Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
Podge
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
Pete D
"Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in message news:478abe46$1...@clear.net.nz...
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".
Mark Robinson
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.
Mark B.
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
Podge
"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v5ednb8LWYxHUxfa...@comcast.com...
> 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?
Podge
Podge
"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
news:9rjlo398vmot4ajim...@4ax.com...
> 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?
>
> 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?
tony cooper
>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.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
anir...@gmail.com
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in messagenews:478abe46$1...@clear.net.nz...
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 ?
Podge
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:78klo39luocl191v2...@4ax.com...
> 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?
John Navas
<478ad245$1...@clear.net.nz>:
>
>"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:v5ednb8LWYxHUxfa...@comcast.com...
>
>> 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)
tony cooper
>
>"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:v5ednb8LWYxHUxfa...@comcast.com...
>
>> 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.
--
Podge
"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:lhllo39d60thikrl8...@4ax.com...
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> said:
>
>
>>Well then, how do professional photographers get their city aerial pics?
>>Do
>>they have to especially hire aircraft for this purpose?
>
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!
Podge
Podge
"sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:478ad873$1...@clear.net.nz...
> 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.
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.
Podge
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?
Podge
Floyd L. Davidson
>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).
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John Navas
<478ad99b$1...@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.
tony cooper
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/f244/cooper213/sat001.jpg
--
Podge
"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:
>> 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.
>
> 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'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_6_17/ai_97423671/pg_2
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>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.
tony cooper
>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.
Podge
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> said:
>
>>
>>"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
>>news:lhllo39d60thikrl8...@4ax.com...
>>> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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?
>
> 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.
>
> And you will respect her request.
>
> --
> Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
> 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
> Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/
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!
tony cooper
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.
tony cooper
Davidson) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@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.
Paul Furman
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.
Paul Furman
>
> or whether it's simply easier to ban all electronic devices?
Yep.
Jürgen Exner
>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
First a lot of people who answered to this posting seem to confuse security
and safety. The "all electronic devises off" has nothing to do with
security but is all about safety and non-interference with avionics and has
has been in effect for a long time.
However the operator does have discretion to allow devices they deem
harmless.
FAR § 91.21 Portable electronic devices:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following
U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or
an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
[...]
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
I suppose other countries have enacted similar regulations.
jue
Paul Furman
> 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!
Absolutely.
Luddites.
But that's life in the 21st century, I suggest simply being discrete.
Gene S. Berkowitz
> 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.
What part of "digital camera" does NOT imply "electronic device" to you?
A digital camera is really not much more than a microprocessor whose
task it is to transfer information from a very leaky memory device (the
CMOS image sensor) to a somewhat less leaky device (a memory card). The
rest is just bells and whistles, from an electronics point of view.
> 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!
The use (or, more importantly, the non-use) of electronic devices before
and after cruise is not about concealed danger from those devices;
that's what the pre-board screening is for.
PDAs, laptops, and digital cameras all contain high-speed oscillators
and circuits that generate signals in RF bands as a side-effect of their
operation (cell phones, radio and TV receivers intentionally generate RF
in normal operation).
There is a SLIGHT chance that radio emissions like these could interfere
with either communications or navigation. During the takeoff and
landing phases of flight, the aircraft is often operating in conditions
where there is not enough information, time and/or space to "start
over". It is therefore considered prudent to refrain from behaviors
that could make such a situation worse. So, the drinks cart, the tray
tables, YOUR CAMERA and other toys are safely stowed away.
As to digital watches, typically the only oscillator is a crystal
operating at precisely 32,768 Hz, is extremely low power, and is pretty
well shielded by the watch case. Watches that are capable of doing much
more than this are still rare. As devices such as watch-phones and
watch-cameras become more common, they will likely have a "flight" mode
that disables their stronger RF components so that they won't have to be
banned and confiscated at the gate like Swiss Army knives and nail
clippers.
Now, the FCC and FAA could get together and mandate that ALL electronic
devices be tested and adequately shielded to pose NO POSSIBLE
interference hazard to avionics, but most consumers wouldn't want to pay
what that would add to the cost of their gadgets.
--Gene
Paul Furman
You are allowed to take pics on the taxiways where all the juicy stuff
is or out the windows in the terminal looking at all the ground operations.
> 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.
It's a private facility, not a public street (or is it?) so they can do
anything but that doesn't mean it makes any sense or has any reason.
tony cooper
wrote:
>"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.[...]
>
>First a lot of people who answered to this posting seem to confuse security
>and safety. The "all electronic devises off" has nothing to do with
>security but is all about safety and non-interference with avionics and has
>has been in effect for a long time.
I don't know that there's any confusion about this. It's not
necessarily a situation where the reason is safety *or* security. The
rule was put into effect when the systems were vulnerable to
interference, or were thought to be vulnerable to interference.
Even if the interference factors are reduced or eliminated by improved
systems, or if the interference factor is disproved, the rule may
continue to be in effect because there are *also* security
considerations.
"Because" can have more than one answer.
Jürgen Exner
>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.
You know, that is the old problem. With tests you can only prove the
presence of problems, never their absence under all possible circumstances.
It is just not possible to test each and every new electronic device before
it hits the streets. And then you need to certify the device that it doesn't
cause interference and then you have to convince the passenger that his
camera doesn't have the non-interference sticker and therefore cannot be
used while the guy in the other seat.... You get the picture.
Do I believe that cameras are a thread to aviation safety? No, that is
extremely unlikely. I've taken pictures on take-off and landing in airliners
myself. However if the stewardess asks to turn it off (never happened to me)
then just turn it off.
Someone mentioned taking arial photos. For that an airliner is the worst
imaginable platform anyway. Thick, scratched, distorted, tainted windows,
blurr from the jet exhaust, traffic patterns and airways that don't consider
attractions, ...
Just hire a small plane. With a commercial pilot they run at about 150$ US
an hour and they will take you where _you_ want to go on your conditions and
they can circle around the attractions as long as you want (within
non-restricted air space only, of course).
Or even better: ask a private pilot among your friends to take you up. Most
pilots are happy to find an excuse to go flying, in particular if you chimp
in with the gas money.
jue
Private Pilot SEL
Paul Furman
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!
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.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:00:31 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@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.
Photographing an airport is no different than
photographing any other publicly viewable
infrastructure. Which is to say that the property owner
can indeed disallow photography on their premises, but
cannot disallow photography from a public location.
...
>>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?
That statement lacks any logic at all.
>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.
A smart pilot wants any device that can generate RFI to
be type certified for the specific aircraft he is
piloting during critical times such as takeoff and
landing.
>If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high
>enough off the ground to bounce.
You're already bouncing off the wall and the ceiling,
you might as well try the ground too.
Podge
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:verlo3pjv72hu430r...@4ax.com...
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?
Paul Furman
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> said:
>
>> 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.
>
> out a laptop ... I can't recall the last time I saw someone leaning
> over to the window with a camera.
You never sat next to me. I'm glued to the window with my camera the
whole time :-)
Podge
"Robert Reimiller" <b...@certsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7df2ab25-cfef-40ba...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> You could have just looked at their website:
> http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default.htm
Thanks Robert, you make a good point, it pays to study the websites of
airlines before you leave home! But I do think that digital cameras should
be specifically mentioned by the flight crew.
brian w edginton
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".
-------------------------------------
brianWE
I live and learn....mainly, though, I just live.
Gene S. Berkowitz
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
Nicolaas Hawkins
in <news:vZBij.35875$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:
I suggest it would be better to be discreet.
--
Nicolaas
Gene S. Berkowitz
> 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.
--Gene
John Navas
<478af4da$1...@clear.net.nz>:
>"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:verlo3pjv72hu430r...@4ax.com...
>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)
John Navas
wrote in <eptlo390s0k9crq1l...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:24:52 GMT, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>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?
Nicolaas Hawkins
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<news:5ollo3hguhbsgitng...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:27:21 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:78klo39luocl191v2...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> 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/f244/cooper213/sat001.jpg
Very ordinary.
--
Nicolaas.
... Love is free. The results often aren't for the first 18 years.
Podge
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f4c365f...@news.verizon.net...
The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/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.
John Navas
<478b0186$1...@clear.net.nz>:
>"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.21f4c365f...@news.verizon.net...
>> 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/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/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.
EAL
>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
Podge
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:4g0mo3to5cb3lo6us...@4ax.com...
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?
Chris Pisarra
>> 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 bullshit--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
Gene S. Berkowitz
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
Jürgen Exner
>> Just hire a small plane. .
>> Or even better: ask a private pilot among your friends to take you up.
>
>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
Jürgen Exner
Quite pointed, but very much too the point.
Nice comment :-))
jue
Matt Ion
>
> "sam" <s...@green.eggs.ham> wrote in message news:478ad873$1...@clear.net.nz...
>> Mark Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
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!
Podge
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first...@verizon.net> politely wrote in message
news:MPG.21f4d4e0d...@news.verizon.net...
> 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/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default.htm#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."
Podge
"Gordon" <blu...@penguin.myplace.com> wrote in message
news:5v0i9lF...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2008-01-14, Mark Robinson <use...@blackhole.zl2tod.net> 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.
>
> 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
..............
Podge
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:q2Eij.4429$El5....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> <cross-postings removed, Gene plonked and thread marked as ignored>
>
> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>> In article <EmCij.35878$JD.3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, 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
>
> 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/reports/Helfrick_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/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default.htm
Mark Robinson
Yes it can and it does. Get a radio.
Ron Hunter
> 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?
>
I strongly doubt it, but airlines seem to take the position that
avoiding all possible sources of interference is worth the inconvenience
to their customers, and governments often make that mandatory.
Podge
"Mark Robinson" <use...@blackhole.zl2tod.net> wrote in message
news:478B1C63...@blackhole.zl2tod.net...
> sam wrote:
>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Any device capable of generating or using RF energy in the course of it's
> operation is capable of interfering with critical electronics used when
> taking off or landing a large plane. This includes anything containing a
> computer or other high speed electronics like your cellphone, digicam or
> lappy.
>
> No matter how well shielded the plane's electronics may be, they remain
> susceptible to interference on the frequencies at which they operate. The
> antennae, by definition, are not shielded.
>
> The huge majority of domestic electronic equipment spews interference
> across wide bands. Every piece is different.
>
> Let's imagine an aircraft carrying 800 people. They all have their
> cellphones switched on and half of them are running laptops, cameras,
> switch mode power supplies. None of this stuff is tested to see that it
> doesn't interfere with navigational systems.
>
> What is the probability that any given flight will suffer some
> interference to critical systems.
>
> Two hundred feet above the several critical navigation systems are swamped
> in squeals from a device that was dropped and then had a bit of water
> through it, or maybe one of those cellphones with a light emitting diode
> in the antenna. This prevents the pilot hearing a directive to abort the
> landing due an obstruction or a botched approach.
>
> Doesn't worry me, I hardly ever fly.
>
> Try it yourself. Find a scanner/radio. Listen through it's bands and hear
> all manner of stuff. Turn off all the electronics in your house and listen
> again.
>
> You'll need a very low frequency receiver to listen to digital watches.
> Their primary signal is on 32.768kHz. You might find some harmonics at the
> bottom of the AM broadcast band. Mine is particularly well shielded with a
> solid metal case and a solid metal screw on back.
I turned on a radio and made a call on a cell phone. A very loud buzz came
through the radio. I then turned off the cell phone and turned on a digital
camera, but alas, nothing heard at all. So I tried another digital camera,
and again, no interference heard. But someone must be able to measure
scientifically whether any RF that comes from a digital camera could
possibly interfere with an aircraft's navigation systems. I suspect that any
"radio transmissions" from a digital camera would be microscopically small
in comparison with the RF output of a cell phone.
Martin Brown
> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:4g0mo3to5cb3lo6us...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:30:23 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in
>
> >>"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.l...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.21f4c365f...@news.verizon.net...
>
> >>> 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.
If it is a conventional film camera then there isn't really a problem.
There might be a tiny current flowing for the metering circuit but the
shutter is typically mechanical and clockwork powered (though some do
have electronic shutters, and/or electrical wind-on).
> >>The article you refer to above doesn't seem to refer to digital cameras:
>
> >>http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/...
>
> >>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?
Modern digital cameras combine fast clock speeds, a dedicated CPU,
bulk memory and a small case that may or may not be adequately
shielded (evidence suggests that their shielding is a bit poxy on some
since certain digital cameras misbehave in close proximity to high
power radar stations). The risk is largely theoretical, but unless
everything was tested for compatibility with avionics flight control
systems and certified then no-one will take the chance. Your innocent
looking "just a digital camera" hides a powerful computing device and
a fast oscillator.
A few modern cameras are bluetooth enabled and/or have WiFi
capabilities and these definitely could be a nuisance. Avionics should
tolerate most things, but during takeoff and landing you really do not
want anything else in the cabin that might cause electronic
interference.
If you want to take photos during take off and landing use an old
fashioned clockwork film camera.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Podge
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:yOEij.77096$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> 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
>
Fortunately, Air New Zealand, for example, allows the following portable
electronic devices to be used on the aircraft at any time:
portable voice recorders (hand held units powered by dry cell batteries)
hearing aids
heart pacemakers
electric shavers
watches
hand held calculators without printer
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default.htm#anytime
THIS*@ozdebate.com Marutchi
> 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!
Well for the past 2 years on every flight I've made
(Brisbane-Cairns-Gove-Darwin-Longreach) they have announced specifically
that digital cameras have to be turned of for 20 mins after take off and 20
mins pre landing.
Of course that is if you listen to what they are staying, tis my observation
that most people don't even listen to the announcements.
Podge
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:u8Fij.77110$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> sna...@mailinator.com wrote:
> []
>> I flew into Sydney from SF last April on an Air NZ flight and asked
>> if I could take photos as we landed. The flight attendant told me
>> that I could. So I did. The plane didn't crash and burn.
>
> I asked if I could use a GPS during a flight recently and was told that I
> could. I think asking is the key.
>
> David
Gosh, you guys must be better looking than me (or something) because I was
told that using my GPS on a flight was an absolute no no! I doubt whether
any airline's official policy would allow the use of a GPS in flight because
it is transmitting quite a powerful RF signal to satellites above.
Mark Robinson
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>>> I flew into Sydney from SF last April on an Air NZ flight and asked
>>> if I could take photos as we landed. The flight attendant told me
>>> that I could. So I did. The plane didn't crash and burn.
>> I asked if I could use a GPS during a flight recently and was told
>> that I could. I think asking is the key.
> Gosh, you guys must be better looking than me (or something) because I
> was told that using my GPS on a flight was an absolute no no! I doubt
> whether any airline's official policy would allow the use of a GPS in
> flight because it is transmitting quite a powerful RF signal to
> satellites above.
No, they don't.
Richard
> 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?
One time on a flight I had my mobile in the overhead thingie and my BT
headset and PDA on me. Heard a vague vibrating noise from above about 10
mins into the flight and the BT headset beeped... Oops... Then figured I
would try getting on the net thru the phone and that worked a bit for a
few mins till it got higher.
And then my mate was poking thru someone elses windows shares on their
laptop that was broadcasting an adhoc network. Both didnt result in a
crash. ;)
Stealth Pilot
no it isnt. gps's are receivers. the satellites are the transmitters.
the gps doesnt transmit anything.
if my mobile is left on in my pocket when I go flying I can hear quite
loud bdip bdip bdip bdip noises through my aircraft radio as the
mobile synchronises with the cell.
I'd hate to be flying with 50 of the buggers up the back.
Stealth( cachophony comes to mind ) Pilot
Stealth Pilot
wrote:
>> A good web site, thanks. I can't imagine that tiny digital cameras would
>> pose a serious threat to an aircraft's navigational systems, so I would
>> like to see some serious research that proves that they do.
>
>I don't doubt that some such devices could generate interference... but
>I would seriously hope that systems so critical as those on a modern
>airplane would be a bit more hardened against such low-level
>interference. One can only imagine the sort of havoc that could be
>wrought if someone was actually TRYING to screw up the avionics!
ahhhh 'scuse me miss. are we at 10,000ft yet?
I wanna run me tesla coil for a bit.
Stealth Pilot
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>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?
Fifty fifty as to which is worse. The cell phone has a
higher output level, but it produces radiation within a
relatively narrow band of frequencies. The camera is
little different than a laptop computer, and while it
produces only very low levels, the frequency range is
very broad.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
> The argument that some electronic device will interfere with the
>plane's navigation is bullshit--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.
Don't fly on any airplanes then, because potentially
they *all* could.
The difference is that at altitude very few problems are
critical. The pilots have time to determine that an
instrument is not accurate, and can make reasoned
decisions about alternate methods to compensate. During
takeoff and landings, they are making split second
decisions one after the other and the effect of an
instrument failure is magnified many times.
> 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.
But there *have* been instances of interference with the
flight instruments from cell phones.
The reason there have been no crashes is because they
are banned, and the exposure has therefore been reduced.
> The goal of all of this is to turn the passengers into sheep.
>It sure looks like the plan is working.
Nobody cares that you are woolly.
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>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
The cell phone does not generate a wideband radio noise
virtually across the entire useful frequency spectrum
either, and your digital camera does.
>camera, because of the cell phone's ability to transmit and receive radio
Receiving radio signals is not a risk factor.
>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/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default.htm#priorapproval
What they say about mobile phones has virtually nothing to do with
how digital cameras present a risk.
>"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."
That suggests they would not agree with you at all!
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:36:17 +1300, "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> wrote in
><478af4da$1...@clear.net.nz>:
>
>>"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:verlo3pjv72hu430r...@4ax.com...
>
>>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?
Same as above, money.
Mark Robinson
> And then my mate was poking thru someone elses windows shares on their
> laptop that was broadcasting an adhoc network. Both didnt result in a
> crash. ;)
Strange, Windows always crashes when I do that.
John Ewing
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:nmvlo3taigqohp57v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:47:34 GMT, brian w edginton <edg...@bigpond.com>
> wrote in <eptlo390s0k9crq1l...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:24:52 GMT, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>>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.
>>
>>outside rays".
>
> Have you no sense of humor?
> Best regards,
> John Navas
Have you no sense of correct spelling? .... in aus.aviation
John
John Ewing
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87k5mcu...@barrow.com...
That's incredible! Is this your woolly theory or do you have credible
evidence to support it?
>> The goal of all of this is to turn the passengers into sheep.
>>It sure looks like the plan is working.
>
> Nobody cares that you are woolly.
Wow - clever pun but rather sheepish comment ....
QED Chris!
John
nospam
> Gosh, you guys must be better looking than me (or something) because I was
> told that using my GPS on a flight was an absolute no no! I doubt whether
> any airline's official policy would allow the use of a GPS in flight because
> it is transmitting quite a powerful RF signal to satellites above.
they dont' transmit. some airlines prohibit a gps at any time during
flight while others allow them once they reach cruise altitude.
us...@domain.invalid
> From a practical point of
> view, does anyone know whether digital cameras really CAN interfere with
> an aircraft's navigation systems?
No, they don't
>Are airlines being a little too
> cautious with regard to the use of digital cameras and camcorders?
>
>
Its not caution. It's just being nasty.
Doug McDonald
tony cooper
Davidson) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:00:31 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper <tony_co...@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.
>
>Photographing an airport is no different than
>photographing any other publicly viewable
>infrastructure. Which is to say that the property owner
>can indeed disallow photography on their premises, but
>cannot disallow photography from a public location.
>
You are not in a public location when you are on airport grounds or in
a commercial aircraft. The airport authority, or the airline
authority, can deny you access to anything they choose to deny you
access to.
>>
>>>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?
>
>That statement lacks any logic at all.
Point out to me the logic of turning off electronic devices during
take-off and landings but allowing them to be on before the aircraft
takes off, during the actual flight, or taxiing to the gate.
The electronics on the aircraft are switched on before any of this
takes place and kept on until the plane shuts down.
There are no delicate electronic systems turned on when the aircraft
reaches a certain altitude and turned off when the aircraft descends
to below that altitude.
If passenger-held devices interfere with aircraft electronics, they
will interfere with the aircraft electronics when the aircraft is
still at the gate.
The lack of logic is on your part.
>>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.
>
>A smart pilot wants any device that can generate RFI to
>be type certified for the specific aircraft he is
>piloting during critical times such as takeoff and
>landing.
Rubbish. The smart pilot knows that some passengers will have
inadvertently left devices on or will be surreptitiously using devices
at any time. Thus, the smart pilot will want to know, as early as
possible, if any device is in use on board before those critical
times. He will know that altitude does not make the presence of the
device more or less of a danger except for the longer drop if the
device causes a problem.
>
>>If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high
>>enough off the ground to bounce.
>
>You're already bouncing off the wall and the ceiling,
>you might as well try the ground too.
The rule about electronic devices being used on take-off and landing
was put into place when passengers first started bring electronic
devices on board and when it was not known if these devices could
affect instrumentation. The rule has been left in place because no
one wants to go out on a limb and declare that there is no possible
danger involved despite the fact that no problems have been
discovered.
The rule is also convenient for the flight passenger crew because it
eliminates passenger distractions during the obligatory return to your
seats, tray tables up, buckle-up, and other take-off and landing
procedures. It means that Pudge, here, is going to follow the air
hostesses' instructions instead of being tempted to get one last shot
out of the opposite side's window or delay conforming to her
instructions because he's on the phone or typing on his laptop.
Instead of saying "Please..." she can say "You must. It's a rule".
It's also left in effect because of security considerations. While
you might not be able to fathom why a digital camera or PDA can be a
security issue, consider that thousands of passengers have had to
remove their shoes in pre-boarding checks because one passenger tried
to light his shoe in flight. We are in a state of paranoia about
security and logic has little to do with the controls we impose.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
us...@domain.invalid
>
> Any digital device can easily interfere with avionic systems.
Not true. It's only true if it radiates a lot.
Most of these regulations are silly. For example, some
airlines allow GPS receivers, some don't. I can see
why transmitters are not allowed. Not cameras. Well,
I can see why cameras are not allowed ... its just
to be as nasty to paying customers as possible, a
trademark of airlines.
Doug McDonald
tony cooper
<grump...@t.large> wrote:
>> 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/f244/cooper213/sat001.jpg
>
>Very ordinary.
Of course it is. That's why I didn't attempt to do anything with it.
The beauty of digital is that you can fire off dozens of shots without
any associated costs and discard or use any of them. Some "ordinary"
shots can be manipulated in Photoshop to become interesting. This
wasn't one of them.
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> 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.
One must also consider the power with which these frequencies are
radiated. Since cameras are very low powered devices to start with,
it is unlikely that they would radiate much power. In the US the FAA
has commissioned testing to see just how likely interference from low
powered digital electronics is. The prohibition may disappear on US
flights.
I am not sure whether ICAO is doing anything similar, so it may be a
restriction on international or other national airlines for awhile
longer.
Floyd L. Davidson
Hence I *can* photograph an airport. Claiming that it
is inherently against the law is false. If I *really*
want good images, I can hire a chopper to fly a few
touch and goes in the pattern while I shoot pictures of
the entire facility!
>>>>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?
>>
>>That statement lacks any logic at all.
>
>Point out to me the logic of turning off electronic devices during
>take-off and landings but allowing them to be on before the aircraft
>takes off, during the actual flight, or taxiing to the gate.
Interfering with ILS, as one example, will have no
effect on an aircraft sitting on the ground, taxiing, or
at altitude.
>The electronics on the aircraft are switched on before any of this
>takes place and kept on until the plane shuts down.
So?
>There are no delicate electronic systems turned on when the aircraft
>reaches a certain altitude and turned off when the aircraft descends
>to below that altitude.
But there 1) are systems that are not in use, and 2) the
pilots have time to evaluate apparent problems. During
takeoff and landings there are other systems in use, the
pilots are extremely busy, and *everything* is critical.
>If passenger-held devices interfere with aircraft electronics, they
>will interfere with the aircraft electronics when the aircraft is
>still at the gate.
And the aircraft cannot crash while it is at the gate,
and does not need to know how far off the ground it is,
how far from other aircraft it is, what it's altitude or
it's attitude is, or how fast it is going.
>The lack of logic is on your part.
See above. You aren't making a lick of sense.
>>>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.
>>
>>A smart pilot wants any device that can generate RFI to
>>be type certified for the specific aircraft he is
>>piloting during critical times such as takeoff and
>>landing.
>
>Rubbish. The smart pilot knows that some passengers will have
>inadvertently left devices on or will be surreptitiously using devices
>at any time. Thus, the smart pilot will want to know, as early as
>possible, if any device is in use on board before those critical
>times. He will know that altitude does not make the presence of the
>device more or less of a danger except for the longer drop if the
>device causes a problem.
I don't think I want to fly in an airplane with you in it,
even if they have you in handcuffs or a straight jacket.
>>>If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high
>>>enough off the ground to bounce.
>>
>>You're already bouncing off the wall and the ceiling,
>>you might as well try the ground too.
>
>The rule about electronic devices being used on take-off and landing
>was put into place when passengers first started bring electronic
>devices on board and when it was not known if these devices could
>affect instrumentation. The rule has been left in place because no
>one wants to go out on a limb and declare that there is no possible
>danger involved despite the fact that no problems have been
>discovered.
Now, just why do you think nobody wants out on that
limb????
>The rule is also convenient for the flight passenger crew because it
>eliminates passenger distractions during the obligatory return to your
>seats, tray tables up, buckle-up, and other take-off and landing
>procedures. It means that Pudge, here, is going to follow the air
>hostesses' instructions instead of being tempted to get one last shot
>out of the opposite side's window or delay conforming to her
>instructions because he's on the phone or typing on his laptop.
>Instead of saying "Please..." she can say "You must. It's a rule".
I certainly do not object the that line of though!
One of the pilots I used to fly with quite often (in
twin engined general aviation aircraft seating up to 9
passengers) here on the North Slope was in the habit of
getting his female passengers to help him recite the
spiel with him. (It helped that he was young, single
and a good looking fellow.) He was dead serious in
private that while it made the girlies giggle, the real
advantage in his mind was that it got *everyone's*
attention, and it increased his chances of survival in
an accident.
>It's also left in effect because of security considerations. While
>you might not be able to fathom why a digital camera or PDA can be a
>security issue, consider that thousands of passengers have had to
>remove their shoes in pre-boarding checks because one passenger tried
>to light his shoe in flight. We are in a state of paranoia about
>security and logic has little to do with the controls we impose.
It isn't a security issue now, and never was.
Matt Ion
> If you want to take photos during take off and landing use an old
> fashioned clockwork film camera.
I knew there was a reason I still had my old Argus C-3! :)