Strapping anything externally without approval is illegal.
The "removable" concession applies only to stuff inside the cockpit - you cannot permanently install anything in an aircraft with an ICAO CofA unless it is supported by Approved Data.
Peter, do you have any pointers to something supporting this more formally (JAR or Caa) ? This question comes every other week at my local airport and I would love to settle this for good :)
Peter, do you have any pointers to something supporting this more formally (JAR or Caa) ? This question comes every other week at my local airport and I would love to settle this for good :)
Do you mean the bit about externally mounted equipment, or do you mean the bit about permanent installation of any equipment?
The former I have from a number of engineers. It also seems "obvious" that an approval is needed because you could strap on something which alters the aerodynamics enough to make the plane unstable, or make it go outside its original TC performance.
There may not be a specific regulation on cameras (I would not expect to find such a reg) but with a quick google I found this which on page 24 suggests that external cameras may be OK on helicopters (it suggests their removal is within permitted pilot maintenance, which is not the same thing, but it's a start for looking).
I know for example that in the FAA world you need a Major Mod approval for different wingtips e.g. TB20 GT wingtips fitted to a pre-GT TB20.
The latter is just how ICAO certification works. You can find most of the documents here and it will be in there somewhere.
The basic principle is that the manufacturer designs and builds a plane, which they with to be internationally flyable. The certification granted by the national authority is the Type Certificate and this specifies what equipment is installed. Anything extra either needs an STC, a Field Approval (both being Major Mods) or is a Minor Mod (and all 3 need to be supported by Approved Data, which in the case of the STC has been done for you). No other equipment can be fitted, without breaking the TC. It's a very restrictive system but it is what permits international flight (noncommercial obviously) with no questions asked, because all ICAO signatories are supposed to accept that ICAO TC / ICAO CofA for flight in their airspace.
There is a huge quantity of regs on equipment certification and specifically installing nonessential items - here is one little example. There are little areas where equipment which provably meets the requirements (but is not formally certified) can be installed - start digging here.
I am sure Pilot-DAR will give you chapter and verse 
I was talking about the non permanent installation.
It also seems "obvious" that an approval is needed because [...]
I agree but I've been unable to find the relevant piece of legislation to quote from. I'll keep looking :)
Let me have another go...
FAR 43 Appendix A lists what are Major Alterations.
(It is not the only doc which defines Major alterations; there are others particularly when it comes to avionics such as EFIS displays).
(a) Major alterations —(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.
etc...
On my reading, you cannot "change" any of these things on a certificated aircraft, without going through some process.
OTOH the above suggests that attaching a small camera to a C182 wing strut is a Major Alteration, which is clearly not generally regarded to be the case in the field, where people are doing movies without somebody going through the "337 field approval / DER" route.
Picking up this old thread, has anyone played with the Hero 5?
Especially the Hero 5 Session which is aerodynamically a lot better than the main Hero 5
Apart from 4K, it does 1440 60fps or 1080 90fps. 1440 (a kind of “half 4k”) is useful because you can do stuff like lens correction and by the time you have chucked away a load of stuff around the edges doing that, and usefully reduced the wide viewing angle, you can end up with good 1080P 60fps footage. Whereas if you shoot in 1080, by the time you do lens correction, if you want to render back to 1080, you end up replicating pixels and losing quality.
The main competitor, the Sony X3000
has nothing between 1080 and 4K but 4K (a) eats storage very fast and (b) is hard to edit unless you have fancy hardware. OTOH the Sony has much less distortion, as far as I can see from reviews.
Peter wrote:
has anyone played with the Hero 5?
… or even with the new Garmin one?
Well, one could turn this into an action cam review but which of these are any good for flying, and for producing 1080P movies? The HDMI and USB connectors on the one above mean it will need a waterproof housing.
I say 1080P because that seems to be the ideal target size, given the capabilities of video hosting at any price anybody normal is going to pay, and client playback hardware.
Peter wrote:
The HDMI and USB connectors on the one above mean it will need a waterproof housing.
It’s there :
I just bought a bunch of Garmin Virb Ultra 30 cameras and hope to shoot my first video with them next weekend during the Royal Aeroclub 3Rs airrace in Leicester.
I am sure most readers would appreciate the criteria for the choice for the particular application
