GoPro camera on my skids- FAA ok??

[capt.fontaine]

Any US pilots know of anything in the FARs that would prevent me from having a GoPro on my skids and selling footage? I fly for Boatpix so the selling footage isn't a problem- I don't think. I've checked Part 43 Appendix A but still don't have a clear answer.

 

[aussiecop]

If there is anything in the FAR's then there a hell of a lot of operators in some hot water. Its being done all over the place, just do a search on youtube. As long as it doesn't compromise the integrity of flight condition there should be no issues. Have you thought about taping one inside the chin bubble? Saves the issue of losing one into the ocean at 1500 feet.

[adam32]

Its just a matter of time till it is a problem...one falls off and hits the tail rotor...or lands on a kid in a kindergarten class...

[Dragbrace]

Also just a matter of time until they require an STC and/or a form 337 for the installation of the mounting asembly..

Edited October 14, 2013 by Dragbrace

[pilot#476398]

Boatpix using GoPro now? Has he run out of low time pilots desperate enough to pay to be photographers?

[terminal_velo]

This is an ongoing debate. Many people just go ahead and do it, some people do it but get their mechanics to sign off on it, and some people want to do it but won't until the FAA says something about it.

 

So, it's at your own risk.

[JCM5]

So, it's at your own risk.

 

This. Nothing in the FAR's so far as I understand. People do it all the time. I personally think you would have a difficult time catching a falling GoPro in the tail rotor, but surely it's not impossible. Definitely would always place it on the opposite side of the TR and as low on the helicopter as possible were I to ever mount something externally.

 

Beyond safety, the liability rests on the pilot -- as always. My instructor has always posited the same response for these "grey area" questions. You're the one that has to stand in front of the judge if something bad happens, as unlikely as it may be. I prefer to keep my GoPro in the cabin, and for a long time now I've decided not to fly with it.

 

Sometimes no evidence is the best evidence.

[bqmassey]

Sometimes no evidence is the best evidence.

 

I wonder how likely it is to have your own video used against you in an accident. Let's say you preserved the wreckage/cargo like you're supposed to, the NTSB takes possession, and the video is recovered.

[apiaguy]

The general FAA consensus regarding portable devices attached to aircraft consider the simplicity of attachment. ie. a portable gps that is suction cupped to the window or wing nut clamped to the cyclic are considered minor alterations...

As soon as the installation requires tools (a screwdriver to tighten a clamp) the supporting attachment installation would require a 337.

Edited October 14, 2013 by apiaguy

[Trans Lift]

 

Saves the issue of losing one into the ocean at 1500 feet.

 

Haha. I don't know if you have seen these experienced aerial photography pilots at work after paying for their special training in aerial boat/low level photography but they are way too impressive to be flying at 1500ft!

Edited October 15, 2013 by Trans Lift

[HeloJunkie]

Beyond safety, the liability rests on the pilot -- as always. My instructor has always posited the same response for these "grey area" questions. You're the one that has to stand in front of the judge if something bad happens, as unlikely as it may be. I prefer to keep my GoPro in the cabin, and for a long time now I've decided not to fly with it.

 

Sometimes no evidence is the best evidence.

 

 

Start from the lawsuit and work backwards!

[iChris]

Any US pilots know of anything in the FARs that would prevent me from having a GoPro on my skids and selling footage? I fly for Boatpix so the selling footage isn't a problem- I don't think. I've checked Part 43 Appendix A but still don't have a clear answer.

 

 

If you’re concerned with the letter of the law, there is an approval process for major changes. However, your GoPro could be classified as a “minor change” under §1.1 and Part 43. Minor changes are defined as having no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the aircraft. Minor alterations or repairs under Part 43 do not require FAA approval.

 

You also have major/minor type design changes under Part 21, were minor type changes falling under §21.93 and §21.95 may require FAA approval:

 

§21.95 Approval of minor changes in type design.

Minor changes in a type design may be approved under a method acceptable to the FAA before submitting to the FAA any substantiating or descriptive data.

 

NOTE: However, you should first look at who may attach an item to the outside of the helicopter. With only an FAA pilot certificate (non-A&P), you’re only allowed to perform preventive maintenance (§43.3[g]). There’s no provision for attaching a camera to the skid under Part 43 Appendix A as a preventive maintenance item.

 

This type of minor alteration would normally be accomplished by, require, an A&P pursuant to §43.3 [b}.

 

Minor changes don’t require a STC. The major change process requires FAA Form 337 with the substantiating or descriptive data documented, sometimes in the form of a supporting STC. Moreover, AC 43.13-1B and AC 43.13-2B have prior FAA acceptable methods (supporting data) you can also use to help complete form 337.

 

As an example, AC 43.13-2B contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA for the alteration of civil aircraft of 12,500 lbs. gross weight or less. This data generally pertains to minor alterations; however, the data may be used as approved data for major changes when the AC chapter, page, and paragraph are listed in block 8 of FAA Form 337.

 

Also common, AC 43.13-2B, Chapter 2, describes installation considerations and requirements for basic stand-alone, installations of communication, navigation, and emergency locator transmitter (ELT) equipment.

 

Portable items like GPS units, not connected to or requiring aircraft power, which you carry in and out of the cockpit, don’t normally require FAA approval or Form 337.

 

Normally an A&P can combine substantiating data from prior approved methods to get the required FAA approval for major changes, or those minor alterations the FAA insist are major. Problems not resolved at the FSDO level with respect to minor or major changes require the assistance of the Aircraft Certification Office(ACO).

 

 

 

REF: 8900.1, Vol. 4, Chapter 9

FAA Order 8300.16

2-1. Eligibility.

a. ASIs must review the data packages for each requested approval for a major repair or major alteration in order to ensure that a field approval is necessary and appropriate. ASIs who deny field approval requests to operators for alterations or repairs that do not need or qualify for field approvals must explain to the operator the reason for the denial and, if requested, provide the reason(s) in writing or electronically. The applicant or operator can then retain the reason(s) within the aircraft records for future reference.

b. When determining the basic eligibility of a proposed major repair or major alteration for field approval, the ASI must consider whether the repair or alteration is major or minor. Refer to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 1.1 and part 43, appendix A. If determined to be a major repair or major alteration, a field approval may be granted.

c. Minor alterations or repairs do not require FAA approved data and therefore must not receive field approval.

d. Repairs and alterations that have all the necessary approved data also do not require field approval.

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE

REF: FAA Order 8300.16

Edited October 15, 2014 by iChris