Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:36:17 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
.. .

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?

Why would ANY pilot fly when overtired or under the influence?

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

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
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:55:15 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in
:

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

Very ordinary.

--
Nicolaas.


.... Love is free. The results often aren't for the first 18 years.

"Gene S. Berkowitz" wrote in message
.. .
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


The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...ticle/EMI.html

It identified cell phones, laptop computers, radio cassette and CD players,
electronic games, and heart monitors as being problems.

I can understand the concern with items such as cell phones, laptop
computers, and GPS units, but I don't think the above article refers to
problems caused through the use of digital cameras. I think that banning
passengers from taking digital still pictures during take-offs and landings
should be carefully considered by airlines before adopting it as policy.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:30:23 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"Gene S. Berkowitz" wrote in message
. ..

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.

The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...ticle/EMI.html

It identified cell phones, laptop computers, radio cassette and CD players,
electronic games, and heart monitors as being problems.

I can understand the concern with items such as cell phones, laptop
computers, and GPS units, but I don't think the above article refers to
problems caused through the use of digital cameras.

There is NO real difference (as some others have tried to explain to
you).

I think that banning
passengers from taking digital still pictures during take-offs and landings
should be carefully considered by airlines before adopting it as policy.

Nonsense.

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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:42:25 +1300, "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?

Podge

IMHO, rules like this (including the one about liquids) are overkill.
The authorities put these rules into effect to try to cover
everything, make it look like they are doing something about security
and to create a security awareness. And they do it because it is easy
and doesn't cost anything.

In my opinion, the chances that these electronic devices are going to
interfere with an aircraft's systems are negligble. If it was
otherwise, bunches of Osama's friends would be boarding aircraft and,
while the attendants are looking the other way, turn on all their
PDAs, cameras and laptops to bring the plane down.

Lots of those devices are not really off when they look like they are
off, and continue to emit their supposedly interfering signals. And
what about your watch, and travel alarm clock? It's too inconvenient
to remove the batteries from those devices, so airlines leave them
alone.

Ed

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:30:23 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"Gene S. Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

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.

The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...ticle/EMI.html

It identified cell phones, laptop computers, radio cassette and CD
players,
electronic games, and heart monitors as being problems.

I can understand the concern with items such as cell phones, laptop
computers, and GPS units, but I don't think the above article refers to
problems caused through the use of digital cameras.

There is NO real difference (as some others have tried to explain to
you).

From what I have read so far, there seems to be more of a problem with
equipment that has radio transmitting and receiving abilities. I very much
doubt that a digital camera could cause interference on the same scale as a
cell phone, for example. But, perhaps the answer is to revive my old film
camera and use this on flights instead of a modern digital camera?

John Navas wrote:
I think that banning
passengers from taking digital still pictures during take-offs and
landings should be carefully considered by airlines before adopting
it as policy.

Nonsense.

It's **all** nonsense. It isn't security, it's security
theater.

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.

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.

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

Chris


--
These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others

In article , says...

"Gene S. Berkowitz" wrote in message
.. .
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


The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...ticle/EMI.html

It identified cell phones, laptop computers, radio cassette and CD players,
electronic games, and heart monitors as being problems.

I can understand the concern with items such as cell phones, laptop
computers, and GPS units, but I don't think the above article refers to
problems caused through the use of digital cameras. I think that banning
passengers from taking digital still pictures during take-offs and landings
should be carefully considered by airlines before adopting it as policy.

Oh, for crissakes.
Get this through your head: your digital camera IS a computer.

It is NOT a conventional camera with magical film. It is a small
plastic and metal package crammed with a high-speed microprocessor, RAM
& FLASH memory, bus, CMOS array, read amplifiers, stepper motor(s) and
H-bridge driver for same, voltage regulators, switches, battery,
charging/gas gauge circuits, USB interface, loudspeaker, amplifier for
same, video signal generator, and more.

In those respects, it is the SAME as a cell phone, laptop, GPS, gameboy,
CD/DVD player, PDA, or any of hundreds of other devices that have taken
advantage of cheap, powerful microprocessors to keep human beings from
being bored while hurtling at high speed in an aluminum cigar tube
loaded with thousands of pounds of kerosene miles from the ground.

The airlines are not in a position to determine which of the hundreds of
thousands of devices are or are not going be a potential source of
interference.

So, they politely ask that you refrain from turning such devices on for
ten or twenty minutes at the beginning and end of each flight. But you
seem to believe that if it isn't EXPLICITLY prohibited, you should be
exempt, because you don't THINK it's a problem.

--Gene

cross-postings removed, Gene plonked and thread marked as ignored

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
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/publ...ticle/EMI.html

"an electric garage door opener, activated from the road by a small
radio device carried in my car. The door would occasionally open by
itself, early in the morning, on some rainy days when SFO was using RWY
19 for arrivals, and the flight path came more-or-less overhead"

right... yawn...

"An overview of the technical issues may be found in (Hel96)."
http://bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr/repor...ick_96_PED.pdf
"Firefox can't find the server at bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr."

"There have been to my knowledge no reports so far of interference with
electronic flight control on the Airbus A320/330/340 series or the
Boeing B777. These systems are shielded very well against electronic
signals, because they have to fly through radar beams and other
electromagnetic fields that may be occasionally very strong. There is
nevertheless some experience with electromagnetic interference with
electronic flight controls. Five crashes of Blackhawk helicopters
shortly after their introduction into service in the late 1980's"

OK Hmmmm sounds fine.

"Special Committee 177 was formed in 1992 to look into the possibility
of interference with aircraft systems from electronic devices operated
by passengers during flight. Such devices include laptop computers,
Gameboys and, more insidiously, portable personal telephones employing
cellular technology."

I don't see cameras listed there. wiping sweat from brow

"Nordwall reported the RTCA advisory group to be worried that no group
was testing or systematically tracking the potential effect of passenger
electronics"

yawn....

"The hull of a metal aircraft forms an effective electromagnetic
boundary between the outside and the inside of an aircraft.
Electromagnetic signals find it hard to get in, or to get out. That is
why the navigation and radio antennae on an aircraft need to be placed
outside the aircraft hull. But while outside they must be sensitive, the
navigation electronics inside the hull can be in principle just as well
and securely shielded as control avionics, because there is no reason at
all for navigation systems to be sensitive to electromagnetic signals
coming from inside the aircraft -- indeed, very good reasons for these
systems to be very insensitive, namely, that there is lots of other
electronics working there as well."

Doh!

blah blah blah
blah blah blah

"[...] One day departing Portland Oregon we noted that the FMC [Flight
Management Computer] Map display showed a disagreement with the "raw
data" VOR position. Our training is such that we would normally
immediately switch over to "raw data" and assume the FMC was in error.

We would have done that except that it was a beautifully clear day and I
looked out the window and was able to determine that the FMC seemed to
be right on. I called back to the cabin and asked the flight attendants
to check for someone using a cell phone or computer. A few minutes later
they called back to say that a man had been using his cell phone and it
was now off. Strangely (?) our VOR and FMC map now agreed."

OK, still not a camera and *very* anecdotal. And frankly, there is
always going to be someone text messaging on their cell phone so it'd be
best to to find another solution to this susspected/potential/maybe
problem if it was really a serious concern at all.

"He emphasises, as do the RTCA and the other correspondents, that more
research and systematic methods of testing are urgently to figure this
situation out."

Lol, and it's dated 2003

"[My experience suggests to me that] it is nearly impossible to
predict/replicate an EMI event on an aircraft when the event involves a
portable carry-on device (PED). Location, orientation, power output,
modulation, inconjunction with ALL the other
PED's/electronics/electrics/avionics active at that time all play a role
in the EMI event. And we must not exclude the terrestial based emitters
(radars, etc). ..."

Luddite!!!
Give me a break!
None of this was ever enforced prior to 2001 btw. And nothing suggests
cameras could cause any problem.