Making modifications to existing helicopter camera bracket 1

[Cameraguy]

First post, I'm not an engineer but have a little experience with paying others for certification of minor mods.
Summary
How to go about adapting a FAA STC approved camera bracket.

The background.
There are numerous derigable camera brackets designed to fit on the belly of AS 350 type helicopters ("A Stars" or "squirrels") that allow the fitment of a range of stabilised camera gimbals such as a cineflex V14 gimbal.
The brackets are a "single pole" design where the gimbal is attached to the end of the pole so the gimbal is situated underneath the nose of the helicopter.
The pole is attached via a drop down "fin" at the front and a "clamp" on the skid cross tubes at the rear.

The pole consists of a straight section then a separate goose neck which hugs the curved nose of the helicopter. The goose neck achieves two things, it moves the camera forward about 18 inches and it raises the camera around 12 inches to achieve better ground clearance.
Between the end of the gooseneck and the gimbal there is usually a flat 20 inch diameter plate that serves as a vibration isolator. (it is actually two plates linked by with wire rope)
In respect to paperwork, the vibe plate is a grey area as it can be deemed to be part of the camera payload.

The fin, pole and clamp can be fitted in around 45 minutes. They are common and in use around the world on AS350s.

The Question.
New gimbals are being released that are slightly larger. The gooseneck part of the bracket needs to be redesigned to maintain ground clearance of the fatter payload. We can eliminate or change the heavy and large vibration isolator and make a new gooseneck.
Id like to do this outside of the manufacturer of the bracket to keep a point of difference (as a camera guy) to my competitors.
Assuming the new gimbals fit within the size and weight of the STC of the bracket, is it feasible for an approved engineering organisation to create a new gooseneck and vibration plate?

I'd need the approval to work with any AS350 type worldwide.

thanks!

Cameraguy

 

[Sparweb]

Speaking as someone who has developed a similar camera boom, for a similar camera, on a similar rotorcraft, I'm pretty familiar with what you're asking for.
I am guessing you have a different camera that you want to use, so you will have to be very specific. Not necessarily with me, here (keep your company secrets off the internet) but when it comes time to meet with the engineering organization you will inevitably have to contact in order to have an airworthy installation, they will need to know.

The STC for the Cineflex camera installation covers all the structural, electrical, and aerodynamic proof of safety that was evaluated before the STC was granted. Sure it's paperwork to you, but to the FAA it's proof that the installation is safe. The actual piece of pipe that you want to keep may be only 1% of the project, from Cineflex's perspective. Depending on how much you may want to change, you may be asking for more than you realize: "I am using the same boom, just want a different camera"... " and isolation mount"... "and some wiring has to change"... "oh yeah and the recording deck is replaced too"... and so on.

If you approach a qualified engineering organization to discuss the potential of the boom to support a different camera, be prepared to provide them with details of the electrical system, recording equipment, and weights of all the components you want to change. They will have to go over all of these details before determining if the existing STC can be used as a "starting point". You should have a working prototype of your system ready to go before approaching them, or else you will be paying aeronautical engineers to design multimedia equipment!

On my project, I carried out (very brief) tests in flight to demonstrate that the gimbal works properly, even at very high airspeeds, and on the ground monitoring radio frequencies for any noise that the camera/recording/playback/other equipment could introduce into the rotorcraft's circuits. There were a number of other tests on the structure to prove it would withstand the flight and maneuvering loads, before going flying. Remember, it's not because we expect something wrong, the goal of all tests is to show that there isn't anything wrong.


STF

 

[IRstuff]

Airworthiness is a non-trivial matter. My recollection is that there were something like 12 specific wickets to be crossed for military AWR:

>> Weight and balance
>> Crash safety
>> EMI/EMC
>> Human engineering
>> Electrical load
>> Stress analysis
>> Mechanical load
>> Aircraft strike
>> Safety/hazard analysis
>> Vibration
>> Wire strike

Some of the other AWR requirements are weapons related. Consult ADS-62 and ADS-65, which are specific to Army rotorcraft AWR for EO sensors.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[Cameraguy]

Thank for your thoughts.

Im familiar with proof of design and performance act for these gimbals and for writing electrical installations.

In essence the question is can an adaption be made to the camera bracket by an appropriately qualified and certified engineering company?


cameraguy

 

[Cameraguy]

opps sorry for the typos..
should read "I'm familiar with proof of design and performance ect..."

(I wrote one for a popular TV gimbal)

I'd be interested in any US companies that would be interested in the project...


cameraguy

 

[rb1957]

"can an adaption be made to the camera bracket" ? ... of course.

can it be certified worldwide ? ... sure it can.

personally, the biggest hurdle will probably be whether the change can be incorporated into the original STC, or does it need to be a new STC and will it then attract new airworthiness requirements.

i know helicopter mounts are attracting a lot of interest (= concern) from cert authorities, so there'll be concern there. where are you ? it'd make sense to start with your local authority (and then they'll approach the other authorities when you need it certified elewhere).

there should be lots of "job shops" in the US that could do this. a word of caution if this gets field approval by a DER ... this might not be readily acceptable to a foreign authority (in that some airworthiness issues might not be dealt with in the detail required).

this might be simply a revision to the existing STC, a simple structural change, some analysis, some flight testing ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Worldtraveller]

I can make a recommendation if you're looking for a DER (not me, although I'm in the helicopter industry now). The answers here are all correct. You would have to modify the STC, if you can get the STC holder to cooperate, or you can submit what amounts to a new STC application, although most of it would be based on the existing STC. A good DER can do the certification work for something like that. It may be easier in the long run to do it through the original STC holder, even if most of the work is done by an outside DER. This is good for you, because it allows the STC holder to approve your data based on their existing design; and it's good for them, because they can then say their design also works with camera XYZ, in addition to what they have in their STC.

Cheers.

 

[Cameraguy]

Thanks for the replies, the bracket is designed in the US, Im not in the US. I'd prefer a new US STC so that it can be used around the world, I could get it done locally but that would restrict its use in other countries. And you are correct that their can be no grey areas in the paperwork that are open to interpretation since an engineer in Germany or Japan will question it! (I speak from experience!)


Yes it would be easier but the original manufacturer would not do it unless they could sell the modification to others, which would mean I would fund the development for my competitors, when my goal is to have exclusive use (until such time the original manufacturer makes it themselves)

I have been burnt before co designing and funding flight testing and all the paperwork of a camera bracket with an engineering firm who later said it was their design.

Cameraguy

 

[Sparweb]

The only approval you control is the one you own. Sorting out the ownership of intellectual property is a challenge for all technology firms, not just one with flying machines. Companies get caught up in these sorts of problems around the world, but since you already have that experience, I trust you will take steps to prevent that problem in the future.

If you want a STC done for you, you may have to start with your home country's airworthiness authorities, then "familiarize" that approval in the USA. This is very frequently done, and usually the most efficient way, despite the appearance of having many "extra" steps. By starting with an airworthiness engineering and certification company in your country, you are working with people already in touch with the government officials that are needed for the approval, saving you the trouble of getting to learn how to work with them yourself. The alternative, working with a DER at long-distance could be quite costly, considering the travel required to do whatever measurements and tests are necessary.

I believe that most applications for a FAA STC coming from a non-US country must be passed through the New York certification office. That has been my experience, at least. They review the STC that was completed in your country, and securely exchange the data they need to review the paperwork. In the numerous applications I've put through the FAA, some have been held up, but they never seem to be for the same reason. Most went through well after I learned what they wanted, and how to prepare the data to their liking. If you contact an engineering company in your country, make sure to ask that they have a similar amount of experience making applications for FAA approvals, or else they won't know how to do it well and you will be stuck waiting. And if they give you half a dozen stories about the FAA being unreasonable for this or that, then let that also be a red flag that maybe the engineers you're speaking to haven't got the knack of it yet.

Frankly, if you're just going to operate your own helicopter with this one camera, on one mount, you really only need the one local approval.
Or, if you think you're going to take on a US camera manufacturer (Cineflex) that also caters to the airworthiness needs of their customers, then you are in a disadvantageous position. Worse, if you do gain some success, the manufacturer of the camera you use may discover the new market, get a mount of their own designed and approved, and cut you out of business altogether.



STF

 

[Cameraguy]

Thanks for the pertinent and professional replies.

Yes the business advantage of having the first/sole X camera on X pole in the world will only last as long as it takes for someone else to copy it.

STF thanks for the insight into approaching the NY office.
I hear you regarding costs of working remotely.

I'll investigate the locals and take it from there...

thanks to all


Cameraguy

 

[rb1957]

i'm not sure that you can approach the FAA for a US STC unless you're an US organisation or a foreign authority.

i would start an STC where you live and ask your authority to request an FAA STC.

btw, an FAA STC is not a world-wide approval ... you'll need several ... TC, EASA, Japan, China, etc (most nations require their own approval; yes, i know Europe isn't a nation). although having an FAA approval usually makes the re-cert quick and easy, but not necessarily a "done deal".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Worldtraveller]

The regulations are quite similar between the major worldwide certifying agencies. If you are interested in getting foreign approval, then a US STC, it will, as stated, have to go through the NY ACO. You should probably at least familiarize yourself with the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreements of the FAA and your native certifying agency so you can hopefully (start here) avoid the more common pitfalls.

 

[dgapilot]

The first thing you should look into is if the country where you are has a bi-lateral Airworthiness agreement with the US. If you have a bi-lateral, then once you have a local STC it shouldn't be to hard to get a US STC. If there is no Bi-Lateral, forget it! In that case, you will end up paying someone here in the US to get the STC, and it won't be in your name, it will be in the name of a US person or entity.

As for the STC itself, vibration, EMI, Flutter, W&B and a host of other things come to mind. Check the TCDS for the aircraft involved. Some rotor craft TCDS have limitations that say you need to work with the TC holder for any external mounted items. We had to work with American Eurocopter to mount a probe on the skid of the EC145 (UH72) for the Navy Test Pilot School. Vibration testing was the biggest headache on that project.

 

[Cameraguy]

Thanks for the replies and best wishes for the festive season

cameraguy