Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

"Podge" wrote:
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.

You know, that is the old problem. With tests you can only prove the
presence of problems, never their absence under all possible circumstances.
It is just not possible to test each and every new electronic device before
it hits the streets. And then you need to certify the device that it doesn't
cause interference and then you have to convince the passenger that his
camera doesn't have the non-interference sticker and therefore cannot be
used while the guy in the other seat.... You get the picture.

Do I believe that cameras are a thread to aviation safety? No, that is
extremely unlikely. I've taken pictures on take-off and landing in airliners
myself. However if the stewardess asks to turn it off (never happened to me)
then just turn it off.

Someone mentioned taking arial photos. For that an airliner is the worst
imaginable platform anyway. Thick, scratched, distorted, tainted windows,
blurr from the jet exhaust, traffic patterns and airways that don't consider
attractions, ...
Just hire a small plane. With a commercial pilot they run at about 150$ US
an hour and they will take you where _you_ want to go on your conditions and
they can circle around the attractions as long as you want (within
non-restricted air space only, of course).
Or even better: ask a private pilot among your friends to take you up. Most
pilots are happy to find an excuse to go flying, in particular if you chimp
in with the gas money.

jue
Private Pilot SEL

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
In article , says...

I agree that the list could be endless, but it's such a common thing for
people to own digital cameras and want to use them on a flight. I think
there would be a lot more digital cameras on a flight than laptop computers,
so I think specific reference should be made to digital cameras if these are
not permitted to be used during take-offs and landings.

What part of "digital camera" does NOT imply "electronic device" to you?
A digital camera is really not much more than a microprocessor whose
task it is to transfer information from a very leaky memory device (the
CMOS image sensor) to a somewhat less leaky device (a memory card). The
rest is just bells and whistles, from an electronics point of view.

Someone mentioned digital watches, even in the days of "Get Smart" these
could conceal just about anything, so it's a wonder that you are allowed to
keep these on during a flight in case you could remotely detonate an
explosive device with your watch or take a pic with it!

The use (or, more importantly, the non-use) of electronic devices before
and after cruise is not about concealed danger from those devices;
that's what the pre-board screening is for.

PDAs, laptops, and digital cameras all contain high-speed oscillators
and circuits that generate signals in RF bands as a side-effect of their
operation (cell phones, radio and TV receivers intentionally generate RF
in normal operation).

There is a SLIGHT chance that radio emissions like these could interfere
with either communications or navigation. During the takeoff and
landing phases of flight, the aircraft is often operating in conditions
where there is not enough information, time and/or space to "start
over". It is therefore considered prudent to refrain from behaviors
that could make such a situation worse. So, the drinks cart, the tray
tables, YOUR CAMERA and other toys are safely stowed away.

As to digital watches, typically the only oscillator is a crystal
operating at precisely 32,768 Hz, is extremely low power, and is pretty
well shielded by the watch case. Watches that are capable of doing much
more than this are still rare. As devices such as watch-phones and
watch-cameras become more common, they will likely have a "flight" mode
that disables their stronger RF components so that they won't have to be
banned and confiscated at the gate like Swiss Army knives and nail
clippers.

Now, the FCC and FAA could get together and mandate that ALL electronic
devices be tested and adequately shielded to pose NO POSSIBLE
interference hazard to avionics, but most consumers wouldn't want to pay
what that would add to the cost of their gadgets.

Has there ever been any interference from any electronic device more
than the slightest twitch? How about shielding the navigation system if
it is so sensitive? This is all complete nonsense!

Of course I wouldn't bother to argue this with a steward or stewardess
but I don't hesitate to take pictures on takeoff discretely either and
I'm likely not alone.

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:00:31 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

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.

Right as usual, Floyd. The Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport in
Barrow, with its one runway, may allow the Barrow Camera and Baculum
Carving Club to roam the airport facilities, but that's not the rule
for any airport large enough to have more than a windsock for air
traffic control.

Photographing an airport is no different than
photographing any other publicly viewable
infrastructure. Which is to say that the property owner
can indeed disallow photography on their premises, but
cannot disallow photography from a public location.

....

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.

I dunno what they fly out of Barrow, but in the airports I've flown
out of they fly planes that don't wait until they hit 5,000 feet to
turn on the radios and navigation systems. What do you think they use
on take-off? Semaphores and Aldus lamps?

That statement lacks any logic at all.

If I'm the pilot, and the fear is that the electronic devices are
going to screw up my radio and navigation equipment, I want all the
passengers to turn on everything they've got from digital cameras to
boom boxes before I'm cleared for take-off.

A smart pilot wants any device that can generate RFI to
be type certified for the specific aircraft he is
piloting during critical times such as takeoff and
landing.

If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high
enough off the ground to bounce.

You're already bouncing off the wall and the ceiling,
you might as well try the ground too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
"Podge" wrote:
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.

You know, that is the old problem. With tests you can only prove the
presence of problems, never their absence under all possible
circumstances.
It is just not possible to test each and every new electronic device
before
it hits the streets. And then you need to certify the device that it
doesn't
cause interference and then you have to convince the passenger that his
camera doesn't have the non-interference sticker and therefore cannot be
used while the guy in the other seat.... You get the picture.

Do I believe that cameras are a thread to aviation safety? No, that is
extremely unlikely. I've taken pictures on take-off and landing in
airliners
myself. However if the stewardess asks to turn it off (never happened to
me)
then just turn it off.

Someone mentioned taking arial photos. For that an airliner is the worst
imaginable platform anyway. Thick, scratched, distorted, tainted windows,
blurr from the jet exhaust, traffic patterns and airways that don't
consider
attractions, ...
Just hire a small plane. With a commercial pilot they run at about 150$ US
an hour and they will take you where _you_ want to go on your conditions
and
they can circle around the attractions as long as you want (within
non-restricted air space only, of course).
Or even better: ask a private pilot among your friends to take you up.
Most
pilots are happy to find an excuse to go flying, in particular if you
chimp
in with the gas money.

jue
Private Pilot SEL

But if a "switched on" digital camera really does present a danger to
aircraft navigation systems, why would the pilot of ANY plane allow it to be
used on his aircraft?

Craig Welch wrote:
"Podge" said:

I agree that the list could be endless, but it's such a common thing for
people to own digital cameras and want to use them on a flight. I think
there would be a lot more digital cameras on a flight than laptop computers,
so I think specific reference should be made to digital cameras if these are
not permitted to be used during take-offs and landings.

I guess we're flying different sectors. I see almost everyone get
out a laptop ... I can't recall the last time I saw someone leaning
over to the window with a camera.

You never sat next to me. I'm glued to the window with my camera the
whole time :-)

"Robert Reimiller" wrote in message
...
You could have just looked at their website:
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/trave...nt/default.htm

Thanks Robert, you make a good point, it pays to study the websites of
airlines before you leave home! But I do think that digital cameras should
be specifically mentioned by the flight crew.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:24:52 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:

Of course I wouldn't bother to argue this with a steward or stewardess
but I don't hesitate to take pictures on takeoff discretely either and
I'm likely not alone.


Had a hostie tell me the problem was that my radio "might attract
outside rays".

-------------------------------------

brianWE
I live and learn....mainly, though, I just live.

In article , paul-@-
edgehill.net says...

Has there ever been any interference from any electronic device more
than the slightest twitch? How about shielding the navigation system if
it is so sensitive? This is all complete nonsense!

If you shield a navigation system, such as VOR, it no longer works,
because its entire purpose is to receive navigation signals via RF.

Though anecdotal, the incidents in the cite below (mind the line break)
should cause anyone to take pause about using their gadgets. That said,
a part of the ban is behavioral; the flight crew prefers that you pay
attention to THEM, not your toys or hobby, during takeoff and landing,
where by far the majority of flight incidents occur.

http://www.rvs.uni-
bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html

Of course I wouldn't bother to argue this with a steward or stewardess
but I don't hesitate to take pictures on takeoff discretely either and
I'm likely not alone.

...and I'm probably not alone in pointing out such behavior to the flight
crew when I see it.

--Gene

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:58:03 GMT, Paul Furman wrote
in et:

Podge wrote:

Someone mentioned digital watches, even in the days of "Get Smart" these
could conceal just about anything, so it's a wonder that you are allowed
to keep these on during a flight in case you could remotely detonate an
explosive device with your watch or take a pic with it!

Absolutely.

Luddites.

But that's life in the 21st century, I suggest simply being discrete.

I suggest it would be better to be discreet.

--
Nicolaas

In article , says...

But if a "switched on" digital camera really does present a danger to
aircraft navigation systems, why would the pilot of ANY plane allow it to be
used on his aircraft?

You've hired a pilot or have a friend take you up for aerial
photography.

Presumably, you're going to want to do that on a relatively clear day,
when Visual Flight Rules are in effect, and navigation is performed
using a map, compass, and looking for landmarks. After all, pictures of
things on the ground look better without a cloud in the way.

No one is saying that your digital camera is going to gum up the
carbeurator and cause you to plunge, screaming, to the earth below.

However, should the weather change and your pilot/friend need to make an
instrument approach, she's going to expect you to stow away your camera,
check your harness, and shut up unless spoken to.

--Gene