Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:20:53 -0800, irwell wrote in
:

Everybody particating has been in an airplane.
Everybody owns a digital camera and other electronic devices.
Ergo everybody is an expert.

Just like Dr. Science. http://www.ducksbreath.com/pictures.html


--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:58:08 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

Yes, good question, you would think that aircraft manufacturers could
effectively shield the navigation equipment from outside interference in
some way. ...

Which shows just have naive and ignorant you are. If you shield the
aircraft navigation and communications systems, then the aircraft would
be blind and deaf. Cute. Really practical. Fine as long as you stay
parked at the gate.

Give it a rest. Seriously. All you've doing with knowledgable people
is convincing them you're an idiot. Unless you just delight in trying
to impress other newbies.


The topic of shielding is touched on in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

"Whether interference from small battery-powered devices should have any
influence on electronic systems that should be designed to fly through
lightning storms without failing is often disputed by critics of the ban. An
article[6] by Tekla S. Perry and Linda Geppert, then editors of IEEE
Spectrum, offers an explanation: While a brand new aircraft may indeed be
completely immune from such interference, shielding and other mechanisms
that normally protect the avionics do degrade over time, after thousands of
takeoffs, landings, and pressurization cycles and various maintentance
procedures. Similarly, the shielding in passengers' devices also degrades
due to the passage of time and, in some cases, repair procedures.

While certainly not a rigorous scientific study, the Discovery Channel
television program MythBusters examined the "myth" that mobile phones are
banned aboard aircraft to force passengers to use the airline's inflight
phones. They concluded that this is "busted." Their tests caused no
interference to a small airplane's avionics, but did so to unshielded
equipment. They concluded that interference could occur aboard an aircraft
if the shielding was not working correctly. [7] "

This same article also says that:

"A NASA report from 2001[2] summarizes "14 years of incidents reported by
pilots to the ASRS" of interference caused, or suspected to be caused, by
passenger electronic devices. Mobile phones were the most frequently
identified source of interference, with laptop computers a close second. In
no cases were the affected avionics found to be defective upon later
testing. Degrees of correlation or confidence were not among the data
summarized in the report. "

I would be grateful if someone could find a documented case that shows that
digital cameras have, even once, been identified as a source of
interference.

Fact: The above quotation clearly shows that mobile phones were the most
frequently identified source of interference.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:20:53 -0800, irwell wrote:

Everybody particating has been in an airplane.
Everybody owns a digital camera and other electronic devices.
Ergo everybody is an expert.

Thank you for the highly thoughtful and insightful summary.

So , what is the correct answer? Can cameras be permitted at any
time? And of course while this group is about cameras, it behoves
every citizen (who cares anything about safety) to concern themselves
with other electronic devices on A/C ie; camcorders, Walkmen,
calculators, MP3 players, digital watches, pacemakers, CD players,
PDAs, laptops, etc.

And yes, I know that many of these have been tested to some standard,
but who knows when a hacked or defective one will appear?

After all, if safety is so important, one can't be TOO CAREFUL. Most
air travellers I have discussed this with immediately respond that
they want "zero risk" Me? I'm an infinite order of magnitude more
realistic.

On Jan 17, 8:45 pm, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

IMO, what AF 593 shows is that one should consider a possibility of
"the second party" initiating a maneuver with so high-g that the pilot
has no physical possibility to intercept the controls. I do not know
how agile C-172 is (comparing to A310 ;-), so can't comment more.


We have a reg that states (more or less) that only a suitably
qualified rated pilot can manoeuvre or be in a position to manoeuvre
the aircraft.
Allowing passengers to visit the business end stopped on 9/12.
The A310 flight systems wouldn't permit a high-g manoeuvre anyway

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:25:14 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..

Everyone knows that cell phones are the main problem and that digital
cameras aren't, you'd have to be pretty naive and have a dangerous lack of
knowledge to think otherwise.

Bull****. Directly contradicted by evidence I've posted here.
You _are_ dangerous.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

I think that the article referred to below backs up what I said above,
namely that cell phones are the main problem. Note that laptop computers
were found in this NASA report to come a close second. Again, digital
cameras are conspicuous by their absence. Nobody posting to this thread has
yet found any report that identifies a digital camera as having interferred
with an aircraft's avionics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

A NASA report from 2001[2] summarizes "14 years of incidents reported by
pilots to the ASRS" of interference caused, or suspected to be caused, by
passenger electronic devices. Mobile phones were the most frequently
identified source of interference, with laptop computers a close second. In
no cases were the affected avionics found to be defective upon later
testing. Degrees of correlation or confidence were not among the data
summarized in the report.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:09:26 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

Give it a rest. Seriously. All you've doing with knowledgable people
is convincing them you're an idiot. Unless you just delight in trying
to impress other newbies.

The topic of shielding is touched on in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

You need to take my advice. Seriously. You obviously have no idea
whether what you're reading even has any bearing on the issue or not.
It's sounds to you like it does, so you think it does.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:37:24 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:25:14 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

Everyone knows that cell phones are the main problem and that digital
cameras aren't, you'd have to be pretty naive and have a dangerous lack of
knowledge to think otherwise.

Bull****. Directly contradicted by evidence I've posted here.
You _are_ dangerous.

I think that the article referred to below backs up what I said above,
...

And again you're wrong. I give up. You're hopeless.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:37:24 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:25:14 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

Everyone knows that cell phones are the main problem and that digital
cameras aren't, you'd have to be pretty naive and have a dangerous lack
of
knowledge to think otherwise.

Bull****. Directly contradicted by evidence I've posted here.
You _are_ dangerous.

I think that the article referred to below backs up what I said above,
...

And again you're wrong. I give up. You're hopeless.


I personally have only quoted an authoritative source, namely a NASA report
which clearly says that mobile phones were the most frequently identified
source of interference. So are you suggesting that this report is wrong and
hopeless? If so, why? People are entitled to rely on authoritative published
reports as a source of reference. My posting said this:

"I think that the article referred to below backs up what I said above,
namely that cell phones are the main problem. Note that laptop computers
were found in this NASA report to come a close second. Again, digital
cameras are conspicuous by their absence. Nobody posting to this thread has
yet found any report that identifies a digital camera as having interferred
with an aircraft's avionics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

A NASA report from 2001[2] summarizes "14 years of incidents reported by
pilots to the ASRS" of interference caused, or suspected to be caused, by
passenger electronic devices. Mobile phones were the most frequently
identified source of interference, with laptop computers a close second. In
no cases were the affected avionics found to be defective upon later
testing. Degrees of correlation or confidence were not among the data
summarized in the report."

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:13:10 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

And again you're wrong. I give up. You're hopeless.

I personally have only quoted an authoritative source, namely a NASA report

You don't even know enough to know that's not true.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"Barry Lennox" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:20:53 -0800, irwell wrote:

Everybody particating has been in an airplane.
Everybody owns a digital camera and other electronic devices.
Ergo everybody is an expert.

Thank you for the highly thoughtful and insightful summary.

So , what is the correct answer? Can cameras be permitted at any
time? And of course while this group is about cameras, it behoves
every citizen (who cares anything about safety) to concern themselves
with other electronic devices on A/C ie; camcorders, Walkmen,
calculators, MP3 players, digital watches, pacemakers, CD players,
PDAs, laptops, etc.

And yes, I know that many of these have been tested to some standard,
but who knows when a hacked or defective one will appear?

After all, if safety is so important, one can't be TOO CAREFUL. Most
air travellers I have discussed this with immediately respond that
they want "zero risk" Me? I'm an infinite order of magnitude more
realistic.


Air travel and zero risk doesn't compute for me, it's like buying a lottery
ticket and never expecting to win, the chances are slim, but they do exist.
If you want zero risk, stay at home and make sure your home is not in a
flight path.

Jean