If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:08:46 +1300, "Podge" wrote:
"Mark B." wrote in message ... Guess you haven't taken any flights for a while. Airline security has changed drastically over the last several years, including turning off all electronic deviced during takeoff & landings. Even something so harmless as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude. Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose? Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators and communication with other parties than anything else. A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be camouflaged as a PDA or camera. Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial. I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the plane or when I could use them. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
"Craig Welch" wrote in message ... "Podge" said: Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose? Yep. If digital cameras really were a threat to an aircraft's navigation systems, why aren't they especially mentioned in the instructions that are read out by flight crew? For example, they talk about laptop computers, portable electronic transmitting devices etc, but they don't seem to specifically mention digital cameras? Because just about everyone owns a digital camera, I think these should be specifically mentioned, both verbally and in writing by airlines if they really don't want people to use these during take-offs and landings! Podge |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off orLanding
"sam" wrote in message ... Mark Robinson wrote: Podge wrote: I was on an Air New Zealand flight a while ago, and I started to take a few pics (from my digital still camera) as the aircraft took off. An air hostess politely told me that the use of electronic devices was not permitted during take-offs or landings. I told her that I was using a dedicated still digital camera and not a camcorder, but she still asked me to turn it off. About 10 minutes later, when land was well out of sight, we were able to turn on our "electronic devices". But about 10 minutes before landing, while still over the sea, all electronic devices had to be turned off again. The only worthwhile photography from this flight was during the first and last 5 minutes of the flight, and this would apply to many other flights that I have been on. Now I know that the use of camcorders has been banned during take-offs and landings, but I didn't know that digital still cameras now suffered this fate. My digital camera can't take movies, but I know that a lot of digital still cameras can also take movies. From a practical point of view, does anyone know whether digital cameras really CAN interfere with an aircraft's navigation systems? Are airlines being a little too cautious with regard to the use of digital cameras and camcorders? About 5 years ago, nobody cared when I used my camcorder or digital still camera during take-offs or landings, and there were no reports then of interference with the aircrafts' navigation systems! So what has changed during the last 5 years? Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems. They all contain square wave clock oscillators and logic circuits which produce broadband radio noise which can easily land on critical frequencies for things like precision approach, radar or communications systems. Mythbusted, http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/03/e..._on_plane.html Its because the aviation authorities don't want to do the testing. No reason, its just policy. Planes would be crashing a lot due to the digital watches that everyone completely disregards otherwise. A good web site, thanks. I can't imagine that tiny digital cameras would pose a serious threat to an aircraft's navigational systems, so I would like to see some serious research that proves that they do. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:08:46 +1300, "Podge" wrote: "Mark B." wrote in message m... Guess you haven't taken any flights for a while. Airline security has changed drastically over the last several years, including turning off all electronic deviced during takeoff & landings. Even something so harmless as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude. Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose? Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators and communication with other parties than anything else. A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be camouflaged as a PDA or camera. Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial. I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the plane or when I could use them. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida I can see that great caution is needed in today's airline environment, but wouldn't an explosive device and a device that is used to remotely detonate it, be detected by the airlines' security scanning systems? After all, you are allowed to use a digital camera and a laptop computer 10 minutes after take off, so aren't airlines relying on these having been satisfactorily scanned before going aboard the aircraft? Podge |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
"Mark B." wrote:
Guess you haven't taken any flights for a while. Airline security has changed drastically over the last several years, including turning off all electronic deviced during takeoff & landings. That is not something that has changed or is new. It was true long before, and has nothing to do with security, but rather with safety. Even something so harmless as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude. Exactly. The problem is that "electronic devices" generate radio frequency signals (and digital device tend to generate extremely broad spectrum signals, making them far worse). -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off orLanding
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:40:03 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
: A good web site, thanks. I can't imagine that tiny digital cameras would pose a serious threat to an aircraft's navigational systems, so I would like to see some serious research that proves that they do. Whatever for? You're not going to affect the policy. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:27:21 +1300, "Podge" wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message .. . I think there are some considerations you haven't thought about. I don't know what the air hostess to passenger ratio was, but we can't expect the air hostesses to have the time to check out each passenger's device to see if it's something that is, or is not, within the rules. In that brief time that you were stopped from using your device, she had to monitor several passengers and conduct her other duties. It makes their job easier to just say "no devices". Also, there's the security consideration of allowing images to be taken of ground facilities. Perhaps we're more conscious of this in the US, but the idea of people being able to photograph airport ground facilities is not acceptable here. It may be that the possible interference in the aircraft's systems is not the reason for the ban at all. It's a plausible excuse that passengers are more likely to accept because they don't know anything about the aircraft's system. Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Good points, but I think if someone really wanted to take movies from a departing aircraft, they could easily conceal a tiny video camera. We see a few TV clips these days where people were filmed by miniature hidden cameras. In addition, you can often see amazing detail from images on Google earth, so I think it might be quite difficult to stop people getting images of airport ground facilities? The question is not "Can you sneak some photographs on take-offs and landings?", but "Why does the air hostess ask you to turn devices off?" Sure, you can risk it. But, if caught, you'll be removed from the flight and quite possibly banned from that carrier. Yes, Google earth gets images of ground facilities. From straight up. From the cabin window you can get lateral views not possible with Google images. The commercial carrier ban isn't going to make it impossible to get images of every aspect of the ground facilities, but it's going to make it more difficult. That's what most security measures do. Interestingly, I had to pick up a relative at a local airport on Saturday. I arrived early and went to the commercial park next to the airport (not on airport grounds) and killed some time looking for shots. The airport is a former Naval Air Station http://www.orlandosanfordairport.com/history.htm and what is now the commercial park was part of the Navy base in WWII. There are still some old buildings there that go back to the Navy base days. I was photographing a large storage tank hoping that the shadows of the winding stairway up the white tank would make a good picture (it didn't) and a security guard approached me. Turns out it's something to do with the government (I didn't catch that part of the guard's warning) and the guard firmly requested that I not take any more pictures. He didn't ask me to erase the one picture that I had taken, but he was firm about me leaving that immediate area. Here's the pic. I didn't bother cropping or doing anything to it because I don't see any potential. http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...213/sat001.jpg -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off orLanding
"E. Scrooge" (*sling) wrote in message news:1200281873.491622@ftpsrv1... "sam" wrote in message ... Mark Robinson wrote: Podge wrote: I was on an Air New Zealand flight a while ago, and I started to take a few pics (from my digital still camera) as the aircraft took off. An air hostess politely told me that the use of electronic devices was not permitted during take-offs or landings. I told her that I was using a dedicated still digital camera and not a camcorder, but she still asked me to turn it off. About 10 minutes later, when land was well out of sight, we were able to turn on our "electronic devices". But about 10 minutes before landing, while still over the sea, all electronic devices had to be turned off again. The only worthwhile photography from this flight was during the first and last 5 minutes of the flight, and this would apply to many other flights that I have been on. Now I know that the use of camcorders has been banned during take-offs and landings, but I didn't know that digital still cameras now suffered this fate. My digital camera can't take movies, but I know that a lot of digital still cameras can also take movies. From a practical point of view, does anyone know whether digital cameras really CAN interfere with an aircraft's navigation systems? Are airlines being a little too cautious with regard to the use of digital cameras and camcorders? About 5 years ago, nobody cared when I used my camcorder or digital still camera during take-offs or landings, and there were no reports then of interference with the aircrafts' navigation systems! So what has changed during the last 5 years? Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems. They all contain square wave clock oscillators and logic circuits which produce broadband radio noise which can easily land on critical frequencies for things like precision approach, radar or communications systems. Mythbusted, http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/03/e..._on_plane.html Its because the aviation authorities don't want to do the testing. No reason, its just policy. Planes would be crashing a lot due to the digital watches that everyone completely disregards otherwise. Planes are well insulated from any interference, especially from different electronics built into the plane itself. Otherwise the coffee maker might bring up the landing gear and cause the engines to shut down. E. Scrooge However, this article suggests that interference from portable electronic devices demonstrates 'potential for catastrophe' http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._97423671/pg_2 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
tony cooper wrote:
I think there are some considerations you haven't thought about. I don't know what the air hostess to passenger ratio was, but we can't expect the air hostesses to have the time to check out each passenger's device to see if it's something that is, or is not, within the rules. In that brief time that you were stopped from using your device, she had to monitor several passengers and conduct her other duties. It makes their job easier to just say "no devices". The _rule_ is "no electronic devices", the airline attendant has no discretion. Also, there's the security consideration of allowing images to be taken of ground facilities. Perhaps we're more conscious of this in the US, but the idea of people being able to photograph airport ground facilities is not acceptable here. That is not true. It may be that the possible interference in the aircraft's systems is not the reason for the ban at all. It's a plausible excuse that passengers are more likely to accept because they don't know anything about the aircraft's system. Please direct that sort of response to alt.conspiracy, where it belongs. The reason for the ban *is* to prevent interference with aircraft electronics (e.g., radio and other navigation systems). That is a *very* real potential. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:51:40 +1300, "Podge" wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:08:46 +1300, "Podge" wrote: "Mark B." wrote in message om... Guess you haven't taken any flights for a while. Airline security has changed drastically over the last several years, including turning off all electronic deviced during takeoff & landings. Even something so harmless as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude. Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose? Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators and communication with other parties than anything else. A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be camouflaged as a PDA or camera. Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial. I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the plane or when I could use them. I can see that great caution is needed in today's airline environment, but wouldn't an explosive device and a device that is used to remotely detonate it, be detected by the airlines' security scanning systems? After all, you are allowed to use a digital camera and a laptop computer 10 minutes after take off, so aren't airlines relying on these having been satisfactorily scanned before going aboard the aircraft? I gotta laugh. We have very, very stringent security precautions in place in the US. However, it seems you can't pick up a newspaper here and not read about some reporter sneaking something through just to prove it can be done. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The eagle is landing but what's wrong with him? | John H | Digital Photography | 16 | January 7th 06 02:59 AM |
MOON LANDING HOAX VATICAN - MAKES IT TO WIKIPEDIA | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 2nd 06 10:50 PM |
MOON LANDING HOAX VATICAN - MAKES IT TO WIKIPEDIA | Crash Gordon | Digital Photography | 4 | December 27th 05 07:15 AM |
Annecy an pictures from aircraft | Claude C | Digital Photography | 1 | April 15th 05 08:13 PM |
Annecy and pictures from aircraft | Claude C | Photographing Nature | 0 | April 15th 05 03:05 PM |