Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
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.

Um, there's nothing to photograph in cloudy conditions.

"Podge" wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
Someone mentioned taking arial photos. For that an airliner is the worst
imaginable platform anyway. [...]
Just hire a small plane. .
Or even better: ask a private pilot among your friends to take you up.

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?

For most small planes, in particular those on a sight-seeing mission, the
only navigation system used are the pilots eyes. Chances of them being in
danger from a digital camera is negligable, I presume. Many small planes
don't even have any more complex navigation equipment than that.

And even if you are looking at electronic nav aids (there are planes that
don't even have any electricity at all on board) then those old VOR, ADF,
etc. are really not comparable to the all-digital integrated flight control
system used on modern airliners.
Just one example from the flight instruments: in small planes the attitude
indicator (aka artificial horizon) is vacuum driven. On an airliner it is a
digital computer-generated picture on an LCD. What is more likely to be
impacted by electronic disturbance, the vaccum or the computer?

jue

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
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.

Quite pointed, but very much too the point.
Nice comment :-))

jue

Podge wrote:

"sam" wrote in message ...
Mark Robinson wrote:
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?

Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems.

They all contain square wave clock oscillators and logic circuits
which produce broadband radio noise which can easily land on critical
frequencies for things like precision approach, radar or
communications systems.

Mythbusted,
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/03/e..._on_plane.html

I was gonna point that one out myself.

Its because the aviation authorities don't want to do the testing.
No reason, its just policy.

Planes would be crashing a lot due to the digital watches that
everyone completely disregards otherwise.

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!

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

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.

Although a digital camera may have some components that are also used by a
cell phone, a digital camera can't transmit a powerful radio signal like a
cell phone can. I would regard a transmitting cell phone as a much higher
risk to navigation equipment in an aircraft than a switched on digital
camera, because of the cell phone's ability to transmit and receive radio
signals. I think Air New Zealand would also agree with this viewpoint as
there are quite stringent rules with regard to the use of mobile phones:

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/trave...#priorapproval

"Mobile phone use is permitted on all Air New Zealand aircraft when the
aircraft is stationary on the ground, with the entry door(s) open. When the
last entry door is closed, you will be advised to switch off your mobile
phone/PDA. Please leave it off until you are advised that you are permitted
to turn it back on again in-flight, should it be equipped with a flight or
safe mode. Flight or safe mode mobile phones and PDAs may be used in-flight.
Flight mode enables the basic functions of your mobile phone or PDA to be
used whilst disabling the transmitting function. To take advantage of this,
you must switch your device to flight mode, and then turn your device off,
before the aircraft doors are closed. When the device is turned back on
again, it will already be set to flight or safe mode and deemed safe. At no
point during the flight will you be permitted to make or receive phone calls
or SMS texts, send or receive emails, or use the internet."

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.

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.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-14, Mark Robinson wrote:
[snip]


Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems.

They all contain square wave clock oscillators and logic circuits which
produce
broadband radio noise which can easily land on critical frequencies for
things
like precision approach, radar or communications systems.

So wrist watches are okay? How about pacemakers/UDi for the heart not
missing
a beat. Hearing aids? Clocks in lapstops which must tick on even when it
is
turned off.

The war on terror needs to be stepped up a notch or two. ;-)


Quite right, I think there must be a way of testing such equipment
(including digital cameras) to see if these items really could interfere
with an aircraft's navigational systems. I have been asking people on this
thread whether any scientific tests have proved conclusively that the use of
a digital camera poses a threat to the aircraft's navigational systems when
it is taking off or landing, but no one has found anything yet
...............

Mark B. wrote:
[]
Guess you haven't taken any flights for a while. Airline security has
changed drastically over the last several years, including turning
off all electronic deviced during takeoff & landings.
[]
Mark

Hope that doesn't apply to pacemakers....

David

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...
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.

For some reason, in its verbal announcements while in flight, Air New
Zealand refers specifically to portable video recorders being turned off
during take-offs and landings, but they don't mention digital still cameras.
However, on its web site, Air NZ says that portable video recorders AND
CAMERAS may be used after take-off and before landing, when the seatbelt
sign is off.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/trave...nt/default.htm

Podge wrote:
[]
"Mobile phone use is permitted on all Air New Zealand aircraft when
the aircraft is stationary on the ground, with the entry door(s)
open. When the last entry door is closed, you will be advised to
switch off your mobile phone/PDA. Please leave it off until you are
advised that you are permitted to turn it back on again in-flight,
should it be equipped with a flight or safe mode. Flight or safe mode
mobile phones and PDAs may be used in-flight. Flight mode enables the
basic functions of your mobile phone or PDA to be used whilst
disabling the transmitting function. To take advantage of this, you
must switch your device to flight mode, and then turn your device
off, before the aircraft doors are closed. When the device is turned
back on again, it will already be set to flight or safe mode and
deemed safe. At no point during the flight will you be permitted to
make or receive phone calls or SMS texts, send or receive emails, or
use the internet."

It will be amusing to see the reverse when mobile phones start being
allowed on suitably equipped flights!

David