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" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in message news:478abe46$1@clear.net.nz... >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
I am really doubtful there would ever actually be a problem but just in case there might be I personally am prepared to comply with the wishes of the crew "just in case".
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.
Analogue radio equipment can also interfere unintentionally but this is much less likely as the oscillators generate sine waves and thus only produce signals on one frequency at a time. Purely analogue electronic devices are getting pretty rare these days.
"Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in message news:478abe46$1@clear.net.nz... >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
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. Even something so harmless as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
> 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. Even something so harmless > as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. > Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I > started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to > be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
If you used an old film-type still camera, I wonder if these would be banned also? I can understand that laptop computers, GPS units and other radio transmitting devices could cause problems, but I am a bit surprised to find that a tiny digital still camera could be a problem!
I would have thought that interference from strong (and perhaps unshielded) ground-based radio signals would be just as much a problem to an aircraft that is coming in to land as the interference that a tiny digital camera could produce? I wonder if any scientific tests have been done on interference from digital cameras, or whether it's simply easier to ban all electronic devices?
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:42:25 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote:
>>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?
> Confirmed cases of interference by such devices, including replication > under test conditions. > -- > Cheers > Paul Saccani > Perth, Western Australia.
Are there any internet web sites which would give details of these cases, particularly with regard to electrical interference produced by tiny digital still cameras?
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:42:25 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> 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?
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.
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in messagenews:478abe46$1@clear.net.nz... > >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
> 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. Even something so harmless as > a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most > PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started > using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off > except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
> Mark
I took digital photos from aircrafts during take off and landing many times, a while ago or just recently (last year). We still have not been explained technically regarding positive proof of such interferences. When you fly in third world countries in the past, they have concerns that you take photos (even using the old conventional cameras) from the air (perhaps due sensitive installation, sites, etc). However, perhaps the practice is now starting to spread over the liberal, democratic countries as well.
On similar view, do you recall that you cannot use a cell phone inside a hospital, as it may interfere with EKG equipment, etc. Ironically, my experience in one of the hospital in South east Asia was that everyone in the hospital (including the interns and doctors) were all using cell phones. Then, last month we all heard about the news that revealed 10 common myths that people is still being forced to believe. The report indicated that the chance of interference is very small. However, it is strange that only perhaps 2 out of every 5 news media actually discussed about this particular issue (cell phone in hospital). The other 3 out of the 5 seems to push the news under the rug. Why? You can perhaps google it under the news and see who reported it and who did not.
Wouldn't this all cover under "who is and who wants to be in control?". Sure, if you fly, they prefer you to be in chains and naked :). That way it is 100% sure that you will not affect anything..... or perhaps telepathy would still even be a concern in this case ?
> 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?
>> 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. Even something so harmless >> as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. >> Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I >> started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to >> be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do >they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
Yes.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
>> 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. Even something so harmless >> as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. >> Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I >> started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to >> be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? Do >they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators and communication with other parties than anything else.
A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be camouflaged as a PDA or camera.
Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial.
I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the plane or when I could use them.
>>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? >>Do >>they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
> Yep.
If digital cameras really were a threat to an aircraft's navigation systems, why aren't they especially mentioned in the instructions that are read out by flight crew? For example, they talk about laptop computers, portable electronic transmitting devices etc, but they don't seem to specifically mention digital cameras? Because just about everyone owns a digital camera, I think these should be specifically mentioned, both verbally and in writing by airlines if they really don't want people to use these during take-offs and landings!
"sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:478ad873$1@clear.net.nz... > 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.
> 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.
>>> 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. Even something so >>> harmless >>> as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. >>> Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I >>> started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had >>> to >>> be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
>>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? >>Do >>they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
> Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security > involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators > and communication with other parties than anything else.
> A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be > camouflaged as a PDA or camera.
> Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether > they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial.
> I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a > question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the > plane or when I could use them.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
I can see that great caution is needed in today's airline environment, but wouldn't an explosive device and a device that is used to remotely detonate it, be detected by the airlines' security scanning systems? After all, you are allowed to use a digital camera and a laptop computer 10 minutes after take off, so aren't airlines relying on these having been satisfactorily scanned before going aboard the aircraft?
"Mark B." <mbohntras...@comcast.net> 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.
That is not something that has changed or is new. It was true long before, and has nothing to do with security, but rather with safety.
>Even something so harmless as >a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. Most >PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I started >using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had to be off >except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
Exactly. The problem is that "electronic devices" generate radio frequency signals (and digital device tend to generate extremely broad spectrum signals, making them far worse).
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:40:03 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in <478ad99...@clear.net.nz>:
>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.
Whatever for? You're not going to affect the policy.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
>> 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.
> "sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message > news:478ad873$1@clear.net.nz... >> 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.
>> 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.
> Planes are well insulated from any interference, especially from different > electronics built into the plane itself. Otherwise the coffee maker might > bring up the landing gear and cause the engines to shut down.
> E. Scrooge
However, this article suggests that interference from portable electronic devices demonstrates 'potential for catastrophe'
>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".
The _rule_ is "no electronic devices", the airline attendant has no discretion.
>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.
That is not true.
>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.
Please direct that sort of response to alt.conspiracy, where it belongs.
The reason for the ban *is* to prevent interference with aircraft electronics (e.g., radio and other navigation systems). That is a *very* real potential.
>>>> 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. Even something so >>>> harmless >>>> as a PDA, which I usually have with me to read e-books during a flight. >>>> Most PDAs have wireless connections built-in now, but years ago when I >>>> started using one there was no such thing - didn't matter, it still had >>>> to >>>> be off except while the aircraft was at cruising altitude.
>>>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? >>>Do >>>they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
>> Aerial photography isn't done from commercial flights. The security >> involved in commercial flights has more to do with remote detonators >> and communication with other parties than anything else.
>> A device used to remotely detonate an explosive device can be >> camouflaged as a PDA or camera.
>> Aerial photography is done from small planes or helicopters. Whether >> they are owned by the photographer or hired is immaterial.
>> I no longer have a pilot's license, but when I did there was never a >> question about what devices I could bring to the plane or use in the >> plane or when I could use them.
>I can see that great caution is needed in today's airline environment, but >wouldn't an explosive device and a device that is used to remotely detonate >it, be detected by the airlines' security scanning systems? After all, you >are allowed to use a digital camera and a laptop computer 10 minutes after >take off, so aren't airlines relying on these having been satisfactorily >scanned before going aboard the aircraft?
I gotta laugh. We have very, very stringent security precautions in place in the US. However, it seems you can't pick up a newspaper here and not read about some reporter sneaking something through just to prove it can be done.
>>>>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics? >>>>Do >>>>they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
>>> Yep.
>>If digital cameras really were a threat to an aircraft's navigation >>systems, >>why aren't they especially mentioned in the instructions that are read out >>by flight crew?
> Because it's necessary to keep the announcement to less than an > hour. Do you want them to mention *every* conceivable type of > electronic device? By brand and colour?
> As mentioned by another, it's quite possible that they don't really > care about your particular kind of camera. But they do not want to > put the stewardess in the position of having to make a technical > decision. So she will ask you to turn off anything that looks > electronic.
I agree that the list could be endless, but it's such a common thing for people to own digital cameras and want to use them on a flight. I think there would be a lot more digital cameras on a flight than laptop computers, so I think specific reference should be made to digital cameras if these are not permitted to be used during take-offs and landings.
Someone mentioned digital watches, even in the days of "Get Smart" these could conceal just about anything, so it's a wonder that you are allowed to keep these on during a flight in case you could remotely detonate an explosive device with your watch or take a pic with it!
>> "sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message >> news:478ad873$1@clear.net.nz... >>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> Planes are well insulated from any interference, especially from different >> electronics built into the plane itself. Otherwise the coffee maker might >> bring up the landing gear and cause the engines to shut down.
>> E. Scrooge
>However, this article suggests that interference from portable electronic >devices demonstrates 'potential for catastrophe'
Personally, I don't care if it's safety, security, or if it's just that the flight attendant can't be arsed to check out every device she sees a passenger holding.
If you argue with them, you'll end up in a little green room back in the terminal explaining to some burly security guard that your device is harmless and you just wanted a picture of the honey wagon. In the meantime, your flight will be halfway home and you won't be on it.
Davidson) wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>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".
>The _rule_ is "no electronic devices", the airline >attendant has no discretion.
>>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.
>That is not true.
Right as usual, Floyd. The Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport in Barrow, with its one runway, may allow the Barrow Camera and Baculum Carving Club to roam the airport facilities, but that's not the rule for any airport large enough to have more than a windsock for air traffic control.
>>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.
>Please direct that sort of response to alt.conspiracy, >where it belongs.
And direct your reply to the alt.dubious.electronicinterference.theories newsgroup.
>The reason for the ban *is* to prevent interference with >aircraft electronics (e.g., radio and other navigation >systems). That is a *very* real potential.
I dunno what they fly out of Barrow, but in the airports I've flown out of they fly planes that don't wait until they hit 5,000 feet to turn on the radios and navigation systems. What do you think they use on take-off? Semaphores and Aldus lamps?
If I'm the pilot, and the fear is that the electronic devices are going to screw up my radio and navigation equipment, I want all the passengers to turn on everything they've got from digital cameras to boom boxes before I'm cleared for take-off.
If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high enough off the ground to bounce.
tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:58:34 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote:
>> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message >> news:1200281873.491622@ftpsrv1... >>> "sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message >>> news:478ad873$1@clear.net.nz... >>>> 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/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html
>>>> 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. >>> Planes are well insulated from any interference, especially from different >>> electronics built into the plane itself. Otherwise the coffee maker might >>> bring up the landing gear and cause the engines to shut down.
>>> E. Scrooge >> However, this article suggests that interference from portable electronic >> devices demonstrates 'potential for catastrophe'
> Personally, I don't care if it's safety, security, or if it's just > that the flight attendant can't be arsed to check out every device she > sees a passenger holding.
> If you argue with them, you'll end up in a little green room back in > the terminal explaining to some burly security guard that your device > is harmless and you just wanted a picture of the honey wagon. In the > meantime, your flight will be halfway home and you won't be on it.
Just be discrete and put it away when they pass. No problem. If they see you, they'll ask you to put it away, no big deal: put it away politely at that time.
