Fitting a Go-Pro on a Helicopter - Any Issues?
I find it hard to believe that on this forum, a "Professional Pilots'" forum after all, that such a question can be asked and attract such a slew of rubbish, illegal, utterly unprofessional and downright dangerous suggestions, surmise and guesswork on such a serious subject.
Is there truly no Professional here who can quote the rules regarding hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter as opposed to surmising about what they might want to, hope they could do, think they ought to be able to do, hope they could get away with or have decided is safe simply because it suits them to say so?
Professional? For shame.
Is there truly no Professional here who can quote the rules regarding hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter as opposed to surmising about what they might want to, hope they could do, think they ought to be able to do, hope they could get away with or have decided is safe simply because it suits them to say so?
Professional? For shame.
I can't find anything yet from the caa about go pros, but looking at electronic flight bags (bear with me), I'm getting the feeling that any item not accessible during flight by the crew needs to be installed as certified equipment covered by the type certificate, but if mounted device is secured either on the flight crew (for example, a kneeboard) or in/to an existing aircraft part (for example, utilising suction cups), with the intention to hold charts or to hold acceptable light mass portable devices it doesn't...
Light mass portable devices attached by suction cups could be read across as GoPro?
Light mass portable devices attached by suction cups could be read across as GoPro?
From the CAA: CAP1369 Camera Mounts Guide
Worth noting
Reference: CAP1369
Title: Camera Mounts Guide
Description: 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.
Status: Current
Review Comment: None
Version: 1
Date: 27 January 2016
Title: Camera Mounts Guide
Description: 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.
Status: Current
Review Comment: None
Version: 1
Date: 27 January 2016
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
snip
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
snip
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
The devil is in the detail..
the reality is this.. You can do what you want to your helicopter and YOU are responsible for that.Stick a tomtom or a gopro wherever you want but if your actions cause an incident (Not Accident because you have deviated) you will be held responsible.
When I come across illegal mods to aircraft I remove and reinstate the machine to the documented standard .
As soon as you secure it to the machine or hard wire it you need a STC.
And all you pilot maintainers remember you are only allowed to follow the approved maintenance program so you cant install a camera unless the paperwork says it can be there.
But what do I know?
the reality is this.. You can do what you want to your helicopter and YOU are responsible for that.Stick a tomtom or a gopro wherever you want but if your actions cause an incident (Not Accident because you have deviated) you will be held responsible.
When I come across illegal mods to aircraft I remove and reinstate the machine to the documented standard .
As soon as you secure it to the machine or hard wire it you need a STC.
And all you pilot maintainers remember you are only allowed to follow the approved maintenance program so you cant install a camera unless the paperwork says it can be there.
But what do I know?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowfat
What is the interpretation of "secure" or "attach ? (You can get around the hard wire by simply using a battery or a cigarette lighter socket).
"Cap1369 camera mounts guide", appears to be just a guide and does not apply to EASA aircraft anyway.
Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?
The devil is in the detail..
As soon as you secure it to the machine or hard wire it you need a STC.
"Cap1369 camera mounts guide", appears to be just a guide and does not apply to EASA aircraft anyway.
Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Chops, do you ever read the posts of others and the documents that you refer to in your own posts?
Having read the CAP, I notice that it says:
"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."
"This policy is applicable to non-EASA GA aircraft that are subject to UK CAA regulatory oversight ...
... 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."
Read the document 
"Cap1369 camera mounts guide", appears to be just a guide and does not apply to EASA aircraft anyway.
Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?
Where is the legislation (Law) that states temporarily (without modifications to the aircraft) carrying a camera mount requires a STC?
Having read the CAP, I notice that it says:
"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."
"This policy is applicable to non-EASA GA aircraft that are subject to UK CAA regulatory oversight ...
... 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."
What is the interpretation of "secure" or "attach ?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sid
Yes of course.
Still no answer to my question though.
Where is the LEGISLATION that states carrying a non permanently attached (i.e. no mod to the airframe) internal or external for that matter, camera / mount requires an STC?
Perhaps there is no Legislation (only guidance), that's why we can't find it.
Which would mean mounting it anyway would not be illegal. The only way it could be made illegal is if a CAA representative declares it unsafe and issues a prohibition to fly notice, then if flown with said mount rigged, then becomes an offence, all be it a different offence.
That is my experience anyway.
Chops, do you ever read the posts of others and the documents that you refer to in your own posts?
Still no answer to my question though.
Where is the LEGISLATION that states carrying a non permanently attached (i.e. no mod to the airframe) internal or external for that matter, camera / mount requires an STC?
Perhaps there is no Legislation (only guidance), that's why we can't find it.
Which would mean mounting it anyway would not be illegal. The only way it could be made illegal is if a CAA representative declares it unsafe and issues a prohibition to fly notice, then if flown with said mount rigged, then becomes an offence, all be it a different offence.
That is my experience anyway.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The only way it could be made illegal is if a CAA representative declares it unsafe and issues a prohibition to fly notice, then if flown with said mount rigged, then becomes an offence, all be it a different offence.
That is my experience anyway.
That is my experience anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ask me tomorrow
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fs3CC5FXu28
Sure, U.S. Air Force plays by different rules, but it can be done quite well, physically.
Sure, U.S. Air Force plays by different rules, but it can be done quite well, physically.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legislation some of you are looking for is most likely addressed by FAR/CS 27.561 ( and the equivalent FAR/CS 23 for fixed wing) which effectively states that any item of mass in the cabin which could break free in the event of an accident and cause injury, must be secured to specified G loadings. It really doesn't matter if it's a clamped-on camera or a fire extinguisher, the regulation is the same. In the new CAA guidance document, they have provided a route to ensuring compliance with this requirement for small cameras within prescribed weight limits without the need to have an approved modification in place. However, this only applies to CAA regulated annex 11 aircraft and not EASA types.
Of the 150 accidents between 2000 and 2013 where filming or photography was taking place, none were found to be caused by poorly fitted cameras on the airframe or inside cabin.
But go pros are fairly new and their use is becoming common place so it is early days.
I suspect two cases where the use of hand held cameras could have fouled controls. (One pilot argued in court that a hand held camera fouled the controls).
So in principle, small remote cameras are a safer option than a cameraman in the front seat
Cabling from the Cineflex control box to pilot and director monitors should be carefully inspected.
Mention in this thread was made of a cable run around the door sill as being a potential entrapment hazard, but the other option is routing it between seats and so very close to the collective....
Two cases where cameraman drowned when they became trapped in a non regulation harness. Avoidable deaths had regulations been adhered too....but that could be said for the majority of rotary accidents
Michael Schumacher's camera helmet broke, so attach a camera using a sticky pad at your own risk.
Suction clamp with a saftey tie to prevent the camera falling and jamming pedals or collective is my preference. If no saftey tie, then gaffer tape around the suction pad that will delay the camera falling.
A length of string and gaffer tape makes a worth saftey tie for interior fixing.
I'm surprised of the apparent casual attitude of majority of pilots to the threat of cameras, monitors or gps kit falling into their lap, it seems pilots are accustomed to trusting techs and trust that a camera tech knows what he is doing. If a multicamera interior setup is needed, it's wise for an engineer to be present before the rig starts rather than (only) at the end.
Mention made of (Li ion?) batteries being dangerous cargo. Easily avoided by using nicads. But beware, without an internal fuse a nicad can deliver in a blink, enough amps to cause a fire.
Due to airline carry-on restrictions regarding Lithium, travelling TV crew are reverting back to nicads or Nickel metal hydride batteries. Be particularly aware of home-made block batteries.
I can think of a couple of accidents where the cause could have been hand held cameras or errant cables but post crash evidence is non existent due to the mobility of a temporary fixing and fragility of cameras in a post crash fire.
However, there is no lack of evidence that the prescence of a camera in a cockpit can, at least, be a distraction and at worst have a narcotic effect on the pilot.
So as you rig your make-me-famous cam, remember the scores of pilots killed in the past decade in a cockpit filled with luvvie fever.
Mickjoebill
But go pros are fairly new and their use is becoming common place so it is early days.
I suspect two cases where the use of hand held cameras could have fouled controls. (One pilot argued in court that a hand held camera fouled the controls).
So in principle, small remote cameras are a safer option than a cameraman in the front seat
Cabling from the Cineflex control box to pilot and director monitors should be carefully inspected.
Mention in this thread was made of a cable run around the door sill as being a potential entrapment hazard, but the other option is routing it between seats and so very close to the collective....
Two cases where cameraman drowned when they became trapped in a non regulation harness. Avoidable deaths had regulations been adhered too....but that could be said for the majority of rotary accidents
Michael Schumacher's camera helmet broke, so attach a camera using a sticky pad at your own risk.
Suction clamp with a saftey tie to prevent the camera falling and jamming pedals or collective is my preference. If no saftey tie, then gaffer tape around the suction pad that will delay the camera falling.
A length of string and gaffer tape makes a worth saftey tie for interior fixing.
I'm surprised of the apparent casual attitude of majority of pilots to the threat of cameras, monitors or gps kit falling into their lap, it seems pilots are accustomed to trusting techs and trust that a camera tech knows what he is doing. If a multicamera interior setup is needed, it's wise for an engineer to be present before the rig starts rather than (only) at the end.
Mention made of (Li ion?) batteries being dangerous cargo. Easily avoided by using nicads. But beware, without an internal fuse a nicad can deliver in a blink, enough amps to cause a fire.
Due to airline carry-on restrictions regarding Lithium, travelling TV crew are reverting back to nicads or Nickel metal hydride batteries. Be particularly aware of home-made block batteries.
I can think of a couple of accidents where the cause could have been hand held cameras or errant cables but post crash evidence is non existent due to the mobility of a temporary fixing and fragility of cameras in a post crash fire.
However, there is no lack of evidence that the prescence of a camera in a cockpit can, at least, be a distraction and at worst have a narcotic effect on the pilot.
So as you rig your make-me-famous cam, remember the scores of pilots killed in the past decade in a cockpit filled with luvvie fever.
Mickjoebill
Interesting point.
Son just came back from air-cadets flying camp.
No Go-Pros allowed in cockpits - either in powered aircraft or gliders.
"Because they're too distracting and you'll focus on looking good, not flying..."
Son just came back from air-cadets flying camp.
No Go-Pros allowed in cockpits - either in powered aircraft or gliders.
"Because they're too distracting and you'll focus on looking good, not flying..."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: somerset
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Fly 7 says: "I've flown helicopters with external side baskets with bags secured with elastic cords.". So have I, because the Hughes 269/Schweizer 300 has optional external luggage carriers designed specifically for that purpose. The side baskets attach securely to the aircraft and are certified to do so.
But their design and purpose is specifically to then allow other things (luggage, freight, cameras?) to be subsequently attached to them. All things that Wageslave might consider "hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter".
Clearly there is a weight and balance issue and a safety issue in terms of how luggage is attached to the luggage carrier, but I cannot believe that each piece of luggage (one of which might, for example, be a camera) would need an STC?
But their design and purpose is specifically to then allow other things (luggage, freight, cameras?) to be subsequently attached to them. All things that Wageslave might consider "hanging extraneous bits off a helicopter".
Clearly there is a weight and balance issue and a safety issue in terms of how luggage is attached to the luggage carrier, but I cannot believe that each piece of luggage (one of which might, for example, be a camera) would need an STC?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typically an STC which covers an external payload mount won't list the specific items (e.g Cineflex V14) but rather a stated maximum mass and frontal area on the mount that has been established by flight test during STC certification. Certainly that's how all of the ones I've been involved in writing have been constructed, to provide maximum flexibility to the end user. The specific mass and area limitations are given in an RFMS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plot thickens.
Looking at this thread, on another forum - Approval required for camera mounts.*-*FLYER Forums
it seems that the rules are equally confusing about internally mounted devices. Although, at least the FAA have reasonably pragmatic guidelines (p. 3).
Looking at this thread, on another forum - Approval required for camera mounts.*-*FLYER Forums
it seems that the rules are equally confusing about internally mounted devices. Although, at least the FAA have reasonably pragmatic guidelines (p. 3).
"Typically an STC which covers an external payload mount won't list the specific item"
In respect to camera mounts there appears to no requirement for the payload itself to be approved. In UK, Pre EASA you needed a Proof of Design and Performance for the payload. This was meant to prove the payload could cope with the rigours of flying and wouldn't fall apart. I wrote one myself for a particular gimbal
But now there is apparently/could be wrong/grey area no requirement from EASA for the payloads dangling from hard points to be "certified". However the payloads do need to conform to whatever the STC of the mount or bracket stipulates. If the mount details a model number then you can't bolt anything but that piece of kit. If the wording is more generic, ie payload of 30kg with max surface area of 600sq cm then you could attach a mini gun or a expresso machine
So it would be helpful if helicopter manufacturers had interior hard points with a spec that could allow fitting of a wide range of useful kit. 3/8 whitworths dotted around the cabin would be handy.....
Mickjoebill
In respect to camera mounts there appears to no requirement for the payload itself to be approved. In UK, Pre EASA you needed a Proof of Design and Performance for the payload. This was meant to prove the payload could cope with the rigours of flying and wouldn't fall apart. I wrote one myself for a particular gimbal
But now there is apparently/could be wrong/grey area
no requirement from EASA for the payloads dangling from hard points to be "certified". However the payloads do need to conform to whatever the STC of the mount or bracket stipulates. If the mount details a model number then you can't bolt anything but that piece of kit. If the wording is more generic, ie payload of 30kg with max surface area of 600sq cm then you could attach a mini gun or a expresso machineSo it would be helpful if helicopter manufacturers had interior hard points with a spec that could allow fitting of a wide range of useful kit. 3/8 whitworths dotted around the cabin would be handy.....
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short overview from what we see and know.
- there are payload specific stc's and payload size defined stc's (we have both)
- most are payload sized defined
- payload specific(all up stc's) are usually more common on searchlights that need lots of wiring and draw big amps
- to install payloads that are at or below the parameters of the size stipulated in the rfm, what we almost always see is a full structural / electrical engineering reports, do160 testing and in many cases awrs to back up the payloads ability to do the job.
- in addition, with our stc's we have a check list of ground and flight tests that must be done with any new payloads. 100% we see people taking the high road and not short cutting. in other words, we dont see stupid stuff often.
- we have many very large mounts that DO NOT require any airframes mods, but they 100% do have stc approvals.
- bottom line, if its on the outside and has drag, best to have an stc, engineeering, testing, etc
- yes, there is alot of grey areas in wording from various governing agencies and what is done in the field. with over 3000 mounts in service and having been in the industry since 1984, cant remember the last time i really was taken back by an install. just the opposite
- there are payload specific stc's and payload size defined stc's (we have both)
- most are payload sized defined
- payload specific(all up stc's) are usually more common on searchlights that need lots of wiring and draw big amps
- to install payloads that are at or below the parameters of the size stipulated in the rfm, what we almost always see is a full structural / electrical engineering reports, do160 testing and in many cases awrs to back up the payloads ability to do the job.
- in addition, with our stc's we have a check list of ground and flight tests that must be done with any new payloads. 100% we see people taking the high road and not short cutting. in other words, we dont see stupid stuff often.
- we have many very large mounts that DO NOT require any airframes mods, but they 100% do have stc approvals.
- bottom line, if its on the outside and has drag, best to have an stc, engineeering, testing, etc
- yes, there is alot of grey areas in wording from various governing agencies and what is done in the field. with over 3000 mounts in service and having been in the industry since 1984, cant remember the last time i really was taken back by an install. just the opposite
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
southerncanuk
Do the very large mounts have STC approvals because the law demands it, or because it will stop the authority from prohibiting flight when rigged without one?
"Best to" or a legal requirement?
- we have many very large mounts that DO NOT require any airframes mods, but they 100% do have stc approvals.
bottom line, if its on the outside and has drag, best to have an stc, engineeering, testing, etc
Last edited by chopjock; 6th Feb 2016 at 22:01.