Cameras on Aircraft ( Go Pros etc )

[Mick]

This from Australian Flying magazine's news section on their website...........

 

CASA has confirmed that pilots will need to comply with the regulations of CASR 21.M to install "GoPro" type cameras on the external surface of an aircraft.

 

Under CASR 21.M (the old CAR35), a CASA authorised person has to approve the installation against existing airworthiness standards before the aeroplane can be flown.

 

"Attaching anything to the external surfaces of an aircraft, whether it is the wing or not, is considered a modification," CASA's spokesperson said.

 

"Depending on what is being attached, it may have an effect on the aerodynamics, structure and depending on its location it can affect the airspeed/altimeter readings, etc. Therefore, the alteration to the aircraft needs to be justified against the applicable airworthiness standard.

 

"Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 1988 regulation 35 was repealed approximately two years ago and replace by CASA Subpart 21.M. However, CASR Subpart 21.M has the same requirements as CAR 35 did.

 

"CASR Subpart 21.M does not disallow the installation of a modification or alteration to an aircraft, it is a regulation that allows design approval of the modification. CAR 42U requires any modification or repair to an aircraft to be installed in accordance with approved data. Therefore attaching a temporary modification must be done to 21.M approved data by an appropriately licenced person."

 

With the proliferation of GoPro-style cameras for videos and still shots, the issue has been bought into sharp focus, especially when those shots are published or put on websites.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Most pilots would have enough goo between the ears to know where to fix a small camera without interfering with control surfaces, pitot tubes and static vents etc, not that I am saying the rules are wrong. If they didn't consider where they were mounting the camera (and how they mount the camera) then perhaps they should stick to flying kites.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Maybe CASA should go fly a kite

 

 

[djpacro]

So you think that pilots are qualified to ensure airworthiness of design changes to certificated aircraft? I saw a pilot starting to mount a Go-Pro to the aileron slave tube on a biplane.

 

Most pilots have the attitude, skills and knowledge to safely fly an aeroplane but unfortunately some don't. I trust competent pilots to fly my aeroplane. I trust some of them to change the oil or a tyre but not because they are pilots. Simple pilot theory falls far short of engineering knowledge required to consider the possible effects of changes. True, many pilots would not do anything stupid but being a pilot is insufficient guarantee to trust some-one's life to it.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Isn't this an ATTITUDE problem?

 

The rules are the rules. Some rules may not suit and there may well be grounds to try and get them changed BUT we have to live within the rules as they stand.

 

Isn't this part of the whole CASA audit problems currently being addressed.

 

As a new RAA pilot (only 5 years) I find the rules and exemptions great but everyone must accept that the legislation must be complied with.

 

If there is no exemption in place then you are not exempted.

 

The opinions I continually hear (and read here) about what we used to be able to do - apply to all matters of live not just aviation - So just live within the current laws (by all means try to change what you see as wrong) but until then accept what is current.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Yea, what he said..... (pointing upwards to the previous post)

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Could not agree more Frank. Very well put.

 

As a further caution, CAR35 (insert new name) approvals are not applicable to LSA.

 

Each LSA has an individual (Special or Experimental) Certificate of Airworthiness from the manufacturer.

 

You need the Manufacturer's approval to change anything.

 

 

[TK58]

There's a placard on my plane (RAAus has a photo of it) that says the plane is not required to comply with normal airworthiness standards. Is CASA regulation 21.M applicable to 95.55 aircraft? What about 95.10 aircraft?

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Not an expert on this TK but I think you will find it applies to 95.55 ultralights that have a Type Acceptance approval but not LSA. No idea about 95.10

 

 

[Hongie]

There's a placard on my plane (RAAus has a photo of it) that says the plane is not required to comply with normal airworthiness standards. Is CASA regulation 21.M applicable to 95.55 aircraft? What about 95.10 aircraft?

yes exactly what I was wondering

 

 

[TK58]

95.55 is a broad grouping - all RAAus aircraft except 95.10 if I understand correctly. Reg 21.M may well apply to factory built aircraft that come under 95.55, but what about all the 19 reg aircraft. Home built, kit built, etc.?

 

 

[djpacro]

If an exemption is stated then you have an exemption, if not then you don't.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

95.55 is a broad grouping - all RAAus aircraft except 95.10 if I understand correctly.

Apart from all the 95.32 aircraft !

 

Reg 21.M may well apply to factory built aircraft that come under 95.55, but what about all the 19 reg aircraft. Home built, kit built, etc.?

AFAIK CASR Part 21 isn't applicable to any RAAus aircraft.

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[djpacro]

I guess that means there is a reference or is it AFAIG?