MyPilotPro
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 11
I have been asked by several pilots if the exterior MyPilotPro GoPro aircraft mounts I sell are are FAA compliant. The short answer is yes. The long answer is a bit more involved.
The FAA issued a memo on March 13, 2014 entitled Request for Clarification: External Camera Mounts. Lets dive deeper into this memo to see what it actually says. The first part of the memo addresses the question of is an exterior GoPro airplane mount considered a major or minor alteration to the aircraft. To answer that we need to look at the FAAs definition of a minor and major alterations. FAR 21.93 states, A minor change is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are major changes.
The MyPiloPro Swivel is the heaviest GoPro aviation mount I sell and it weigh just over 7oz. A pitot tube weighs more than that so were good there for the weight and balance part. My mounts are temporary and can be attached and detached in less than 30 seconds without the use of any tools. They also have no effect on structural strength since they are attached to the tie down. Because they are attached to the tie down, they have no effect on the reliability or operational characteristics of an aircraft either. Lastly, due to them being mounted under the wing like pitot tubes, landing gear on aircraft like Cherokees, and missiles on military aircraft, there really is no effect on airworthiness. I cringed at seeing pilots mount cameras on the top surface of a wing!
The memo goes on to say, Another consideration, in the case of this type of equipment, is the applicability of the term alteration. FAA Order 8110.37E, defines an alteration as a modification of an aircraft from one sound state to another sound state. The use of suction cups, or other temporary methods of attachment (not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft), would not be considered a modification to the aircraft. The temporary attachments would not be subject to the regulatory purview of 14 CFR part 43.
I think the part here that sticks out to me the most and was a major part of the design process for my mounts is where it states, not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft. FARs are chocked full of verbiage that basically say if you need a tool to attach something, you are going to need the FAAs approval. MyPilotPro mounts stay clear of this by using a cam lever which ensures both a secure attachment and no tools are required. Some of my competitors get tripped up on this with their attachment process.
While the MyPilotPro cam lever is very secure and exerts up to 400 lbs of clamping pressure, I have incorporated a stainless steel cotter pin safety feature on my mounts that will not allow it to detach from the tie down if the mount becomes loose during flight. As always, you are the Pilot in Command (PIC) and the decision to use an exterior action mount like MyPilotPro mounts comes down to you.
Safe Flying,
Marshall
The FAA issued a memo on March 13, 2014 entitled Request for Clarification: External Camera Mounts. Lets dive deeper into this memo to see what it actually says. The first part of the memo addresses the question of is an exterior GoPro airplane mount considered a major or minor alteration to the aircraft. To answer that we need to look at the FAAs definition of a minor and major alterations. FAR 21.93 states, A minor change is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are major changes.
The MyPiloPro Swivel is the heaviest GoPro aviation mount I sell and it weigh just over 7oz. A pitot tube weighs more than that so were good there for the weight and balance part. My mounts are temporary and can be attached and detached in less than 30 seconds without the use of any tools. They also have no effect on structural strength since they are attached to the tie down. Because they are attached to the tie down, they have no effect on the reliability or operational characteristics of an aircraft either. Lastly, due to them being mounted under the wing like pitot tubes, landing gear on aircraft like Cherokees, and missiles on military aircraft, there really is no effect on airworthiness. I cringed at seeing pilots mount cameras on the top surface of a wing!
The memo goes on to say, Another consideration, in the case of this type of equipment, is the applicability of the term alteration. FAA Order 8110.37E, defines an alteration as a modification of an aircraft from one sound state to another sound state. The use of suction cups, or other temporary methods of attachment (not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft), would not be considered a modification to the aircraft. The temporary attachments would not be subject to the regulatory purview of 14 CFR part 43.
I think the part here that sticks out to me the most and was a major part of the design process for my mounts is where it states, not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft. FARs are chocked full of verbiage that basically say if you need a tool to attach something, you are going to need the FAAs approval. MyPilotPro mounts stay clear of this by using a cam lever which ensures both a secure attachment and no tools are required. Some of my competitors get tripped up on this with their attachment process.
While the MyPilotPro cam lever is very secure and exerts up to 400 lbs of clamping pressure, I have incorporated a stainless steel cotter pin safety feature on my mounts that will not allow it to detach from the tie down if the mount becomes loose during flight. As always, you are the Pilot in Command (PIC) and the decision to use an exterior action mount like MyPilotPro mounts comes down to you.
Safe Flying,
Marshall
