Doug G. Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 I just attended a FAAST seminar and the FAA rep said in no uncertain terms that externally mounted cameras are illegal without manufacturers approval (i.e. an LOA)! I realize the rules are different in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NC Bill Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 I believe the government program that applies here is "Don't ask. Don't tell". Not sure if Canadians are covered by that program. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hi Doug, Your FASST guy is technically correct, but like Bill said many use them anyway. It's that personal limit of being 100% legal I mentioned on your other thread. Small cameras out on our wing or up on the fin aren't a flight issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 If I had a wing cam... It would look something like this... But I don't have a wing cam, this is just hypothetical... If I had a wing cam, I'd of course have an LOA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 At the risk of sounding like a broken record... Be very, very careful about attaching anything to the outside of an airplane. Especially in or around any lifting surface or control surface. Think of the effects some things as apparently innocuous as stall strips and vortex generators can have on lift. Anything anywhere near the leading edge can affect stall speed. Imagine going for a nice, slow landing and having one wing stall first. A quick roll into the ground and a cartwheel could result. I've seen a camera mounted right in front of the leading edge at the pitot tube. Could easily propagate a stall on that wing first. I've mentioned a GoPro mounted to a rudder horn - an obvious no-no, from both an aerodynamic and balance perspective. I guess my point is, if you're not an aerodynamic engineer, be very, very careful. There are many installations that are probably benign, but Murphy tells us that its only a matter of time before we start to hear of crashes from the unintended consequences of stuff hanging off the airplane. Any time you think, "This location probably won't cause any problems", or, "I can't imagine this could make any difference", think back the the Most Conservative Action rule and remember in the first case you're admitting it possibly could cause a problem, and in the second you may just be suffering from a lack of imagination. Preach mode off - but be careful out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Flew this morning with a new Gopro Hero3 black. Suction cup on the wing. No issues worked great. Flew with a ground speed of 180 mph and a TAS of 155mph. (little tail wind and dive) No problems. Wi-FI remote worked very well. Tomorrow the Hero3 app is supposed to be out for IPhones and IPads. p.s. Calculated the wind pressure on the camera at 120 mph and it is around 1.5 to 2 lbs. No wonder the suction cup works well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C ICEY Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 experience dictates that I use dual camera mounts with symmetry of placement (but not necessarily direction of view) a single mount in front of a control surface or towards a leading edge will certainly tell you something is uncomfortably different. Fast Eddie's advice should be well heeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 I would say if they can hang this big thing right here and fly around... A small cam mounted to the tie down bolt is just fine... But hey, what do I know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 This would also suggest that another good area to mount a small camera would be underneath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Hi Adam, Too much heat and exhaust vapors and then oil vapors too. Remember all that oily yellow film that gets on the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Good point! I withdraw the bottom comment and revert to my wing mount post... If the CTLE can hang a big box on a wing, we can hang a small cam on the tiedown post... Merry Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Adam, I flew back to Michigan from Sebring last year and was accompanied in a "flight of three" by another CTLS and the CTLS that you posted. This is a CTLE (law enforcement). It has a FLEER camera mounted on it's wing and the aircraft travels around the country advertising this setup for law enforcement agencies who might be interested. As i recall, the pilot informed me that this CTLE will be classified as a "public use" but not sure. The pilot indicated that this classification allows the CTLE to be operated at a higher weight than the max allowed with the float setup. He indicated that Flight design has tested and certified the aircraft for this higher weight. http://flightdesignu...hown-to-public/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I don't get it. A lot of emphasis on "do more than the minimum for safety" when you have a mechanic work on your plane, but then don't worry about being 100% legal otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I don't believe the FAAST guys did anything more than offer an opinion. This topic has been discussed endlessly on many forums and I've never seen anything authoritative. At this point, I'm with the "don't ask, don't tell" crowd... I've yet to hear of an incident of a safely mounted, tiny camera causing any injury or damage on the ground, or causing any problem with a flying aircraft. Regulation typically follows incidents... Maybe we should get a ruling that you can't fly with shoes that use shoestrings.... you know, there's a chance those pesky strings will get caught up in the pedals and cause a wreck.... And maybe we should have the FAA require all pilots who wear glasses must have them tethered to their face... you never know when glasses might be jostled from your head during turbulence... Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yes, it was his opinion, but I believe it has been sent to FAA legal because of the mounting of cameras on the wings of aerobatic planes. In our case it falls under the CTLS manual (new version) "Airplane repair or alteration may only be carried out according to the Aircraft Maintenance Manual or according to approved Service instructions, issued by the manufacturer or by the holder of a Supplemental Type Certificate, valid for the aircraft type, model and S/N." I love the videos, I just wish there was a way this could be legitimized, which would take some official testing. I don't think you can argue that it does not affect the aerodynamics of the plane, or that it makes one wing's lift different from the other. The FAA is looking closely at the abberations in Light Sport manufacturing - can LSRM's and pilot's be far behind? And...I am doing nothing more than offering an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I've yet to hear of an incident of a safely mounted, tiny camera causing any injury or damage on the ground, or causing any problem with a flying aircraft. The first key word is "yet". The second key words are "safely mounted". From some of the installations I've seen, it's only a matter of time. And some of us may not be qualified to say what's "safely mounted" and what isn't. I'll stipulate that the average installation is highly unlikely to cause a problem. Still, even if something is 99.9% safe, that still means one out of every 1,000 times it may be unsafe. And that's unacceptable. Maybe not for a single flight, but fleet-wide that's a lot of unsafe flights. Given the proliferation of small video cameras, it might behoove the manufacturers to authorize certain locations and methods as safe. But the flight testing involved would likely be nontrivial, and I don't know how much they'd be motivated to do it. BTW, my Sky Arrow is Experimental, so anything goes. I would still hate to ever have to explain to an investigator how I just didn't foresee the problems my camera and mount could cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted December 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Maybe we should get a ruling that you can't fly with shoes that use shoestrings.... you know, there's a chance those pesky strings will get caught up in the pedals and cause a wreck.... And maybe we should have the FAA require all pilots who wear glasses must have them tethered to their face... you never know when glasses might be jostled from your head during turbulence... Tim, A) I am not talking about new regs, I am talking about the ones that exist that allow the manufacturers exceptional control in reference to their Light Sport planes. The very thing that got the FAA to approve LS in the first place - a lighter regulatory burden on them, and my shoelaces and glasses do not impact the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane, nor are they mounted to the structure they fall under the responsibility of the PIC, not the LS mfgs or the ATSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Hi Doug, I'm not really talking about new regs either, but more about trying to define new situations with old regs. The regs that exist are there pretty much for safety. So, your shoestrings and glasses are really no different than modifying the aerodynamics, as they all could cause an accident. Of course, they aren't going to rule on shoestrings, because it hasn't happened (at least not to the point that there is a trend). Isn't there a reg that insinuates you shouldn't throw anything from your plane, without attempting to make sure it won't hit anyone? Or you should make sure things won't fall off your aircraft? It seems those regs would cover the externally mounted cameras. i.e, do it safely... or else. That should pretty much cover the topic. The "let's regulate everything, in the name of safety" types scare me a bit. 25,000 people died in a recent year because of falling.... don't you think we should regulate walking? Maybe air-bag clothing should be mandatory? Using the "modifying your aircraft" reg to cover these tiny cameras doesn't seem right. Didn't they try and do that to regulate GPSs when they first came out? Maybe aircraft manufacturers will build a few hard points into select points of the exterior, and designate them as camera mounts. That should end the arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.