Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:04:33 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in :

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:45:47 +0000 (UTC), 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

So far there is absolutely no indication that such a maneuver took
place. The plane came in low and landed short of the runway. It then
skidded across the grass. All survived with a few reports of injuries.
...

Wrong incident:

Aeroflot Flight 593 was an accident on March 23, 1994 in which a
Russian Airlines (RAL) Airbus A310-304 passenger airliner,
registration F-OGQS, operating on behalf of Aeroflot, crashed into a
hillside in Siberia. All 75 passengers and crew were killed.

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

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

Mark Robinson wrote:
[]
You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft.

The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of
interference is inside.

Your point?

Obvious!

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:04:33 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in :

In general the smaller aircraft are much more agile than the much
larger passenger aircraft. That is why the competitive aerobatic
aircraft as small, light weight, and have lots of power. The controls
are quicker but the big difference is the large aircraft have far more
inertia, or momentum. Meaning it takes them much longer to respond to
the control inputs . That is not to say they are not quick and
powerful, they are. You have to think much farther ahead with the
larger aircraft. Even going from a 172 to my Beech there is a big
difference.

I think that's a bad analogy, and with all due respect, bad reasoning.
What I think matters in agility are factors like airframe strength,
power to weight, wing loading and control surfaces, as well as speed and
load. It's quite possible for a much larger and heavier aircraft to be
more agile than a smaller aircraft (think F-18), and modern commercial
airliners are quite agile for their speed, able to sustain much higher
forces than most small general aviation aircraft.

An airplane is an airplane is an airplane and most fly much alike when
straight and level. landing one is an entirely different proposition.
where that extra and substantial momentum, plus the added speed makes
a big difference.

I think that's an over-generalization -- high performance aircraft often
have major differences in flight characteristics as compared to low
performance aircraft. My understanding is that flight crews were
advised to abandon the B-58 if the flight control system failed because
of the near impossibility of flying the aircraft manually.

There is one other difference too. Wing loading per square foot. What
may seem like a slightly bumpy ride in the airliner, when done in a
172 would probably have the non pilot with his head stuck in the
"lunch bag" in short order. Turbulence is FAR more noticeable in the
smaller planes.

I think that's much more a function of speed, altitude and mass
(inertia) than of wing loading.

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:42:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

Mark Robinson wrote:
[]
You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft.

The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of
interference is inside.

Your point?

Obvious!

Not to me. Lots of holes for RF to leak out of (think windows), and
LOTS of cables to pick up RF even with shielding. And not antennas are
completely outside the aircraft (depending on the aircraft) -- some are
behind RF transparent sections of the skin.

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

In message ,
Bernd Felsche Proclaimed from the tallest
tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:
BTMO Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
"John Navas" wrote

Tough luck. Times change. Hire your own plane. That way you
won't be putting anyone other than the pilot at risk. You have
no business putting anyone else at ANY risk for your own
entertainment. To claim otherwise would be unmitigated
arrogance.

Just curious - what demonstrable, objective evidence exists to
demonstrate that digital cameras interfere with avionics?

This is a judgement call, not scientific proof.

It is fear-mongering.

Does the evidence exist or not?

If so, can you please post a link to it?

Can you post some evidence that NO digital camera current or future
is capable of interfering in some way with ANY of the many critical
systems that are in operation on a passenger jet?

Here's the match to your straw man:
Can you post some evidence that NO current or future aircraft that
is certified safe to fly will never crash?

There is a huge distance between reasonable caution and irrational
fear.

I don't understand the comparison. It is obvious that any aircraft is
capable of crashing, and if that fact worries you then don't fly.
My point was that seeing as it is not possible to be sure that there does
not exist a digital camera that is capable of interfering with flight
systems, and indeed that is is quite possible that some cameras could
(especially ones with bluetooth or WiFi or GPS etc. systems built in), it is
far simpler to just say that it is not permitted to use any digital camera
during critical parts of the flight.
I'm not saying that I don't think it is an overreaction or overkill, just
that I can understand that it is much much simpler to enforce a total ban
than to try and work out which devices are safe to use, then to make sure
that only those devices deemed as safe are actually being used.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:19 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:58:12 +0900, Bernd Felsche
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:59:52 +0900, Bernd Felsche wrote:

What is _meaningless_ is paranoia based on mythology. But such is
reflected in the rules.

What you believe is meaningless. What you can measure is meaningful.
Keeping in mind that all that can be measured isn't necessarily
important.

Those are just opinions, and not ones I share.

That might work for you if what you're doing isn't based on science
and scientific method.

Air safety isn't improved by ritual without reason.

Insults only serve to discredit your own point of view.

If I was to pick the one person in this thread that has been the most
insulting to other posters, it would be you, John.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In message ,
Stephen James Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

SNIP!
If a repeatable, peer recognised and reviewed scientific study was
undertaken which concluded/proved that no digital camera posed any
threat, in any way, to any aircraft's systems then the operators
would have reason to change their perception.

But even if that happened, unless this study could somehow prove that it was
impossible for any future digital camera to cause problems, the operators
would probably still enforce the ban, after all, who's to say that 1 week
after the report was concluded, a camera incorporating some new and
untested(in the above context) technology might not be released...

--
Regards,

Chris.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:42:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

Mark Robinson wrote:
[]
You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft.

The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of
interference is inside.

Your point?

Obvious!

Not to me. Lots of holes for RF to leak out of (think windows), and
LOTS of cables to pick up RF even with shielding. And not antennas
are completely outside the aircraft (depending on the aircraft) --
some are behind RF transparent sections of the skin.

But where the antennas are located /should/ make a substantial difference
to the susceptibility of the systems to which they are connected, and
being outside the cabin box is a good first step. Cables, if properly
chosen, installed and maintained, should not be an issue for devices like
cameras - they need to shield from much greater interference sources (such
as all the electrically operated stuff).

David

For the past two hours I have been trying to glean the highlights of
this thread. There are some very bizarre approaches to the very
simple rule of not using your camera during take-off or landings I
worked in the airline industry for 30+ years before retiring last
year. The rules are there for very good reasons and boo-hoo on you if
you can't use your camera during this period. The airline is there to
provide you with transportation and not necessarily to entertain you
or provide you with photo ops.

It may have been mentioned in one of the over 600 posts but I didn't
see it. The last thing I want to see is a loose flying camera tossing
about the cabin when you hit turbulence. Most turbulence are in
closer proximity to the ground and some if can be extremely violent.
This is another reason that the airlines do not want things in your
hands during this period of time.

What is the harm in accepting the fact that you have to keep your
camera in your bag for the first and last periods of a flight. So you
don't get to take a picture of your house as you fly over it. Why is
it that there are so many people with cameras (I don't think they have
yet earned the badge of photographer) believe that all rules apply to
everyone except them.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:08:58 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:19 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

Insults only serve to discredit your own point of view.

If I was to pick the one person in this thread that has been the most
insulting to other posters, it would be you, John.

You are of course free to think and say whatever you want, no matter how
baseless. That you see other points of view as insulting says much
about you and your respect for others.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford