camera suggestion

[Robbo]

Have a read of this for a start zoos talks about mounting outside. I only have this link in my favorites but im sure if you look at the casa website you will find the other info.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100227/draftac23-1-0.pdf

 

 

[djpacro]

We are talking cameras not EFB does it apply to cameras... Because when i and others have asked bthCasa and raa what constitutes a modificati. ...they both specifically state tools v non tools required...

Nope, that CAAP is not about cameras but the rules about mods are very general so anything that applies to EFB mounting would logically apply to camera mounting.Still looking for a reference, such as https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c08.pdf Para 4.3.5 for example.

 

 

[DrZoos]

So in all seriousness a GoPro mounted to you personally does not constitue a modification, its a carry on item, just like your iphone... But the moment you attach it with a suction cap it becomes a fire risk and needs approval...

 

good luck casa getting a comviction on that one.....casa would have a very difficult time proving that a suction cap posed a fire risk

 

 

[Robbo]

Doesent matter, you broke the rules and ignored the regulations.

 

Simple!

 

Thats what they will get you for, not wether it poses a fire risk or not.

 

 

[M61A1]

I did read a thread on an American forum (may have been a link from something here) where mounting a camera on the wing significantly (and unexpectedly) increased the stall speed. Tools or no tools, it's about where it's mount and the effect it has.

 

 

[djpacro]

My small sample observations is that CASA people in the field don't care much about small cameras temporarily mounted internally yet the question often comes up and I have seen nothing in writing about it. If I get a verbal answer from CASA I always follow up with an email to confirm - sometimes I get nil response which tells me something.

 

When/if they do put something in writing it logically can't conflict with EFB mounting per that CAAP. Perhaps one day they will see how the USA does stuff but I'm not holding mybreath.

 

 

[M61A1]

Found the link, hope Ian is OK with posting.

 

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=888927&highlight=camera

 

 

[Karen Bable]

You can't go past the Go Pro attached to underside of the wing with the 3M mount. We have taken umpteen flights and it is rock solid. You have total control by bluetooth from inside the cockpit. Here is one of the many videos we have taken.

 

Just remember to remove the camera after tie down....something we kept forgetting!

 

 

[Robbo]

You can't go past the Go Pro attached to underside of the wing with the 3M mount. We have taken umpteen flights and it is rock solid. You have total control by bluetooth from inside the cockpit. Here is one of the many videos we have taken.

Totally legal....

NOT!!!!

 

 

[SDQDI]

Totally legal....NOT!!!!

The beauty of having a 19 registered plane:thumb up: I have recessed threads under the wing for cameras but my favourite position is the camera 2 feet in front of my tailwheel. I just prefer the balanced picture. If I tilt the camera up I can see my wings all the way into the outer part of the flaps, the only negative is landing in long grass or long crops. I just put a little screw through the sticky mount and it is solid but I have cracked the bit that clicks into the mount once so I steer clear of the long stuff while recording now:thumb up:

 

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Did you run over a yellow-bellied-sap-sucking-gound-warbler when landing? They sound like that.

 

 

[djpacro]

At last, a sensible process for approval of camera installations - in the UK only.

 

"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."

 

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf

 

 

[frank marriott]

without seeming to be overly prescriptive or overly regulating

I don't think these words will ever by used by our mob

 

 

[Karen Bable]

Very interesting. It's nice to see some common sense prevailing and a little bit of 'moving with the times' and technology. Is there any hope it will happen here??!!

 

 

[Guest George89]

This one GoPro HERO5 Black 4K Action Camera CHDHX-501 | Camera-Warehouse