Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
Cell phone systems are not compatible with aircraft
operation.

Can you imagine, for example, how many cell sites will
be triggered if you are at 35,000 feet over London and
try to get a dialtone?

Compatible or not, I do know that it is being talked about. Having a
local cell within the aircraft. Operational this year, I believe.

Cheers,
David

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:47:34 GMT, brian w edginton
wrote in :

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".

Have you no sense of humor?
Best regards,
John Navas

Have you no sense of correct spelling? .... in aus.aviation

John

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Chris Pisarra" wrote:
The argument that some electronic device will interfere with
the
plane's navigation is bull****--and, if it were true, then it would make
sense to ban the electronic devices while cruising, when they could get
lost, not on takeoff and landing when they can see where they are going.

Any airplane that could crash because some 10 year old kid is
playing his PS2 is a plane I wouldn't want to fly on, and neither would
you.

Don't fly on any airplanes then, because potentially
they *all* could.

The difference is that at altitude very few problems are
critical. The pilots have time to determine that an
instrument is not accurate, and can make reasoned
decisions about alternate methods to compensate. During
takeoff and landings, they are making split second
decisions one after the other and the effect of an
instrument failure is magnified many times.

I doubt that there has been a single plane in the last 10
years
that hasn't had at least one person leave their cell phone on for the
entire
flight, and there have been none, zero, zip, zilch, nada crashes
therefrom.

But there *have* been instances of interference with the
flight instruments from cell phones.

The reason there have been no crashes is because they
are banned, and the exposure has therefore been reduced.

That's incredible! Is this your woolly theory or do you have credible
evidence to support it?

The goal of all of this is to turn the passengers into sheep.
It sure looks like the plan is working.

Nobody cares that you are woolly.

Wow - clever pun but rather sheepish comment ....
QED Chris!

John

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
Cell phone systems are not compatible with aircraft
operation.

Can you imagine, for example, how many cell sites will
be triggered if you are at 35,000 feet over London and
try to get a dialtone?

Compatible or not, I do know that it is being talked about. Having a
local cell within the aircraft. Operational this year, I believe.

That's the point though, with the currently exist system
it is downright anti-social to use a cell phone from an
aircraft in most areas.

There are solutions, one of which is the system currently
used where the aircraft has phones available for passengers
to use.

Another solution, which you refer to, is to put a cell
site on the aircraft itself. That will allow a local
cell phone to access the network via that cell site, and
avoid trying to pass off the call to the dozens of other
cell sites that otherwise would be activated.

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

In article , David J
Taylor wrote:

The cabin pressure did confuse the height measured by the GPS as the one I
now have does that barometrically rather than (or in conjunction with) the
GPS-derived height, rather than using the GPS-derived height alone. Must
find out how to stop that (Garmin GPSmap 60CSx).

i have its predecessor, the 60cs, and there is *no* way to disable it.
it's annoying, because the displayed altitude is nowhere near accurate.
i've even driven underground for many miles. because of that, i
will not be getting a gps that has a barometer in the future. however,
there is a way to get gps altitude -- on the satellite page, hit menu,
one of the options is gps altitude. it just won't put that number in
the main display.

In article , Podge wrote:

Gosh, you guys must be better looking than me (or something) because I was
told that using my GPS on a flight was an absolute no no! I doubt whether
any airline's official policy would allow the use of a GPS in flight because
it is transmitting quite a powerful RF signal to satellites above.

they dont' transmit. some airlines prohibit a gps at any time during
flight while others allow them once they reach cruise altitude.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Cell phone systems are not compatible with aircraft
operation.

they worked on united 93.

Can you imagine, for example, how many cell sites will
be triggered if you are at 35,000 feet over London and
try to get a dialtone?

dialtone? cellphones don't have dialtone. airlines are also looking
into having microcells on board for inflight use.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
Another solution, which you refer to, is to put a cell
site on the aircraft itself. That will allow a local
cell phone to access the network via that cell site, and
avoid trying to pass off the call to the dozens of other
cell sites that otherwise would be activated.

But it makes nonsense of the argument about not being allowed to use
phones at any time because they might interfere with aircraft systems. Or
at the very least, it weakens that argument. And if phones are OK,
perhaps cameras next?

David

nospam wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

The cabin pressure did confuse the height measured by the GPS as the
one I now have does that barometrically rather than (or in
conjunction with) the GPS-derived height, rather than using the
GPS-derived height alone. Must find out how to stop that (Garmin
GPSmap 60CSx).

i have its predecessor, the 60cs, and there is *no* way to disable it.

Same with the 60CSx

it's annoying, because the displayed altitude is nowhere near
accurate. i've even driven underground for many miles. because
of that, i will not be getting a gps that has a barometer in the
future. however, there is a way to get gps altitude -- on the
satellite page, hit menu, one of the options is gps altitude. it
just won't put that number in the main display.

Yes, when we got to Heathrow, it insisted the altitude was -44m, but it
gradually recovered. I had been hoping to get the real height into a
recorded track so that I could replay it in Google Earth. I see what you
mean about GPS alitude, but it's so damp here that I'm only getting three
satellites (indoors) right now instead of the usual six. No height with
just three satellites....

Cheers,
David

Podge wrote:

From a practical point of
view, does anyone know whether digital cameras really CAN interfere with
an aircraft's navigation systems?

No, they don't


Are airlines being a little too
cautious with regard to the use of digital cameras and camcorders?



Its not caution. It's just being nasty.

Doug McDonald