys of aviation. Furthermore, the ATSB and CASA will use your video against you in the event of an incident. |
I’d use the Catholic Church principal. Its easier to ask for forgiveness then permission. |
Sunfish has hit the nail on the head, once the video hits the public domain your potentially under the microscope, particularly if it can be proven that the camera was mounted without an EO or STC. Take a look at Outback Pilots! |
Duck Pilot, did CASA take some sort of action against the Outback Pilot's...pilot's over the mounts etc?
|
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10338883)
For Experimental, just bolt it on before C of A issue, I think. YOU are the manufacturer of your Experimental aircraft so you can fit whatever you want with a logbook entry. Fitting it prior to C of A issue is pointless because there will be no paperwork for it and unless you took photos of the mount fitted at the issue of your C of A, there’s no protection from the method you have described. |
Absolutely no idea, however I assume that some of the footage would have triggered a few questions. Hope no one got anything more than a warning if any such action was taken as all the pilots and operators involved in the first series are great people. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10339024)
Why put it on before C of A Sunfish? YOU are the manufacturer of your Experimental aircraft so you can fit whatever you want with a logbook entry. Fitting it prior to C of A issue is pointless because there will be no paperwork for it and unless you took photos of the mount fitted at the issue of your C of A, there’s no protection from the method you have described. Sunfish is correct, you are quite wrong. If you want to fit it after the delegate issues the original certificate, said delegate or an equivalent must inspect the aircraft and issue a new certificate after the modification. Tootle pip!! |
LeadSled, I would take issue with that. If you are the owner builder of an experimental aircraft, you are entitled to do maintenance, repairs etc.
If built under the auspices of the SAAA, a Techincal Cousellor (TC) will advise on the build process, perform inspections etc. At he end of the build process, a CASA Autorised Person (AP), will issue the experimental C of A. If subsequent to that, changes are made, the builders TC will make a determinatiuon as to whether the changes/mods are of such a magnitude as to have the potential as to change the behavior of the aircraft, then the TC will suggest that the the AP needs to determine if a a new C of A, new weighing, and new test phase is required. I have asked my AP about the mounting of a camera in the cockpit to record my test flights requires approval, and the answer was negative. Perhaps something mounted on the wing where airflow is disturbed is a case in point. However, if the aircraft is in test phase, things like trim tabs, squeezing trailing edges etc are often done to change flight characteristics, without the issuing of a new C of A. Mick |
I call full BS on your post LeadSled, as above, it is simply incorrect. How many experimental aircraft have you built, maintained and modified and had C of A’s issued for? The builder is the manufacturer and is entitled to make modifications that are not major, without the need for a new C of A. I personally rebuilt a written-off aircraft, fitted a different engine and propellor type, re-wired it and fitted all new avionics and after consultation with casa, it was not considered to be major modifications. You are also wrong in that the AP doesn’t inspect the aircraft. They simply review the paperwork is in order and sign the appropriate forms. RAaus do it a little different in that their delegate watches the builder perform their final inspection and double-ticks the checklist. |
Originally Posted by mullokintyre
(Post 10339745)
LeadSled, I would take issue with that. If you are the owner builder of an experimental aircraft, you are entitled to do maintenance, repairs etc.
If built under the auspices of the SAAA, a Techincal Cousellor (TC) will advise on the build process, perform inspections etc. At he end of the build process, a CASA Autorised Person (AP), will issue the experimental C of A. If subsequent to that, changes are made, the builders TC will make a determinatiuon as to whether the changes/mods are of such a magnitude as to have the potential as to change the behavior of the aircraft, then the TC will suggest that the the AP needs to determine if a a new C of A, new weighing, and new test phase is required. I have asked my AP about the mounting of a camera in the cockpit to record my test flights requires approval, and the answer was negative. Perhaps something mounted on the wing where airflow is disturbed is a case in point. However, if the aircraft is in test phase, things like trim tabs, squeezing trailing edges etc are often done to change flight characteristics, without the issuing of a new C of A. Mick What you have above, I do not take issue with overall, as it is not inconsistent with what I have said --- I have just put it in a more simple way, starting with an aircraft that already has a post test phase certificate. Sq7700, Feel free, call what you like, but I have had a far closer association with the details of Experimental Amateur Built than you might imagine. And, by the way, the most knowledgeable person in the country, on this subject, who has produced more certificates that the SAAA, has never built a home built -- Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10339930)
Sq7700,
Feel free, call what you like, but I have had a far closer association with the details of Experimental Amateur Built than you might imagine. And, by the way, the most knowledgeable person in the country, on this subject, who has produced more certificates that the SAAA, has never built a home built -- Tootle pip!! You can’t keep preaching to us on what to do when: a. You’ve never done it yourself b. You aren’t posting correct information c. You have provided no references or paragraph numbers To suggest that an experimental aircraft required the issue of a new C of A for the fitting of a GoPro Mount is ludicrous at best. What if it was an A380 prototype, does that mean it’s a minor modification or major one? Do you think they would reissue the C of A for that? You need to understand the financial implications of making incorrect statements as some poor sod might call up Steve Dines for a new C of A when it’s simply not required. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10339953)
So I’ll take that as a resounding NO. You can’t keep preaching to us on what to do when: a. You’ve never done it yourself b. You aren’t posting correct information c. You have provided no references or paragraph numbers To suggest that an experimental aircraft required the issue of a new C of A for the fitting of a GoPro Mount is ludicrous at best. What if it was an A380 prototype, does that mean it’s a minor modification or major one? Do you think they would reissue the C of A for that? You need to understand the financial implications of making incorrect statements as some poor sod might call up Steve Dines for a new C of A when it’s simply not required. Stephen would be just the bloke to explain to you the nuances of the "rule". That is, rules as they actually are, as opposed to what some, including within SAAA, "think" they are. Unfortunately we now have CASA making up new "standards" for amateur built aircraft that are going to make it increasingly difficult for builders, and I don't see or hear SAAA objecting. As for my mention of an A-380, you clearly have no idea of the detail that goes into issuing an Experimental Test and Development certificate. Indeed, on one occasion I remember well, three separate such certificates were issued in sequence for the one CASR 23 aircraft, in one day, when working on changing an oil cooler and mounting configuration. The CASA delegate was on-site for the day, just for that purpose --- and for the manufacturer (not an amateur builder, a real dinky dye actual plane maker manufacturer) to stay legal. Tootle pip!! PS: I personally agree that it should be much easier to fit something like a GoPro, particularly inside the aircraft, but that is not the point, making certain you are "legal" and your insurance, particularly your third party insurance is valid, is the point. One well known identity was hauled over the coals because he had a small timer/stopwatch attached to his instrument panel with velcro. |
Please don’t patronize me by telling me I have “no idea.” I’ve had more C of A’s issued and built more aircraft than you ever will. My last C of A was issued by CASA directly; No Steve and no SAAA. How is that possible?? |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10342464)
Please don’t patronize me by telling me I have “no idea.” I’ve had more C of A’s issued and built more aircraft than you ever will. My last C of A was issued by CASA directly; No Steve and no SAAA. How is that possible?? Have you, indeed?? A Certificate of Airworthiness. That is most interesting, seeing as you believe having built an amateur built aircraft is a pre-requisite for any knowledge of these "rules". An Experimental Certificate of Airworthiness?? No you haven't. Not under the provisions of CASR 1998 Part 21.191 to 21.195, you haven't. Not in Australia. Somehow I doubt you have built an aircraft under a Type Certificate/Production Certificate or similar, so it is most unlikely those provisions of CASR 1998 Part 21 apply. There is no such thing as an Experimental Certificate of Airworthiness.Just an Experiment Certificate in whatever category of Experimental Certificate you have sought, not limited to Amateur Built, see CASR 21.191 through to 21.195. The difference is fundamentally significant, a significance you have, by your posts, clearly missed. How could that be, because you have built one or more aircraft?? As Stephen could explain to you, by definition, no Experimental aircraft is "airworthy", and therefor cannot carry an "airworthiness certificate", because the word "airworthy" has a very specific meaning in law, nationally and internationally ---- but how could I possibly know that, because I haven't built an aeroplane. An interesting issue is the AABA aircraft, that have a piece of paper that purports to be a C.of A, but it isn't really, and never was, that was just an Australian/SAAA conceit --- Australia never ever notified ICAO of a difference nominating an Australian (now CASR 21.190 SPECIAL Certificate of Airworthiness --- still NOT a Certificate of Airworthiness ) AABA as an Annex VIII Certificate of Airworthiness ---- but how could I know that, as I have never built one. Patronise you?? Pot calling kettle!!! You really lead with your chin, don't you. Have a Experimental Certified Merry Christmas and Compliant New Year. Tootle pip!! PS: "How is that possible" ---- because the delegate under the legislation, who issued the Experimental Certificate, happened to be employed by CASA, that how! |
I know CAsA has pulled up a few for the sticky pads, the out come I do not recall and will depend on the CAsA office anyway.
There are more than 1 or 2 fixed wing and helicopters around with such mounts both outside the cabin and inside the cabin on VH registered aircraft. So it is reasonable to assume that someone has actually got an EO to apply it/them. I do not expect it would be a big task to get an EO done (or a rego added to one) maybe a few hundred $'s. I do expect that it would need to be attached and tested by a LAME most likely with calibrated scales followed by a log book entry that will increase the cost. I expect that there are generic locations they can not be mounted, the procedure they are mounted and test forces to be applied after mounting dependant on speeds and G ratings of the aircraft. There will need to be a ongoing test/inspection procedure for the mount also. Maybe ask this guy - no affiliation but have used him before. https://www.bowdeneng.com.au/ |
Unsubscribe |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.