Fitting a Go-Pro on a Helicopter - Any Issues?
Thanks for that Stitch.
I looked around for these mounts some time ago and could only find the mounts for ground troop helmets. Quick search now has found what I wanted, fairly newly released.
TeeS
Actually, disregard the above, the release I found was from 2011 and is the one I had previously seen, the wording says
but it doesn't seem to be compatible with the FENS system which is what I am after. TeeS
I looked around for these mounts some time ago and could only find the mounts for ground troop helmets. Quick search now has found what I wanted, fairly newly released.
TeeS
Actually, disregard the above, the release I found was from 2011 and is the one I had previously seen, the wording says
GoPro’s NVG Mount Makes it Easy to Attach a GoPro Camera to any Military or Civil Service Helmet Outfitted with a Night Vision Goggle Mounting
Last edited by TeeS; 14th Jan 2016 at 12:19.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Thaïland
Age: 67
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew with 5 or 6 gopro attached on my helicopter on the same time for a video shooting.
No problem, just be carefull for good mount and secure it with tirap, that's all.
I had one on the top of the head and very interesting to see the blade movement up and dawn when rotor running
No problem, just be carefull for good mount and secure it with tirap, that's all.
I had one on the top of the head and very interesting to see the blade movement up and dawn when rotor running
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: N52.7 W2.04
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello everyone, sorry - not logged in for a while, so not seen the requests for the legislation which allows this.
I will dig through my books tomorrow and see what I can find, as a licensed engineer I had to learn about this cr@p before becoming a member of the two wing master race!
I will dig through my books tomorrow and see what I can find, as a licensed engineer I had to learn about this cr@p before becoming a member of the two wing master race!
In Canada everything attached to the aircraft must be approved
Part V - Airworthiness Manual Chapter 551 - Aircraft Equipment and Installation - Transport Canada
Interpretation Provision for Part V Standards
In these Standards:
Part V - Airworthiness Manual Chapter 551 - Aircraft Equipment and Installation - Transport Canada
Interpretation Provision for Part V Standards
In these Standards:
- (a) The passages giving the Minister power to determine, approve or authorise something without stating criteria for the use of such power are to be interpreted as requiring that the power be used in consideration of two factors only:
the airworthiness of the aircraft that is the subject of the determination, approval or authorisation, or on which an aeronautical product that is the subject of the determination, approval or authorisation is to be installed, and the aircraft's level of safety; - (b) The word "approved", when used without any indication of a method of approval, is to be interpreted as referring to an approval granted under the Aeronautics Act.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: N52.7 W2.04
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so tucked away in the back of the EASA website, I found the definition of modification:
A permanent change to the construction, configuration, performance, environmental characteristics, or operating limitations of the affected civil aeronautical product
As they say, the devil is in the detail, with the word permanent.
When I am at a PC tomorrow I'll post a link (if I remember)
A permanent change to the construction, configuration, performance, environmental characteristics, or operating limitations of the affected civil aeronautical product
As they say, the devil is in the detail, with the word permanent.
When I am at a PC tomorrow I'll post a link (if I remember)
I see all you pilots have individual opinions but, as a QM in several UK companies, I've had to deal with several GoPro cameras mounted in a variety of rotorcraft for Reality TV purposes.
One enterprise fitted four cameras to one of our Helis before informing the company (the pilot just let them modify the aircraft while it was on-line - but what do pilots know about aircraft maintenance?)
When the cameras were reported at the head office they were all immediately removed.
The TV producers (who the Pilot let crawl all over his cockpit?) had fitted them around a cockpit/cabin all linked to a single battery to extend their cameras lives over a full shift - this breached Dangerous Goods rules by the size of the central LiPo battery and they had to provide a detachable pouch in case of battery overheat.
'They' also routed camera power cables around crew door frames where they could cause foot or neck entrapment - again, in breach or door clearance regs.
Another enterprise at another company tried to install home-made bracketry to the frames/fixtures - and this constituted both an unapproved mod and a permanent fixture. The camera team had to get their bracket, and where they wanted to mount it, approved as an STC before they could install it.
As for mounting on the outside using only the device for mounting on a car! Well, I'm not really surprised at some of the unqualified speculation here...
One enterprise fitted four cameras to one of our Helis before informing the company (the pilot just let them modify the aircraft while it was on-line - but what do pilots know about aircraft maintenance?)
When the cameras were reported at the head office they were all immediately removed.
The TV producers (who the Pilot let crawl all over his cockpit?) had fitted them around a cockpit/cabin all linked to a single battery to extend their cameras lives over a full shift - this breached Dangerous Goods rules by the size of the central LiPo battery and they had to provide a detachable pouch in case of battery overheat.
'They' also routed camera power cables around crew door frames where they could cause foot or neck entrapment - again, in breach or door clearance regs.
Another enterprise at another company tried to install home-made bracketry to the frames/fixtures - and this constituted both an unapproved mod and a permanent fixture. The camera team had to get their bracket, and where they wanted to mount it, approved as an STC before they could install it.
As for mounting on the outside using only the device for mounting on a car! Well, I'm not really surprised at some of the unqualified speculation here...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga
So there should be legislation somewhere stating this right?
Presumably then the bracketry was mounted permanently by drilling holes in the airframe?
The camera team had to get their bracket, and where they wanted to mount it, approved as an STC before they could install it.
Another enterprise at another company tried to install home-made bracketry to the frames/fixtures - and this constituted both an unapproved mod and a permanent fixture.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: N52.7 W2.04
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Rigga, mine is not unqualified speculation! I suspect from your screen name, you and I both started life in the Air Force as the same trade? I left, passed my BCAR Sect L, converted to a restricted 66 B1.3 licence, removed my electrics restriction and also added B1.4 & C categories to my engineers licence, before going on to learn to fly!
I've seen many "non permanent" mods to airframes fitted by far more cowboy engineers than discussed here. Simply put, a non permanent, removable Gopro mount that does not make ANY permanent changes to the airframe do not require any approval, nor a CRS for fitting & removal - you can buy ipad mounts on the web which fix to control columns for heaven sake - these have far more hidden danger than a 250g camera fitted to a skid tube!
I've seen many "non permanent" mods to airframes fitted by far more cowboy engineers than discussed here. Simply put, a non permanent, removable Gopro mount that does not make ANY permanent changes to the airframe do not require any approval, nor a CRS for fitting & removal - you can buy ipad mounts on the web which fix to control columns for heaven sake - these have far more hidden danger than a 250g camera fitted to a skid tube!
I see all you pilots have individual opinions but, as a QM in several UK companies
Edited to say: 'Sorry that should have been compliance managers, I believe we don't do quality anymore
'
Last edited by TeeS; 14th Jan 2016 at 23:27. Reason: Out of date terminology
Totally agree tqmatch
Fly 7, this is almost the greyest of grey areas.
Carry a camera on board - no problem.
Rest it on the vacant seat next to you with it filming, don't think that would be a problem.
Rest it on the window frame, OK - however, it won't stay there but a bit of bluetac might sort it? No, OK I'll try a bit of double sided sticky tape. No, how about one of those GoPro sticky pads? A clamp etc. etc.
Hang on though - don't those GoPro 4 use Bluetooth and Wifi? Can I use those during all/any stages of flight - Ah, that is up to the operator - is he aware this is a portable electronic device?
Hence my original response - I tried to avoid the term 'risk assess' but in the end, it comes down to you trying to think what might happen if your stress/bonding analysis fails, your secondary restraint method fails and the outcome is bad.
Cheers
TeeS
Fly 7, this is almost the greyest of grey areas.
Carry a camera on board - no problem.
Rest it on the vacant seat next to you with it filming, don't think that would be a problem.
Rest it on the window frame, OK - however, it won't stay there but a bit of bluetac might sort it? No, OK I'll try a bit of double sided sticky tape. No, how about one of those GoPro sticky pads? A clamp etc. etc.
Hang on though - don't those GoPro 4 use Bluetooth and Wifi? Can I use those during all/any stages of flight - Ah, that is up to the operator - is he aware this is a portable electronic device?
Hence my original response - I tried to avoid the term 'risk assess' but in the end, it comes down to you trying to think what might happen if your stress/bonding analysis fails, your secondary restraint method fails and the outcome is bad.
Cheers
TeeS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,885 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we are working on a variety of approved STC'd light weight camera mounting platforms, specifically for the R44/R66, AS350/355, 206/407 etc. we already have our sister company making a high speed case specific for the GoPro at the following:
PEOVI | Go faster?Way faster?. we have run the Peovi cases over 300MPH on top fuel funny cars. they use ultra slow video motion to review the color of exhaust to determine how cylinders are functioning.
we would not agree with the statement concerning mods that non permanent changes do not need an approval. we cannot speak for every aviation agency, but from experience, you will need approvals for anything hanging outside the airframe. many of our mounts do not require permanent mods, but they DO need STC's.
Cal Meeker. Meekeraviation.com
PEOVI | Go faster?Way faster?. we have run the Peovi cases over 300MPH on top fuel funny cars. they use ultra slow video motion to review the color of exhaust to determine how cylinders are functioning.
we would not agree with the statement concerning mods that non permanent changes do not need an approval. we cannot speak for every aviation agency, but from experience, you will need approvals for anything hanging outside the airframe. many of our mounts do not require permanent mods, but they DO need STC's.
Cal Meeker. Meekeraviation.com
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
southerncanuck
Yes, there is a lot of hearsay about that. But where is the legislation?
but from experience, you will need approvals for anything hanging outside the airframe. many of our mounts do not require permanent mods, but they DO need STC's.
TQ.
You seem to have misread my post because I did not mention suction mounts untill I said about mounting cameras outside. I also did not mention carry-on cameras. I described camera mounting that, in my opinion as the company QM, was a hazard to crew.
FYI I was an A&C Turbine Helis in 1986 followed by piston light aircraft and large turbines and pressurised aircraft before converting to EASA 66 B1.1, B1.2 and B1.4. I have type ratings on B737 and EC145. Your opinions don't really concern me unless you are in my company, in which case I would ask you to visit me for a chat. I was simply giving my experiences and how I dealt with them.
You seem to have misread my post because I did not mention suction mounts untill I said about mounting cameras outside. I also did not mention carry-on cameras. I described camera mounting that, in my opinion as the company QM, was a hazard to crew.
FYI I was an A&C Turbine Helis in 1986 followed by piston light aircraft and large turbines and pressurised aircraft before converting to EASA 66 B1.1, B1.2 and B1.4. I have type ratings on B737 and EC145. Your opinions don't really concern me unless you are in my company, in which case I would ask you to visit me for a chat. I was simply giving my experiences and how I dealt with them.