Mounting a GoPro on a Cherokee Six

[H Christensen]

Before going ahead and mounting a GoPro somewhere inappropriate on my PA32-300, does anyone have experience on the best external point to place it? (I don't want it in the cabin.)
Thanks.

[cgzro]

I dont think its legal.

[JasonE]

I've put mine off the step with a safety wire quite a few times (Cherokee 140). Got some nice shots.

[TeePeeCreeper]

I dont think its legal.

Agreed. Mounting anything on a certified A/C without an STC voids the C of R.

However, I think the OP wants to do so regardless of the legalities (which I do not agree with). With that said, where might he/she be able to place a "go-pro" on the A/C which would minimize the chances of anything going wrong should the mount/camera "let go"?

As mentioned I certainly would not advocate doing anything which would void a C of R, with that said, legalities and liability taken into question, I would suggest mounting your "Go-Pro" inside the cabin, well away from from controls while not blocking the PIC's field of vision.

All the best,
TPC

[iflyforpie]

I dont think its legal.

Agreed. Mounting anything on a certified A/C without an STC voids the C of R.

No it doesn't. Go look up the definition of Major Modification. I'd say a GoPro falls into the 'negligible' category on all counts.

[HiFlyChick]

But even a minor modification must be certified by an AME, and from what I've heard, there's something like a 4 page document he has to fill out to certify that it is indeed a minor mod and will not affect airworthiness.

Just to make sure you don't end up a victim of unhappy coincidence (i.e. mounting a Go-Pro and then having a totally unrelated accident but your insurance being void because unauthorized work was done), I'd talk to your AME first and get an opinion if it's considered a minor mod. That being said, lots of people seem to film with GoPros attached somewhere outside the aircraft, but I don't know if the rules are different for provate aircraft or if they're just counting on not getting caught (or caught out as the case may be)

[cgzro]

There was a thread about a kid putting one on the tie down ring of a 172 which caught the ire of a transport inspector so my assumption is that its not legal, however everybody seems to be doing it.

There are a number of things to worry about. If it falls off it can damage your plane, not likely to kill you but if it puts a nasty dent in your stab leading edge thets going to be expensive to repair. Or if it hurts somebody on the ground thats another concern, or it if falls off on a runway and causes damqge to another aircraft thats a concern too. The ones ive seen use extra mounting hardware or copious quantities of duct tape:)

[bizjets101]

Not to mention the MK Airlines Captain that put it on the landing gear of his B747 -
great video's until company found out - now all off line

Here is a repost on youtube of one, just turn off volume

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaV6tU_sFQ

[co-joe]

How did Buffalo and the Discovery channel get away with all the cameras on their planes? Suction cups? Maybe the surf board kit?

[Rockie]

Don't Beaver and Otter pilots strap canoes to the float braces?

[goingnowherefast]

Yeah, but it tells you how to in the AFM...and again in the STC that's apparently required. But that's a different rant.

[AirFrame]

My Drift Stealth came with a helmet-mount plate that has a larger 2"x3"-ish curved base that the camera snaps into. The plate is large enough that it can span two of the screws holding my wingtip on, and the curvature is "close enough" to my wing. So I drilled two holes in the plate to match, and picked up two longer screws to fit the holes. The plate mounts securely, the camera stays put, and I figure if it ever comes off it'll clear the tail easily and won't cause any damage. So far, it's been secure up to 200mph and 4G...

[PilotDAR]

It's probably worth a review of "modifications" at this point:

Technically, the pilot privilege of "Elementary Work"

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... a-2458.htm

would not extend to making modifications to certified aircraft - refer to the very first sentence.

From there, an AME/AMO will have to sign for work done. The data required by the AME/AMO will be driven by whether the mod is major or minor. The AME/AMO may make that determination with reference to the Criteria for Classification:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... a-1893.htm

If the answers to all questions in that criteria end in a "No", there may be a simplified path for the AME/AMO, should they choose to follow it. Note that a poorly thought out GoPro installation could trigger a couple of "yes" responses to those questions.

Otherwise an STC or Serialized STC will be required. Unfortunately "the process" has not considered a commensurately simple approach to this, so even the most straight forward modification gets caught in a rather large minimum critical mass of paperwork. The people who wrote the design requirements just never thought about the need to economically approve a totally simple mod to an aircraft.

I have approved GoPro and similar cameras on both small and large aircraft, but as part of a bigger mod, to keep things within reason.

My greater concern might be a pilot of a "camera" plane, might fly to the cameras - using the whole plane as a camera, while not paying adequate attention to flight safety in general, maneuver limits, and traffic. Of course these mods can be safely done and flown. Finding a legal pth can be a bit more effort....

[CID]

A little clarification is required here. An unapproved modification doesn't invalidate your C of R, it invalidates your C of A. Your C of A is in force if your airplane is in conformity with its type design and safe for flight.

Furthermore, classifying modifications is outside the authority of the pilot and correctly stated as outside the privilege of elementary work. This is the responsibility of an AME.

And just because a modification is "minor" it doesn't mean it can just be "done" with no paperwork. Minor modifications must be done in accordance with acceptable data. You can check CAR standard 571.06 for a definition of that.

Now let's discuss the "risk". As already alluded to, if you have potential insurance claim (accident etc) it my be refused if the aircraft is intentionally flown while the C of A is intentionally not in force.

If you install it poorly or place it in an area that disrupts airflow to a sensor or control surface, it can have serious consequences. I'm sure some will be rolling their eyes as they read this but it's just the plain truth.

[newbiewings]

No, I'm not an AME or Pilot (yet)...

Would it matter if the camera was mounted on a detachable base that hooked over the bottom of the window and held in place by a couple of jig fixture knobs? The mount would not interfere with anything except, fully closing the window.

You can also get a chest, or head harness that allows you to wear the camera so you get an active POV instead of a static one.

[I_Drive_Planes]

This works like a charm on the tie-down ring:



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 ... embly.html

It's solid, very little vibration especially if you remove the tilt/swivel head. Thread a zip tie through the ring and the mount if you're nervous about security.

[Broken Slinky]

Now let's discuss the "risk". As already alluded to, if you have potential insurance claim (accident etc) it my be refused if the aircraft is intentionally flown while the C of A is intentionally not in force.
If you install it poorly or place it in an area that disrupts airflow to a sensor or control surface, it can have serious consequences. I'm sure some will be rolling their eyes as they read this but it's just the plain truth.

Also the issue of the GoPro falling off and hitting a car, house or worst case a person on the ground. If they're able to identify you by the video or trace the camera back to you, good luck with the civil suits. There's the possibility of criminal negligence charges being filed too.
Sidenote: I've always wondered if replacing one of the inspection panels with a piece of plexiglass (my aircraft already has a few for linkage inspection) and mounting a camera behind it would make for an easier STC or having an AME sign off on it? It would be the next closest thing to having it in the cockpit with you.

[BibleMonkey]

I saw an AME make a (modified for camera ) under wing inspection plate for a 172, take the existing plate off, and put the modified plate holding the cam on.

I have never seen any one really getting shot out of a cannon though.
That would be cool.
Nothing in the Civil Aviation Regs forbidding getting a high shutter speed camera, a helmet, some thick soled shoes.....