Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 62

Thread: GoPro 2 External Camera Mount - Minor Alteration?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    GoPro 2 External Camera Mount - Minor Alteration?

    I am curious what you guys think about this . . . I want to taxi up to the FSDO and keep all my paper
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	94 
Size:	437.5 KB 
ID:	9469Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image_6.jpeg 
Views:	126 
Size:	272.1 KB 
ID:	9470
    What does it take to mount this GoPro camera on the exterior of a Cessna 185 legally? It will be mounted anywhere this inspection panel will fit, either under the wing or under the fuselage. Letís start with what kind of modification or alteration this is. I think it is a temporary mount and a Minor Alteration which will require a signature by an A&P and thatís it. Letís begin my justification . . .

    First letís establish itís a Minor Alteration,

    Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations

    Part 1 Ė DEFINITIONS AND ABREVIATIONS
    Sec 1.1 General Definitions

    Minor alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration.

    Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specificationsó(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

    Part 21 - CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, ARTICLES, AND PARTS
    Subpart D--Changes to Type Certificates
    Sec. 21.93 Classification of changes in type design

    (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A "minor change" is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are "major changes" (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).
    (b) For the purpose of complying with part 36 of this chapter, and except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of this section, any voluntary change in the type design of an aircraft that may increase the noise levels of that aircraft is an "acoustical change" (in addition to being a minor or major change as classified in paragraph (a) of this section) for the following aircraft:

    . . . [(b)(2)- Jet &(b)(4)-Helicopter, n/a for this discussion]

    (3) Propeller driven commuter category and small airplanes in the primary, normal, utility, acrobatic, transport, and restricted categories, except for airplanes that are:
    (i) Designated for "agricultural aircraft operations" (as defined in Sec. 137.3 of this chapter, effective January 1, 1966) to which Sec. 36.1583 of this chapter does not apply, or
    (ii) Designated for dispensing fire fighting materials to which Sec. 36.1583 of this chapter does not apply, or
    (iii) U.S. registered, and that had flight time prior to January 1, 1955 or
    (iv) Land configured aircraft reconfigured with floats or skis. This reconfiguration does not permit further exception from the requirements of the section upon any acoustical change not enumerated in Sec. 21.93(b).

    This becomes the hybrid list of a Minor Alteration.

    Affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, operational or flight characteristics powerplant operation, reliability, other qualities or characteristics affecting airworthiness of the product.

    Does the GoPro Appreciably Affect Weight & Balance?
    My Opinion, No. A net weight Change of +9.0 oz which is just over Ĺ a pound at the same arm of the fuel tanks. In perspective this is the same as .09375 gallons of 100LL AvGas, hardly any amount any pilot considers much about. And technically itís Negligible . . .

    AC 43.13-1B - Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair
    Chapter 10. Weight and Balance
    10-2. TERMINOLOGY. The following terminology is used in the practical application of weight and balance control.
    c. Negligible Weight Change is any change of one pound or less for aircraft whose weight empty is less than 5,000 pounds; . . . continued for larger aircraft.

    Does the GoPro mount Affect Structural strength?

    My Opinion, No. An inspection plate is not a structural member; therefore there is no change to structural integrity.

    Does the GoPro Affect Performance, or Operational and/or Flight Characteristics?

    My Opinion, No. The camera is very small and has no appreciable effect on the performance of the aircraft. All flight operations will remain consistent with the procedures previously in place.

    Does the GoPro Affect Powerplant Operation or Reliability?

    My Opinion, No. There is no connection between the Engine and the GoPro in any form at all.

    Are any other Qualities or Characteristics of the GoPro and External Mount Affecting the Airworthiness of the Aircraft?

    My Opinion, No.

    I Believe that the GoPro and External Mount Inspection Plane System is a Minor Alteration. One more time back to the CFRís . . .

    Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
    Part 43 Ė MAINTENANCE, PREVENATIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION
    Sec. 43.3 Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding and alterations.

    (a) Except as provided in this section and Sec. 43.17, no person may maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which this part applies. Those items, the performance of which is a major alteration, a major repair, or preventive maintenance, are listed in appendix A.
    (b) The holder of a mechanic certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter.
    (c) . . . Continued

    At this point I believe that I can take this inspection plate GoPro mounting system and install it on the aircraft with a logbook entry from an A&P.

    Moderators, if this is in the wrong section my apologies and please remove or move. Thank You

  2. #2
    SC3CM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    658
    Post Thanks / Like

    GoPro 2 External Camera Mount - Minor Alteration?

    " I want to taxi up to the FSDO..."
    And here we were this whole time thinking poor Cliff was the one who would do the most insane thing in his airplane voluntarily.


    Rene

  3. #3
    cubunltd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Belle Vernon,PA
    Posts
    1,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks like a really neat way to mount the camera. I'm an IA and in my opinion this is a temporary mount. Its like the portable GPS in my book. I'd look into it a little deeper to be sure but I don't think you even have to make a log book entry and owner/pilot can install and remove it. This is just my opinion, check with your local FSDO

    John

  4. #4
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungGun View Post
    First let’s establish it’s a Minor Alteration,

    Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations

    Part 1 – DEFINITIONS AND ABREVIATIONS
    Sec 1.1 General Definitions

    Minor alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration.

    Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications—(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.
    Does the GoPro Affect Performance, or Operational and/or Flight Characteristics?

    My Opinion, No. The camera is very small and has no appreciable effect on the performance of the aircraft. All flight operations will remain consistent with the procedures previously in place.

    I Believe that the GoPro and External Mount Inspection Plane System is a Minor Alteration.

    At this point I believe that I can take this inspection plate GoPro mounting system and install it on the aircraft with a logbook entry from an A&P.

    Moderators, if this is in the wrong section my apologies and please remove or move. Thank You
    I am inclined to agree with your assessment. However, are you certain (key word) and can you prove that the camera, when mounted as you wish it to be, will not effect the flight characteristics and performance? Are you certain (key word again) that when you taxi up to the FSDO that the newest enthusiastic FAA employee who was unable to hack employment in the dreaded private sector, will share your point of view? It is possible that an object, which is out in the breeze, can generate funny unusual disturbances downstream. I have seen some little innocuous things make a big difference in flight characteristics.

    If I were you, I would attempt to acquire a field approval on a 337 and in the process prove to the FAA that it does not effect anything. Then you will never worry about that enthusiastic FAA employee. You will have nothing to hide.

    If it were me, I would go out behind the hangar, make the installation, do some test flying, satisfy myself that all is OK, then get the field approval so that it can be parked in front of the FSDO. ​I didn't tell you to do this.
    N1PA

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nice Idea!! It's like the Cessna plate was made for it! Good job too.

  6. #6
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubunltd View Post
    Looks like a really neat way to mount the camera. I'm an IA and in my opinion this is a temporary mount. Its like the portable GPS in my book. I'd look into it a little deeper to be sure but I don't think you even have to make a log book entry and owner/pilot can install and remove it. This is just my opinion, check with your local FSDO

    John
    Yes John, however it is screwed on. That is not temporary. I do believe it would need to have some sort of a quick disconnect to be called temporary.
    N1PA

  7. #7
    Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,721
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you get a thumbs down from your FSDO there is an alternative that may work: I think the strut-mounted fueling step, attached with wing nuts or something similar, would make a good mount for a Go Pro. Attlee Dodge sells one variation, but the stainless straps fasten beneath the strut, so repeated removal and installation will scratch the strut paint. There are other variations where the straps fasten at the trailing edge of the strut, and this design will be less prone to marking the strut.
    Speedo

  8. #8
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Yes John, however it is screwed on. That is not temporary. I do believe it would need to have some sort of a quick disconnect to be called temporary.
    I take back what I said. Upon a closer look, that does look like a temporary quick disconnect mount.
    N1PA

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know lots of guys with RAM camera mounts on their planes. Some have them camoflaged by wrapping the worm clamps with tape that matches their paint color, others, like me, used black tape on white paint. Pretty easy to spot. Nobody I know of has had anyone say anything to them about camera mounts other than where they can get one just like it.

    Speaking of GoPro, I'm sure many of you got the email yesterday with this link. These "pilots" make our flying videos look like Lawrence Welk on the excitement meter!
    http://gopro.com/videos/bike/red-bul...nuk-berrecloth

  10. #10
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,094
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is an external load, or unauthorized modification.

    Now you might be able to prove to your insurance company AND the FAA Law judge that it is a minor alteration, however, it will cost you plenty of attorney fees.

    If you put it on the wing, it can be argued that it disrupts air; outboard or on the tail it is now disrupting the flow to a primary control surface.

    It goes on and on. Best to just be quiet and not call attention to it. At some point the FAA will need to make a public determination about small cameras- until then it is lots of $ to defend because their attorneys are paid by us and it is not any skin off of their nose to say no!

    Your milage may vary, but until actual certified flight tests are done, including with the camera installed, best to be quiet and use Mr. BigE's tail numbers
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    BTW, YoungGun, cool idea to adapt an inspection cover. I'll be making one with a RAM ball attached. Better than clamping to the tail spring. Thanks for sharing your idea.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ]

    If I were you, I would attempt to acquire a field approval on a 337 and in the process prove to the FAA that it does not effect anything. Then you will never worry about that enthusiastic FAA employee. You will have nothing to hide.
    That is how all this started, I called my PMI down at the FSDO and asked if he would give me a Field Approval. I wanted to do a test run on a buddy's 185 and then put cameras on our 182, 205 & 310. The 182 and 205 are on our 135 certificate. The PMI did not want to do multiple Field Approvals and open a revolving door of sorts, the Field Approval is a one time unique to each airplane deal. Doing multiple similar 337's was more along the lines of an STC. Furthermore, the application for a Field Approval verifies that you believe that it is a Major Alteration.

    So it is the logbook entry that is covering my bases.

  13. #13
    C-90 Cub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Alexandria, KY
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are an awful lot big name aerobatic guys flying aircraft at Oshkosh in front of the feds with cameras mounted. Don't know of anyone getting busted. Some have 3-4 cameras mounted at the same time. The air combat guys do too!!

    Steve

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubunltd View Post
    I'm an IA and in my opinion this is a temporary mount.
    John
    I'm an IA too, I just didn't want to start the thread on that note so I could get unbiased first impressions. I believe it to be temporary mount in the sense that it makes no permeant change to the airplane, not that it requires no tools to install. That leads to the needing an A&P to write it off rater than just a pilot install.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by flylowslow View Post
    Nice Idea!! It's like the Cessna plate was made for it! Good job too.
    I made the plate too.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by C-90 Cub View Post
    There are an awful lot big name aerobatic guys flying aircraft at Oshkosh in front of the feds with cameras mounted. Don't know of anyone getting busted. Some have 3-4 cameras mounted at the same time. The air combat guys do too!!

    Steve

    It's kinda silly in my opinion that I have to go through all this, however I make my living with my FAA certificates and don't want to jeopardize my livelihood.

    Thanks for all the input so far, this is great!!

  17. #17
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by C-90 Cub View Post
    There are an awful lot big name aerobatic guys flying aircraft at Oshkosh in front of the feds with cameras mounted. Don't know of anyone getting busted. Some have 3-4 cameras mounted at the same time. The air combat guys do too!!

    Steve
    I'll bet many of them are EXP/Airshow and Exhibition category, hence not subject to same rules. But, I'll bet very few FSDO types want to raise a stink at an airshow.....it's been done, of course, which is why.

    MTV

  18. #18
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sierra bravo View Post
    BTW, YoungGun, cool idea to adapt an inspection cover. I'll be making one with a RAM ball attached. Better than clamping to the tail spring. Thanks for sharing your idea.
    Stewart,

    You're in ALASKA, where the FAA has said by Regional Policy that such things are considered to be "minor alterations". That can be found in the Alaska Region's policy on external loads. That does not apply elsewhere.

    MTV

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    On another note, I see GoPro has a version 3 now. Three models of version 3 it appears, including one with a remote and 12mp. It just keeps getting better.

  20. #20
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,094
    Post Thanks / Like
    My insurance company considered the camera and mount an external load, and as such, voids my insurance...

    Like a camera is going to be the cause of the crash, but that was the verdict five years ago when I started asking...
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    The regulation used to determine Flight Characteristics are not appreciably affected.

    Sec. 23.143

    General.

    [(a) The airplane must be safely controllable and maneuverable during all flight phases including--
    (1) Takeoff;
    (2) Climb;
    (3) Level flight;
    (4) Descent;
    (5) Go-around; and
    (6) Landing (power on and power off) with the wing flaps extended and retracted.]
    (b) It must be possible to make a smooth transition from one flight condition to another (including turns and slips) without danger of exceeding the limit load factor, under any probable operating condition, (including, for multiengine airplanes, those conditions normally encountered in the sudden failure of any engine).
    [(c) If marginal conditions exist with regard to required pilot strength, the control forces necessary must be determined by quantitative tests. In no case may the control forces under the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section exceed those prescribed in the following table:

    Values in pounds force applied to the relevant control
    Pitch
    Roll
    Yaw
    (a) For temporary application:
    Stick-----------------------------------------------
    60
    30
    --------------------------
    Wheel (Two hands on rim)----------------
    Wheel (One hand on rim)-----------------
    75
    50
    50
    25
    --------------------------
    -------------------------
    Rudder Pedal------------------------------------
    --------------------------
    --------------------------
    150
    (b) For prolonged application
    10
    5
    20]

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am looking for any A&P's out there to give me some feedback on this mount system and logbook sign offs. I myself am an IA and have been coordinating with my local FSDO to get to where I am now. I am looking for feedback and potential issues and thoughts, positive and negative both, all forms of critique. This is not intended to be a how to or template for replication or a legally definite discussion, simply an in depth technical discussion.

    So I think that I will install this GoPro Mount System as described above, make a logbook entry.

    Logbook Entry # One

    NXXXXX Date: xx/xx/xxxx Tach: xxxx.xx TT: xxxx.xx

    Installed Temporary GoPro Camera Mounts on Inspection Panels. As defined in CFR Title 14, 1.1 and 21.93 this is a Minor Alteration. A Net Weight Change of 9 oz is incurred with the entire System consisting of The Mount and A GoPro Camera, therefore the Weight and Balance is Negligible; AC 43.13 1B, 10-2 (c). There is no change to Structural Strength of the Airframe. The GoPro Camera and Inspection Panel Mount System have no appreciable effect on the performance of the aircraft. All previous Operational Procedures for all flight conditions will remain unchanged. There is no effect on the Powerplant Operation or Reliability, both the GoPro and Powerplant systems are independent. There are no Qualities or Characteristics of the External Mount and GoPro Camera System that have affected the Airworthiness of the Aircraft.

    Mechanic Name IA xxxxxxx A&P

    Flight Test, if it proves good entry # Two, if not entry # Three. The flight test will determine the effect of Flight Characteristics as referenced to 23.143.

    Logbook Entry # Two

    NXXXXX Date: xx/xx/xxxx Tach: xxxx.xx TT: xxxx.xx

    This Aircraft was flown with the GoPro Mount System Installed and it has been determined that the Flight Characteristics are not Appreciably Affected. The Flight Characteristics are Safely Controllable and Maneuverable as per CFR 23.143 during Takeoff, Climb, Level Flight, Decent, Go-around and Landing (power-on and power-off) with the wing flaps extended and retracted. In addition a Vne dive was accomplished to verify integrity of the Mount.

    Pilot & Mechanic IA xxxxxxx A&P


    Logbook Entry # Three

    NXXXXX Date: xx/xx/xxxx Tach: xxxx.xx TT: xxxx.xx


    Removed Temporary GoPro Mount System.

    Pilot & Mechanic IA xxxxxxx A&P

    Undoubtly, there will be discussion on if this is within the scope of an A&P's ability. The question about the qualifications of the pilot will also be raised. How is this any different than a flight test after the removal and reinstallation of an aileron? Same pilot requirements for the flight test right?

    P.S. Moderators my apologies for any problems, I am only looking for a group of people to have this technically in depth discussion with and this seemed like a good place to find those people. This is a topic I could not find any good information or reference points about when I tried to search for it, hopefully this thread will bring it to supercub.org. If not my apologies once again and please remove this thread as you see fit.
    Last edited by YoungGun; 12-08-2012 at 03:42 PM. Reason: formatting

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is the reference data for Flight Characteristics

    CFR Title 14
    Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
    Subpart B - Flight Controllability and Maneuverability

    Sec. 23.143

    General.

    [(a) The airplane must be safely controllable and maneuverable during all flight phases including--
    (1) Takeoff;
    (2) Climb;
    (3) Level flight;
    (4) Descent;
    (5) Go-around; and
    (6) Landing (power on and power off) with the wing flaps extended and retracted.]
    (b) It must be possible to make a smooth transition from one flight condition to another (including turns and slips) without danger of exceeding the limit load factor, under any probable operating condition, (including, for multiengine airplanes, those conditions normally encountered in the sudden failure of any engine).
    (c) . . . continues for marginal conditions, which if I encounter I will just remove the GoPro System

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    My insurance company considered the camera and mount an external load, and as such, voids my insurance...

    Like a camera is going to be the cause of the crash, but that was the verdict five years ago when I started asking...
    I will definately have to look into that, even if I can get all the t's and i's figured out with the FAA the insurance might squash it all

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    My insurer requires airworthiness. The FAA defines it. My mechanic determines whether it complies.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    In that case I'm good to go. I believe I have identified which FAA regulations it needs to comply. I believe that I have done all I need and I am willing to sign my name and stand it. Unless someone can tell me how this system does not comply. . . I am feeling pretty good about it. I'm even feeling feisty about it like I could argue about it for an hour or so to defend the idea, so I think it's ready. Maybe I'll do it on Monday and give myself a reason to fly around a bit.

  27. #27
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    YoungGun, Your sign off sounds good to me with just one question. Under what authority can the pilot test fly the plane? That is, until the plane is test flown it is not legal to fly so the pilots certificate may be in jeopardy until there is some sort of approval to perform the test flight. Years ago I was told that a test flight is OK without anyone giving their blessing. However, I have never seen this in print. I'm not saying that I've never done it. I'm just trying to help you cross all the Ts.

    Perhaps it may require getting a temporary flight permit specifically for this one flight?
    N1PA

  28. #28
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Younggun,

    methinks you underestimate how fickle the FAA can and will be.

    If this is a 135 airplane, I would definitely run it by your principal inspector. Not for a signature, just FYI, and see what he/she says.

    MTV

  29. #29
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,094
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sierra bravo View Post
    My insurer requires airworthiness. The FAA defines it. My mechanic determines whether it complies.
    Most policies are for flight under a STANDARD airworthiness; external loads require a RESTRICTED airworthiness. Read up on your policy, it could be different than mine.

    Of course, when you get into the stinky, that is when the FAA will decide that it is or is not a minor modification; if there is question or even discussion the insurance may wait while you hash it out with them in a big FAA hurry...

    So as long as you don't need insurance, have an investigation, or get looked at by the FAA you are good to go...

    (I know I am being the Debbie Downer here, but just make the decision fully informed. I would fly with you with cameras, not a big deal for me)
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  30. #30
    soyAnarchisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    570
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think it is a sad, sad situation where you cannot add something that is 4oz to a wing strut. I also think that your insurance company should probably welcome the fact that you probably now have photographic evidence if you were to get into the stinky.

    I'm pretty sure younggun that your argument is not going to hold any water based on a lot of history with external loads - of any size - however deemed inconsequential by the PIC or the IA. If you do this with the blessing of your local FSDO - you probably ought to make sure you get it in writing.

    I'm not asking, and not telling - but I'm not doing commercial ops - yet. It pisses me off that we have to play the game this way. If my insurance co denies claims because of a go pro camera - that was an excuse for some other problem or I'd want that companys name smeared all over the world so we can avoid their business.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    YoungGun, Your sign off sounds good to me with just one question. Under what authority can the pilot test fly the plane? That is, until the plane is test flown it is not legal to fly so the pilots certificate may be in jeopardy until there is some sort of approval to perform the test flight. Years ago I was told that a test flight is OK without anyone giving their blessing. However, I have never seen this in print. I'm not saying that I've never done it. I'm just trying to help you cross all the Ts.

    Perhaps it may require getting a temporary flight permit specifically for this one flight?
    I believe that a Private Pilot rated in the aircraft can make that determination.

    CFR 91.407

    Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

    (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless--
    (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under Sec. 43.7 of this chapter; and
    (2) The maintenance record entry required by Sec. 43.9 or Sec. 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.
    (b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.
    (c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or
    substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Younggun,

    methinks you underestimate how fickle the FAA can and will be.

    If this is a 135 airplane, I would definitely run it by your principal inspector. Not for a signature, just FYI, and see what he/she says.

    MTV
    Yeah, I'm working with our 135 PMI and the consensus I have ben told on the phone is that two PMI's in the local FSDO office believe that this is a minor alteration and that a GOOD & COMPLETE logbook entry is okay. That includes our two 135 ships. I am working on fine tuning that logbook entry.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    Most policies are for flight under a STANDARD airworthiness; external loads require a RESTRICTED airworthiness. Read up on your policy, it could be different than mine.

    Of course, when you get into the stinky, that is when the FAA will decide that it is or is not a minor modification; if there is question or even discussion the insurance may wait while you hash it out with them in a big FAA hurry...

    So as long as you don't need insurance, have an investigation, or get looked at by the FAA you are good to go...

    (I know I am being the Debbie Downer here, but just make the decision fully informed. I would fly with you with cameras, not a big deal for me)
    aktango58, thanks for all your input. I am going to send some pictures to my insurance broker and see what he tells me since all our our airplanes are insured with him and he would be the guy I would call to make a claim.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by soyAnarchisto View Post
    I think it is a sad, sad situation where you cannot add something that is 4oz to a wing strut. I also think that your insurance company should probably welcome the fact that you probably now have photographic evidence if you were to get into the stinky.

    I'm pretty sure younggun that your argument is not going to hold any water based on a lot of history with external loads - of any size - however deemed inconsequential by the PIC or the IA. If you do this with the blessing of your local FSDO - you probably ought to make sure you get it in writing.

    I'm not asking, and not telling - but I'm not doing commercial ops - yet. It pisses me off that we have to play the game this way. If my insurance co denies claims because of a go pro camera - that was an excuse for some other problem or I'd want that companys name smeared all over the world so we can avoid their business.
    This game of Cover Your Ass is kinda getting old at times, I blame the Insurance companies and Lawyers.

  35. #35
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungGun View Post

    (b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.
    This covers the pilot's test flight.

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungGun View Post
    Yeah, I'm working with our 135 PMI and the consensus I have ben told on the phone is that two PMI's in the local FSDO office believe that this is a minor alteration and that a GOOD & COMPLETE logbook entry is okay. That includes our two 135 ships. I am working on fine tuning that logbook entry.
    You never told us that your PMI had given his blessing.
    N1PA

  36. #36
    Nathan K. Hammond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Danville, KY DVK
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    So how to the TV shows do it? Buffalo and Era; they're all Part135.

    nkh

  37. #37
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungGun View Post
    Yeah, I'm working with our 135 PMI and the consensus I have ben told on the phone is that two PMI's in the local FSDO office believe that this is a minor alteration and that a GOOD & COMPLETE logbook entry is okay. That includes our two 135 ships. I am working on fine tuning that logbook entry.
    If the PMI gives the blessing, it seems to me you are golden. I can't believe the insurance company is going to care if your PMI has okay end it.

    finally, as usual, people are suggesting (actually stating) that insurance companies regularly walk away from coverage (nťe: LOOK for reasons to dump coverage for ANY excuse) if everything isn't perfect. In fact, most insurance covers even in situations with violations, expired medicals, etc. now, they may choose not to RENEW.....but.

    if the PMI likes it, why would the insurance co. Care?

    MTV

  38. #38
    BradleyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Forgiveness not permission!
    If the pilot fears to test his skills with the elements, he has chosen the wrong profession.....Lindbergh

  39. #39
    cubflier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    1,297
    Post Thanks / Like
    We all choose how much we are willing to be a slave to regulations. I've seen this in my business where competitors tied their own hands over their preoccupation with regulatory trivia. While they were covering their butt I took the liberty to stomp on it out in the market place because that's where I like to spend my effort rather that worrying if my OSHA posters were up to date.

    It seems we pilots also like to go down this road thinking that we are only one VG (falling off) away from disaster with the feds, our insurance company, and all the evil lawyers. I'm not trying to be critical of the approval attempt but it seems like a lot of effort over a dang Gopro mount.

    I think I will take my chances but good luck on your approval.

    Jerry
    If it looks smooth...it might be

    If it looks rough...it is!!

  40. #40
    SteveE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jenks, OK
    Posts
    4,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    GoPro 2 External Camera Mount - Minor Alteration?

    Well said Jerry, I deleted my version.

Similar Threads

  1. Major or Minor Alteration
    By mit greb in forum Modifications
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 08:07 AM
  2. GPS now a minor alteration
    By Cimarron in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 06:36 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •