Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

Martin Brown wrote:

If you want to take photos during take off and landing use an old
fashioned clockwork film camera.

I knew there was a reason I still had my old Argus C-3!

Ron Hunter wrote:

I strongly doubt it, but airlines seem to take the position that
avoiding all possible sources of interference is worth the inconvenience
to their customers, and governments often make that mandatory.

Unplanned, uncontrolled landings are pretty inconvenient too...

? "Stealth Pilot" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:46:24 GMT, Matt Ion
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.

I don't doubt that some such devices could generate interference... but
I would seriously hope that systems so critical as those on a modern
airplane would be a bit more hardened against such low-level
interference. One can only imagine the sort of havoc that could be
wrought if someone was actually TRYING to screw up the avionics!

ahhhh 'scuse me miss. are we at 10,000ft yet?
I wanna run me tesla coil for a bit.

No, your EMP bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosi...sion_generator
:-)

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
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?

Invalid assumptions on your part.

The onboard cell site, just like every other electronic
device installed on the aircraft, is type accepted for
that particular airframe configuration after extensive
testing to determine the precise interaction between it
and other installed devices.

The problem with your camera and with your cell phone is
that neither of them has been tested in the same way.

I don't think that airlines are expecting to issue people with cell
phones - they are expecting that existing phones will be used. Is that
not the case?

The point was that they _can_ make a system that is
compatible with the cell phone system, but they _can't_
solve the problem of potential interference from random
cell phones inside the aircraft in the same way. There
are some possibilities though...

They can design the _aircraft_ frame to absolutely
shield the passenger areas from other parts of the
aircraft. That is somewhat complex, but it isn't any
more complicated than many of the other safety design
features of a modern aircraft.

Then it would be a question of whether they certify that
aircraft for virtually any random device in the
passenger compartment, or if they only test and certify
that cell phones cannot leak through...

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
The point was that they _can_ make a system that is
compatible with the cell phone system, but they _can't_
solve the problem of potential interference from random
cell phones inside the aircraft in the same way. There
are some possibilities though...

They can design the _aircraft_ frame to absolutely
shield the passenger areas from other parts of the
aircraft. That is somewhat complex, but it isn't any
more complicated than many of the other safety design
features of a modern aircraft.

Then it would be a question of whether they certify that
aircraft for virtually any random device in the
passenger compartment, or if they only test and certify
that cell phones cannot leak through...

Having a screened passenger compartment could certainly alleviate the
problem. My gut feeling, though, is that a cell phone, when faulty, has
far more potential for generating interference than other non-transmitting
electronic devices. If customers' mobile phones are allowed, digital
cameras should be no problem.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Podge wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
wrote:
[]
I flew into Sydney from SF last April on an Air NZ flight and asked
if I could take photos as we landed. The flight attendant told me
that I could. So I did. The plane didn't crash and burn.

I asked if I could use a GPS during a flight recently and was told
that I could. I think asking is the key.

David

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.

Actually, a hand-held GPS is a receive-only device. Having asked, I
didn't argue the decision.

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).

You can at least view the GPS height by going through the barometer
calibration menu when it's offered as a calibration options. On some
Garmin models you can in addition set up a permanent display of
GPS-derived height rather than barometric. Not sure about 60CSX.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

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.
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.

Garmin GPS units with barometric altimeters are capable of providing
more accurate results than GPS altitude, typically moving from GPS
altitude error being about twice as bad horizontal error, to being
twice as good. That's why they provide the feature. But only if you're
prepared to learn how to operate it properly. If often requires a
rather fiddly process of calibration. If left alone and expected to
work completely automatically it will often produce huge errors.

In other words, the barometric altimeter models are not for
point-&-shooters :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
The point was that they _can_ make a system that is
compatible with the cell phone system, but they _can't_
solve the problem of potential interference from random
cell phones inside the aircraft in the same way. There
are some possibilities though...

They can design the _aircraft_ frame to absolutely
shield the passenger areas from other parts of the
aircraft. That is somewhat complex, but it isn't any
more complicated than many of the other safety design
features of a modern aircraft.

Then it would be a question of whether they certify that
aircraft for virtually any random device in the
passenger compartment, or if they only test and certify
that cell phones cannot leak through...

Having a screened passenger compartment could certainly alleviate the
problem. My gut feeling, though, is that a cell phone, when faulty, has
far more potential for generating interference than other non-transmitting
electronic devices. If customers' mobile phones are allowed, digital
cameras should be no problem.

Basically I agree with you.

The one fly in the ointment is whether they go to the
trouble and expense to test the shielding at all
frequencies, or just for cell phone frequencies.

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

David J Taylor wrote:
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....

Dampness shouldn't affect the GPS at all. One of the virtues of the
baro altitude models is that they can continue to give good alt
readings even when you only have three sats locked. Or even if it
can't see any sats at all. But only if the altimeter has been
calibrated...

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 2008-01-13 18:27:55 -0800, Mark Robinson said:


Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems.

Um, no. At least, not 'easily.' As a pilot, I have tried all kinds of
digital devices. Only a few have ever caused interference -- they were
all avionics! I could get GPS systems to interfere with radios, for
example. But I have never been able to get a cellular phone, camera,
computer, or other device to interfere with avionics. Indeed, many
pilots use laptop or tablet computers to retrieve airport and approach
information. There is nothing special about these computers. They are
not certified by the FAA or anyone else.

I have heard anecdotal evidence from other pilots that some older
analog phones will interfere, but not the PCS type phones. In any
event, the cellular phone rules were FCC rules, not FAA rules. A
cellular phone (especially the old analog ones) can generate too many
hits on too many towers and cause an undue burden on the ground system.
This is less of a problem with PCS digital phones, of course.

However, FAA regulations in the US (and New Zealand has similar
regulations) require that the crew determine that an electronic device
will not interfere with avionics before they allow its use. The crew
does not want to take the time to do that, for obvious reasons. They
are busy with other tasks.

They are not so busy en route, and any interference would be
noticeable, so allowing the use of electronic devices while at altitude
is not such a burden on the crew. So must airlines have rules allowing
these devices to be used while en route. Of course, the crew will ask
that any device which is actually interfering to be turned off.

The airlines are in a bit of a pickle right now. New technology allows
people to use any cellular phone while on board the plane -- the
aircraft has a kind of mini- cellular tower or repeater in it, such as
you see on other types of transportation or in tunnels or some
buildings. It could be a significant source of revenue and it has been
tried on some trans-Atlantic flights. The trouble is, after decades of
scaring people to death about using cell phones on airplanes, the
airlines have a tough sell convincing people that it is all right now.
:-) Besides, now people are afraid of terrorism and everyone 'knows'
that you can use a cellular phone to trigger a bomb in the baggage
compartment. (The real answer to this problem, of course, is to not
allow bombs in the baggage compartment, but the airlines have a public
image problem they have to contend with, too.)

But the main reason the airlines do not want you using electronic
devices during approach or departure has nothing to with their being
electronic. The blasted things are downright dangerous in turbulence
(which is more common at lower altitudes) and can become deadly
missiles in the event of an emergency landing. The airlines want
everything stowed during these phases of flight, but for some reason
people have to be told that this includes electronic equipment, too.
The last thing they want is to have your camera hurtling down the
passenger cabin at speeds of over 100 mph.

Flight attendants take huge risks getting up from their seats during
these periods to tell people to put their toys away. Several are
injured every year and some have even been killed. Do everybody a favor
and stow your junk during takeoff and landing.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor