Fitting a Go-Pro on a Helicopter - Any Issues?
 

The little Go-Pro HD cameras are brilliant.

We routinely attach them to race cars, motor bikes, ski helmets......you name it, with great results. They are also regularly used in aircraft cockpits.

But, can you attach one to the outside of a helicopter, say to the skids or a step for private use/training? Are there special rules, does an engineer need to check it, etc?

They are tiny - about the size of a match box, weigh nothing, and can be attached with total security (ie it will not move or fall off).

I think you'll find that anything "attached" to the aircraft requires an exemption and/or certification of the kit from the CAA, so best ask them, they'll be happy to show you the correct way. But heaven help you if anything happens and you haven't followed the correct procedure.

No doubt others will be able to quote chapter and verse.

Hi Fly

Rather than thinking:

Start from 'when it falls off, where can it go, what can it jam, who can it hurt, what secondary restraint can I use'.

Personally, in this day and age, I would not fit it outside without suitable engineering advice - the days of gaffer tape attachment are gone.

Regards

TeeS

Are you willing to bet your life on it? :ooh:

Yes. The location and security of the item would give me as much confidence as anything else on the helicopter. However, it would be useful to know if any one had encountered the specific rules.

Well, I do not now the specific rules, but attaching something (FLIR, rocket launchers, Movie-Camera Guimbals, GoPros, ...) to the outside of a helicopter will definitely change it´s weight&balance-situation and - even more important - it´s aerodynamics.
This change may not be relevant for the flight characteristics, but we as pilots are not allowed to judge it.
I can imagine, that "aerodynamical changes" need at least a certified workshop or even the manufacturer to evaluate the grade of change and issue an "STC" or something similar.
Remember: This should have to be done for every single mounting point, cause mounting a GoPro to the skid may be totally different from mounting it to the tip of a rotor blade (well, for the rotor to stay in balance, you should mount one GoPro to each tip of each rotor blade ;-) )...

So, mounting any "non certified" external equipment with any "non-certified" method at any "non certified" mounting point, may put at stake the type certification (and insurance!) of this very helicopter.

Anyway: Of course you just can give it a try and hope for the best, but please, don´t complain if this went out to the worst.

I´d rather be using the GoPro from inside the cockpit...

Thracian

we have tried it
gopro hero 4 black
excellent recording however slight amount of vibrations may be there
i dont think any certification would be required because its not altering any flying characteristics and interfering with nav eqpt

Go-Pro
 

Wow! I am kind of surprised by the responses to this so far... Its like a bunch of members of the FAA or international equivalent just spoke up at the same time.


That being said, I have never personally attached a go-pro or anything to the aircraft I fly, but that's not so say I wouldn't...I know many people who have and have seen many videos of people who have. Obviously its an added hazard because yes it could come loose and fall off. If it hit the main rotor or tail rotor, then you would be having a very bad day...If it falls off and hits someone or something on the ground...yes its possibly going to do some serious damage... Yes the FAA or someone may see it and be a little upitty or a lot upitty since they like to react that way. That being said if your smart about it, mount it solidly then there is no reason why you couldn't do it. I would never use the little sticky pads to slap it on the fuselage somewhere, but they make some pretty bomber roll bar mounts or the mounts are extremely versatile and easy to make custom. The weight and balance issue is nill... its not like were talking about a HD movie camera for professional work...we are talking about a little camera and mount that maybe weighs in at 2lbs (on the heavy side if you made a bomber mount) I loose 2 lbs when I take a dump sometimes and I am not going to redo my w&b for that... I fly with spray booms with all sorts of things that "could come loose and fall off"...But yes there is probably a "rule" against it...just like I shouldn't go 60 in a 55mph zone...

GoPro makes a suction mount that has been shown to stay attached at over 200mph. The same mount has also been shown to fail at 50mph lol.

And their adhesive mounts are pretty much permanent... a fact they don't really explain in any detail. There is a S76 in Malabo with my adhesive mount still stuck above the PIC seat on the ceiling lol. Owed the engineers a few beers for that little 'Whoops!' haha.

Why attach it outside? We all have panoramic views and permanently clean transparencies don't we? You could ask PW if this is a Go Pro:
Golf Ball Drop for the Langdon Charity by FlyingPigHelicopters | YouTube Channel Embed

Provided you are not breaking into any aircraft systems or structure, or making permanent changes, there is no requirement for any STC or issue of a CRS for the work to fit the go-pro or its mount.

I regularly use one both inside the cockpit and externally, I would reccomend a bolt down type clamp for external mounts, similar to the type of clamp used to mount ipad holders to control yokes in the fixed wing world - RAM mounts do some good products.

tq
That seems pretty logical and straight forward thinking, but would you or anyone else know where it may be legislated?

I would not want to ask the CAA as they will just say "you can't do that" by default.

Go-Pro
 

I guess my biggest concern would be if you violated something... Then you have it caught on tape...

So the answer when faced with something you anticipate to be illegal is what? Don't try to find out, just go ahead and do it anyway and if caught pretend you "didn't know"?

It won't work!

But why would the CAA say you cant do it if you can?

I'm afraid I don't think attaching things to the outside of aircraft can be done without permission. A go pro is just a camera after all. So is a 16mm Arriflex, do you just "attach" one of those and go flying without proper procedure and hope it doesn't fall off? I don't think so.

Either way, before doing this with a gopro I think it would be extremely unwise not to check with the CAA first, especially if you're creating evidence of the act by filming. Your insurance company would undoubtably have something to say about it too.

Wageslave
tqmatch
So which is it? what do the regs say?

Apparently it's perfectly ok to remove a door and have a cameraman hang his feet out with a camera on his lap though.

I can't remember off hand, but I remember fitting a gps clamp to a control wheel and powering it from the fused ( and that is important ) cigarette lighter plug, this was pre EASA, but the requirement at the time was it was ok as long as it was a temporary and removable fit and not permanent. But that was internal, see link in next thread

I realize this is the NZ CAA but as they all roughly follow the EASA system this will be a good basis to go from

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Publications/...tor_2014-4.pdf


http://www.australianflying.com.au/n...-camera-ruling

Yes, that kind of sums it up.

I've flown helicopters with external side baskets with bags secured with elastic cords.

The Go-pro is tiny. There really is no issue with weight, aerodynamics or security in the proposed location.

The concern is the legality, and I'm assuming it's something that requires 'approval'. But, before asking the CAA, I just wondered if anyone has had any previous experience - fixed wing or helicopter?

Good article here about the FAA view:

Camera Mount Common Sense - AVweb Insider Article

Main point:

"Basically, the memo says camera mounts aren't major alterations since they don't appreciably change flight characteristics, performance, weight and balance or basic airworthiness. They also don't represent changes to the aircraft's basic type certification, so no STC is necessary."

It goes on to say that if you get it wrong and something bad happens, the FAA can always use 91.13 (careless and reckless operation) anyway.

The absolutist view that ANY external temporary modification requires approval doesn't really pass the common sense test. What about the vinyl 12" numbers I used to make my plane legal to visit Mexico? What about a sticker from a sponsor?

If you fly in a headset this won't apply. You can get go pro mounts to fit the NVG bracket on most helmets, although the PoV will be above eye level. Hope this is helpful.

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 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 :ok:

:eek:

I take it that you're a proper test-pilot then...... :suspect:

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!

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:

1. (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;
2. (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.

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)

Yes please.:ok:

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...

Rigga
So there should be legislation somewhere stating this right?

Presumably then the bracketry was mounted permanently by drilling holes in the airframe?

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!

Um! Not like individual quality managers have different opinions then Rigga!!

Edited to say: 'Sorry that should have been compliance managers, I believe we don't do quality anymore ;) '

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

GoPro helmet mount
 

TeeS the mount I found was for an ALPHA, should work with anvis & fens although it will depend on what mount system you use on your lid.

If you have a link to that Stitch, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks

TeeS

Beware

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/549...d-cameras.html

Wasn't C. MEEKER working on a STC'd nose mount for the R44 for cameras up to 15 lbs? A Go Pro should have less than that.:}

tqmatch
Did you remember yet?:)

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

southerncanuck

Yes, there is a lot of hearsay about that. But where is the legislation?

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.