Internally mounted Go-Pro ruling

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Does anyone have any firm intel on CASA's position regarding internally mounted cameras? I'm specifically looking for their stance on VH registered Light Sport Aircraft and wondering whether or not LSA's would fall under some sort of exemption that does not require obtaining an Engineering Order just to ceiling mount or dash mount a Go-Pro. So far I haven't been able to find anything in writing regarding internal cameras, only external. Thanks in advance. 

 

 

[djpacro]

My guess is that their position is identical to an internal installation of an EFB - from an engineering point of view they have similar considerations. The law is identical.

 

I suggest that you read the CAAP in EFBs, just the short text on airworthiness engineering approval.

 

 

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Thanks DJP, I'll do that. Cheers

 

 

[spacesailor]

OR

 

Stick it on your head,

 

Then we see what your looking at, instead of a one view stare, !

 

just a thought.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

OR

Stick it on your head,

 

Then we see what your looking at, instead of a one view stare, !

 

just a thought.

 

spacesailor

Tried that, Spacey. Totally unwatchable footage, because my head is constantly scanning for traffic.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Agreed

 

But it's good for us mortals to shout-out, (while watching video), plane on your left,!

 

So how about the shoulder, you'l have to twist the body to give us a look-see.

 

If it's mounted solidly, will vibrations have an effect on the video,?

 

As I no longer fly (student pilot),  watching your & other's exploits keeps me happy.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kgwilson]

Most action cameras are pretty wide angle. Mine is 170 degrees & mounted above head height on the bulkhead to my right it sees everything in front and a lot to either side plus my whole panel & even my feet on the rudder pedals. I have painted the top of the bubble canopy to stop my head being cooked & it sees the underside of that as well.

 

 

[old man emu]

I suppose the questions to be answered are:

 

1. Does the fitted position of the device reduce the pilot's outward viability?
    
    
   
2. Does the fitted position of the device impede the free movement of, or access to the aircraft's controls?
    
    
   
3. Does the fitted position of the device impede the pilot's clear view of all flight and systems instruments?
    
    
   
4. Does the fitted position of the device affect the aerodynamic characteristics of the aeroplane?
    
    
   
5. Could the device cause injury to the pilot or passengers in the event of sudden accelerations in any of the 3-axes?
    
    
   
6. Could the operation of the device affect the correct function of a the magnetic compass?
    
    
   
7. Could the operation of the device affect the operation of electrical equipment of the aeroplane?
    
    
   

 

 

If all the answers are "No", then I don't see any problem fitting the device. People do fit iPad holders, don't they?

 

 

[djpacro]

All good questions but not all of the questions ... and doesn’t answer the original question of what CASA’s position is.

 

 

[old man emu]

All good questions but not all of the questions ... and doesn’t answer the original question of what CASA’s position is.

Sorry. 

 

I made the mistake of doing what a "reasonable person" might do to ensure that anything added to an aeroplane, after its having been constructed to acceptable standards, could not endanger the aeroplane or occupants. A "reasonable person" is a hypothetical person of legal fiction.  There is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation.

 

Clearly, CASA, being the ultimate source of all things aviational, has transformed the "reasonable person" into a Public Service martinet.

 

 

[kaz3g]

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Any object mounted behind you can hit you in the back of the head in a crash. There is a requirement of 20 g crash loading, so if the go-pro weighs 100 gm then is should take a 2kg test load.

 

Now if you want to do the install at somebody else's risk, how will they know that you are smart enough to do it properly?

 

They ask for an engineering order, that's how. What would you do in their shoes?

 

For myself, I would have told nobody, but I would have proof-loaded the thing to 20 g.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I suppose the questions to be answered are:

 

1. Does the fitted position of the device reduce the pilot's outward viability?
    
    
   
2. Does the fitted position of the device impede the free movement of, or access to the aircraft's controls?
    
    
   
3. Does the fitted position of the device impede the pilot's clear view of all flight and systems instruments?
    
    
   
4. Does the fitted position of the device affect the aerodynamic characteristics of the aeroplane?
    
    
   
5. Could the device cause injury to the pilot or passengers in the event of sudden accelerations in any of the 3-axes?
    
    
   
6. Could the operation of the device affect the correct function of a the magnetic compass?
    
    
   
7. Could the operation of the device affect the operation of electrical equipment of the aeroplane?
    
    
   

 

 

If all the answers are "No", then I don't see any problem fitting the device. People do fit iPad holders, don't they?

8.  Could the device impede your exit in an emergency?

 

 

[spacesailor]

IF,

 

Any object fastened to your body Doesn't, need CASA Or L2 certification.

 

Same with LPG installation's. If not fastened down it becomes a "portable appliance" And not in need of certificate-plate.

 

Lots of "Go Pro" camera attachment devises.

 

spacesailor