Is it legal...

Snaggletooth

Snaggletooth

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
665
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dustin
To strap a small camera to the Wing Strut of a Cessna 172? I found a camera with a Hat Clip, and a strap for my flight vids. Wanted to see if it was legal to strap it to the wing strut for some exterior vids.
 
Snaggletooth said:
To strap a small camera to the Wing Strut of a Cessna 172? I found a camera with a Hat Clip, and a strap for my flight vids. Wanted to see if it was legal to strap it to the wing strut for some exterior vids.
Click to expand...
It is a temp install, I would think it is legal on that basis.
 
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make noise?
 
This question was posted on the Red Board awhile back. Many regulations were cited for and against doing it. Tempers flared.

Personally, my opinion is if you can do it without it coming loose and lodging in a control surface, go for it.
 
Legal until you get caught. I wouldn't, not due to concerns over safety or legality, but because I find most flight videos longer than about 30 seconds boring as can be. At your and my stage of development, neither of us should be doing things in an airplane that would make a good video.
 
My understanding is that if it's a temporary installation that, in your judgement, will not interfere with the operation of the airplane and you've taken reasonable precautions that it won't fall off that you're good to go.

That advice is worth pretty much what you paid for it. And, I recommend Pro-Gaff tape for securing it. +6/-5 Gz and 200+ mph and it hasn't moved a millimeter and it leaves very little if any residue behind on the paint and makes cleaning it up a snap.
 
The first question will be, " is there any modification to the aircraft". If the answer is no, then it is as legal as attaching the hand help GPS to the yoke with a clamp.
 
steingar said:
Legal until you get caught. I wouldn't, not due to concerns over safety or legality, but because I find most flight videos longer than about 30 seconds boring as can be. At your and my stage of development, neither of us should be doing things in an airplane that would make a good video.
Click to expand...

Maybe it could be a what not to do video. :ihih:

Where's the poking smiley? :D
 
It goes without saying that you will post the video here when you're done right?
 
Is it legal to stick a small decal 'EAA member' on the tail of your aircraft ?


Oh, and tempers flare on the red board if you state 'that you like to eat apples'.
 
Snaggletooth said:
yup. all my vids are posted on youtube.
Click to expand...

Not to suggest that they're even comparable (just jogged my memory more than anything), but wasn't there some thread about a year ago with a plane that flew into the mountains in clouds, and came close enough to crashing that there were marks from bushes (not trees) on the wings...and someone (maybe the passenger) posted a video of it on youtube?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not to suggest that they're even comparable (just jogged my memory more than anything), but wasn't there some thread about a year ago with a plane that flew into the mountains in clouds, and came close enough to crashing that there were marks from bushes (not trees) on the wings...and someone (maybe the passenger) posted a video of it on youtube?
Click to expand...

Oh, and there was one of two guys (one 17 or 18 year old) from the AOPA board) that were "dogfighting" in and around cumulus clouds, WELL within the 500'/1000'/2000' clearance, and one of the guy having to go between trees on takeoff because he was most likely overgross, or at least overloaded for the conditions.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Not to suggest that they're even comparable (just jogged my memory more than anything), but wasn't there some thread about a year ago with a plane that flew into the mountains in clouds, and came close enough to crashing that there were marks from bushes (not trees) on the wings...and someone (maybe the passenger) posted a video of it on youtube?
Click to expand...
as much of a learning experience that was for the people involved, I don't think they should share the evidence of such clear stupidity for all to see.

Needless to say, I watched the video and I was like a scared kid in a scary movie
 
EdFred said:
Oh, and there was one of two guys (one 17 or 18 year old) from the AOPA board) that were "dogfighting" in and around cumulus clouds, WELL within the 500'/1000'/2000' clearance, and one of the guy having to go between trees on takeoff because he was most likely overgross, or at least overloaded for the conditions.
Click to expand...


I kinda want to see the dogfighting one
 
No matter what you do, in all probability, there is a law or regulation against doing it.
We have so many laws and regulations, most are now meaningless. It is impossible for one person to have even a basic understanding of five percent of them.

Therefore, as long as you take every conceivable precautions to prevent the camera from dislodging off your airplane, or making the airplane unairworthy, you should do OK in a courtroom. Just keep Murphy's law in mind.

John
 
elmetal said:
as much of a learning experience that was for the people involved, I don't think they should share the evidence of such clear stupidity for all to see.

Needless to say, I watched the video and I was like a scared kid in a scary movie
Click to expand...

It made me jump, too....
 
John Baker said:
No matter what you do, in all probability, there is a law or regulation against doing it.
Click to expand...

There's a reason for that. If a citizen gets too far out of line, they can always find SOMETHING to charge them with.
 
elmetal said:
I kinda want to see the dogfighting one
Click to expand...

It was actually pretty cool, illegal, but looked cool. It they would have got a block altitude and area and IFR clearance it would have been ok. We haven't heard from the kid since he got a call from the Philly FSDO, we're pretty sure he got a revocation.
 
EdFred said:
It was actually pretty cool, illegal, but looked cool. It they would have got a block altitude and area and IFR clearance it would have been ok. We haven't heard from the kid since he got a call from the Philly FSDO, we're pretty sure he got a revocation.
Click to expand...

Certainly sounds like it was merited...but I'll also acknowledge that for every dumb thing I did when I was 17-18, for most of which I actually did know better....

Regardless of safety, it would still be fun to do.... Which is exactly the way my brain worked then. And perhaps now.
 
Snaggletooth said:
yup. all my vids are posted on youtube.
Click to expand...
It's almost like saying "my videos are on the Internet". Blog does not have a link either (and not like it updates all that regularly).
-- Pete
 
elmetal said:
as much of a learning experience that was for the people involved, I don't think they should share the evidence of such clear stupidity for all to see.

Needless to say, I watched the video and I was like a scared kid in a scary movie
Click to expand...

But...if you're going to, a good blur effect on your N-number is advisable.
 
EdFred said:
It was actually pretty cool, illegal, but looked cool. It they would have got a block altitude and area and IFR clearance it would have been ok. We haven't heard from the kid since he got a call from the Philly FSDO, we're pretty sure he got a revocation.
Click to expand...

Can you get such a block reservation for two airplanes??? Not really flying formation, and if they reserve an altitude/area for maneuver, it should be one plane at a time.
 
JeffDG said:
Can you get such a block reservation for two airplanes??? Not really flying formation, and if they reserve an altitude/area for maneuver, it should be one plane at a time.
Click to expand...

I don't know. The trail plane always maintained visible contact with the one in front other than when it clipped or punched through a couple clouds, but only lost vis for 2 seconds or so max. They might not grant it, but I gotta admit the clouds made it cooler than it would have been on a clear day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ3_ZaVJms
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I don't know. The trail plane always maintained visible contact with the one in front other than when it clipped or punched through a couple clouds, but only lost vis for 2 seconds or so max. They might not grant it, but I gotta admit the clouds made it cooler than it would have been on a clear day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ3_ZaVJms
Click to expand...

The Big Sky principle at work, I guess...
 
JeffDG said:
Can you get such a block reservation for two airplanes??? Not really flying formation, and if they reserve an altitude/area for maneuver, it should be one plane at a time.
Click to expand...
Request a block altitude for a non-standard formation.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, but the FAA isn't likely to care unless you crash.
Click to expand...

I've seen this done, and the proper way to do it is to work with the FSDO and the airplane goes in the experimental category while the equipment is installed, and reverts back to the normal category when it's removed (and once again the airplane conforms to the TC) - A&P entries are required for the installation and removal.

But as Ron notes, unless you crash (or somebody is actively trying to get you in trouble), the FAA isn't likely to care.
 
TMetzinger said:
I've seen this done, and the proper way to do it is to work with the FSDO and the airplane goes in the experimental category while the equipment is installed, and reverts back to the normal category when it's removed (and once again the airplane conforms to the TC) - A&P entries are required for the installation and removal.
Click to expand...

But isn't that only if they're permanently installed? If the camera is attached without tools (ie using suction cups, tape, etc that have been mentioned in various threads on this subject) then it shouldn't require any sort of FAA approval or A&P signoff, I don't think.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But isn't that only if they're permanently installed? If the camera is attached without tools (ie using suction cups, tape, etc that have been mentioned in various threads on this subject) then it shouldn't require any sort of FAA approval or A&P signoff, I don't think.
Click to expand...

Suction cup on the inside of the cabin? No problem, and won't affect the aerodynamics. On the outside - on the wing strut - different story. The airplane I refer to used zip ties for the camera and the wiring.
 
TMetzinger said:
I've seen this done, and the proper way to do it is to work with the FSDO and the airplane goes in the experimental category while the equipment is installed, and reverts back to the normal category when it's removed (and once again the airplane conforms to the TC) - A&P entries are required for the installation and removal.

But as Ron notes, unless you crash (or somebody is actively trying to get you in trouble), the FAA isn't likely to care.
Click to expand...

That should read "Restricted" category.

See Order 8900.1 VOLUME 3 GENERAL TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 4, ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER FOR RESTRICTED CATEGORY CIVIL AIRCRAFT, Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Restricted Category Civil Aircraft

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=011C0430BBB923068525734F00766574
 
TMetzinger said:
Suction cup on the inside of the cabin? No problem, and won't affect the aerodynamics. On the outside - on the wing strut - different story. The airplane I refer to used zip ties for the camera and the wiring.
Click to expand...

Point is, I've also seen it done with wireless cameras (GoPro, recording to an SD card) taped to struts - And it was done this way after consultation with the FSDO.
 
If the FSDO will give you that in writing, you're good to go. But try getting that from them....

It's gotta fall under the "external carriage" waivers and it's a good bet no such document will be forthcoming.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Point is, I've also seen it done with wireless cameras (GoPro, recording to an SD card) taped to struts - And it was done this way after consultation with the FSDO.
Click to expand...

I believe it - things do vary from place to place.

They should call them FDOs - the "standards" part is sometimes ironic.
 
steingar said:
Legal until you get caught. I wouldn't, not due to concerns over safety or legality, but because I find most flight videos longer than about 30 seconds boring as can be. At your and my stage of development, neither of us should be doing things in an airplane that would make a good video.
Click to expand...

That's why they invented editing software...

I can see how it might be useful to critique a student's landings afterwards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top