New policy on mounting cameras like GoPros to GA aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New policy on mounting cameras like GoPros to GA aircraft
News Just in...
If you wish to attach a small camera (such as a GoPro) to a non EASA certified GA aircraft then the attachment needs to be inspected by a Part66 licensed aircraft engineer or via the CAA as a minor modification to the aircraft. To approve any installation the engineer will need to complete a maintenance release checklist and complete the aircraft logbook entry.
For aircraft overseen by the British Microlight Aircraft Association or Light Aircraft Association those organisation’s requirements apply.
More detail at CAP1369: Camera Mounts Guide
Important note:
If you wish to attach a small camera (such as a GoPro) to a non EASA certified GA aircraft then the attachment needs to be inspected by a Part66 licensed aircraft engineer or via the CAA as a minor modification to the aircraft. To approve any installation the engineer will need to complete a maintenance release checklist and complete the aircraft logbook entry.
For aircraft overseen by the British Microlight Aircraft Association or Light Aircraft Association those organisation’s requirements apply.
More detail at CAP1369: Camera Mounts Guide
Important note:
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 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;
regulatory oversight, (CAP 747- Mandatory requirements for airworthiness contains
the list of specific EASA and non-EASA aircraft types .......
– 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;
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth mentioning that it applies to externally mounted cameras only.
This guidance addresses small camera installations mounted internally or externally on aircraft structures
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the camera is fitted in or near the cockpit, it must not interfere
with any cockpit controls, nor obstruct the pilot’s view of
instruments, the pilot’s external view or cause a distraction,
(the flash window / gun should be taped over)
with any cockpit controls, nor obstruct the pilot’s view of
instruments, the pilot’s external view or cause a distraction,
(the flash window / gun should be taped over)
. In order to reduce the risk of electromagnetic interference
(EMI) with aircraft systems, cameras that are equipped with
wireless interface and activation systems (including WiFi /
Bluetooth and similar wireless technologies with potential for
transmitting EMI) should be placed in a ‘flight safe mode’ with
the wireless functionality disabled; a limitation note to this
effect should be recorded by the LAE below for the attention of
the pilot/owner.
(EMI) with aircraft systems, cameras that are equipped with
wireless interface and activation systems (including WiFi /
Bluetooth and similar wireless technologies with potential for
transmitting EMI) should be placed in a ‘flight safe mode’ with
the wireless functionality disabled; a limitation note to this
effect should be recorded by the LAE below for the attention of
the pilot/owner.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from what's been quoted, the new guidance seems to be just common sense, I haven't read the document yet so it will be interesting to see what else is in there.
Fats
Fats
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you even read it?
This policy does not apply to hand-held carry-on cameras, nor devices worn by the pilot e.g. helmet-mounted cameras, which do not require any particular approval
During the flight, the pilot should not use or operate a handheld camera or other handheld remote sensing equipment.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how much it cuts down the amount of stuff posted on you tube.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from what's been quoted, the new guidance seems to be just common sense, I haven't read the document yet so it will be interesting to see what else is in there.
Paperwork and payments to engineers...
Hardly a common sense approach.
In a crash situation, having a GoPro come and hit me in the back of the head would be the least of my worries...
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is quite funny...
How is a go-pro more damaging than my kneeboard, charts, pens, calculator, phone, torches, life rafts, life jackets, portable radio, spare headsets, bags, fuel, DSLR camera, iPads, GPS trackers, strainers with sharp bits including all other loose item in the plane?
I can understand the regulations applying to outside the aeroplane, there is bound to be someone stupid enough to stick a suction pad on the aileron, or someone silly enough to tether the camera to the plane (and as it starts to flap in the wind make great big holes in the plane).
But inside the aeroplane - I don't get it.
Also what is it with regards to Bluetooth, Wifi? I don't understand - the only thing that is really annoying is the noise that comes through the headsets when a phone is interfering with the sound. I have never come across any other issues. I have had someone in the back seat sending work emails, and often loading googlemaps to find a particular house or feature they wanted to look at from the sky - never has any instrumentation been even remotely affected by any of this. Most of the planes I fly are more likely to be affected by faulty suction lines / instruments that never seem to read anything useful (I once was told that I was 40miles north of a VOR when I knew I was about 45miles south west - that's always fun in solid IMC!). In NZ - they even let you use your phone during takeoff and landing on commercial planes! Has there ever been an accident attributed to interfering signals from portable devices? I know they tried to prove that but I dont think they ever did?
How is a go-pro more damaging than my kneeboard, charts, pens, calculator, phone, torches, life rafts, life jackets, portable radio, spare headsets, bags, fuel, DSLR camera, iPads, GPS trackers, strainers with sharp bits including all other loose item in the plane?
I can understand the regulations applying to outside the aeroplane, there is bound to be someone stupid enough to stick a suction pad on the aileron, or someone silly enough to tether the camera to the plane (and as it starts to flap in the wind make great big holes in the plane).
But inside the aeroplane - I don't get it.
Also what is it with regards to Bluetooth, Wifi? I don't understand - the only thing that is really annoying is the noise that comes through the headsets when a phone is interfering with the sound. I have never come across any other issues. I have had someone in the back seat sending work emails, and often loading googlemaps to find a particular house or feature they wanted to look at from the sky - never has any instrumentation been even remotely affected by any of this. Most of the planes I fly are more likely to be affected by faulty suction lines / instruments that never seem to read anything useful (I once was told that I was 40miles north of a VOR when I knew I was about 45miles south west - that's always fun in solid IMC!). In NZ - they even let you use your phone during takeoff and landing on commercial planes! Has there ever been an accident attributed to interfering signals from portable devices? I know they tried to prove that but I dont think they ever did?
How is a go-pro more damaging than my kneeboard, charts, pens, calculator, phone, torches, life rafts, life jackets, portable radio, spare headsets, bags, fuel, DSLR camera, iPads, GPS trackers, strainers with sharp bits including all other loose item in the plane?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange. The cameras are a risk on their own right, but carry a safety advantage as well, that on-board cameras provide in objective flight de-briefs, self-learning, incident and accident investigations.
I am missing the role of the aircraft designers / manufacturers here. It would be far more efficient for everyone, if they provided approved internal / external camera mounting kits for designated attachment locations for their own designs. I am sure they could team up with the camera / mount makers, just to rip off a few more bucks from the camera users in exchange for certified combinations.
I am missing the role of the aircraft designers / manufacturers here. It would be far more efficient for everyone, if they provided approved internal / external camera mounting kits for designated attachment locations for their own designs. I am sure they could team up with the camera / mount makers, just to rip off a few more bucks from the camera users in exchange for certified combinations.
More bureaucratic buffoonery , I'd like to think the person flying the aircraft would always have the common sense ( that's all it needs )to ensure best security and fixing of any internally mounted camera ....... more over the top H & S BxxxxxxT
Have I been hiding under a rock? The idea that a pilot may not take photos is new to me - whilst I can see the obvious risks of doing so at low level or in a high workload environment.
What does "should" mean in CAA speak? Does it have regulatory power?
I mean, "a pilot should adequately micturate before embarking on a lengthy flight" is good advice, but could you get busted if you didn't?
I mean, "a pilot should adequately micturate before embarking on a lengthy flight" is good advice, but could you get busted if you didn't?
For me this is total overkill of a subject that deserves addressing but could have been handled with simple guidance and not the ridiculous proscriptive level of rule making that this notice involves.
The CAA are pledging to reduce regulation and gold plating and on one hand have rescinded the notice regarding charity flights that laid down strict limits and replaced it with general guidance. On this subject they are grossly over killing a subject that lent itself to be dealt with in a similar way.
I note the video involves flight in an EASA type, which for now, is exempt.
The CAA are pledging to reduce regulation and gold plating and on one hand have rescinded the notice regarding charity flights that laid down strict limits and replaced it with general guidance. On this subject they are grossly over killing a subject that lent itself to be dealt with in a similar way.
I note the video involves flight in an EASA type, which for now, is exempt.
