Is it legal to mount a camera to the wing strut?

[Joe B]

I'm pretty sure they allow paddles and tiedown ropes attached to the outside of floatplanes. Most floatplanes I've flown have a couple feet of rope hanging under the wings to make it easier to grab on from a dock, and if improperly installed that could have a much more serious downside than a small camera ducktaped to a strut. Heck some floatplanes routinely carry canoes and large animal carcasses as external loads. Are there some regs about that somewhere?

The external ropes & paddles are part of the STC for the floats. The carriage of canoes can be part of the same STC or an additional STC in its own right.

You're on your own with that moose.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

On the other side, I would really like to have some footage from the outside of the plane, as the video quality is much better than if filmed through the windows

Yeah... Right up until the part where you hit a bug with the camera, and then you'll have a bunch of video of a bug-splat.

 

[meeverett]

For what it's worth I'm just as unsure about this as anyone, but I'm going to have to agree with Cap'n Ron on this one for now. Since I had no better place to look, I went to FAR Part 43 Appendix A--Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance.

According to Sec. A43.1(a):
(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major alterations:
(i) Wings.
(ii) Tail surfaces.
(iii) Fuselage.
(iv) Engine mounts.
(v) Control system.
(vi) Landing gear.
(vii) Hull or floats.
(viii) Elements of an airframe including spars, ribs, fittings, shock absorbers, bracing, cowling, fairings, and balance weights.
(ix) Hydraulic and electrical actuating system of components.
(x) Rotor blades.
(xi) Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft.
(xii) Changes to the basic design of the fuel, oil, cooling, heating, cabin pressurization, electrical, hydraulic, de-icing, or exhaust systems.
(xiii) Changes to the wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter and vibration characteristics.

All of that seems to include any sort of external mount on a non-experimental aircraft whether temporary or not. Now this is predicated on my definition of "alteration," but no matter how you play it I would think that sticking something to it even temporarily is an alteration.

 

[German guy]

I have just sent an inquiry to the FAA. Let's see what they'll say....

 

[tdager]

That's you, I know one FSDO airworthiness inspector that flys with a camera on his strut.

Your making a mountain from a mole hill.

Thank you.


Mount the darn thing, securely, and have fun.

 

[JeffDG]

What about the twine used to tie them on?

According to 14CFR Part 82.1.3(c) it must have a tensile strength of not less than 125% and not greater than 200% of the weight of the animal, after field dressing, such weight determined by a DoC certified scale that has been inspected within the preceding 6 calendar months.

 

[TMetzinger]

Legally, not without an STC or other FAA approval unless you can get an A&P to sign off the installation as a "minor alteration." The fact that it's not permanently mounted doesn't change the issue of something mounted externally which can potentially affect the handling, stability, or performance of the plane. However, if you don't mount it on a control or other aerodynamic surface, you have a better chance of it being approved. The problem is making sure that even if you don't put it on such a surface, it doesn't signficantly affect the airflow over such a surface. Fact is, unless you have flight data on the installation you're doing, you're going to be a test pilot when you do this -- things will change, and the only question is "how much?"

From a practical standpoint, if someone from the FAA sees you taxiing out with a camera taped to the outside of the plane, you should expect to have the provenance of that installation questioned. If they find a camera taped to the outside of your wrecked plane, you should expect both the FAA and your insurance company to be asking those questions. Make sure you have good answers at the ready.

I know of a couple folks who do this with the FSDO approval, and they have it down to a science now - I believe the cameras go on and the airplane is in the Restricted category. When they come off again, it's back to normal. And I _think_ that all the A&P does is log the changes.

 

[EdFred]

The FAA should rename itself to Fun Ain't Authorized.

 

[dmccormack]

By this tortuous logic I should get the FSDO to approve the grass hanging off the tailwheel on take off...