Using video cameras etc. during landing and takeoff
Snapper
all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff and
landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is it that
the aircrew can get away with it?
What I mean is that we're constantly seeing videos from U-Tube being
posted here, or rather their links, and these were taken from the flight
deck. Now, wouldn't they be a greater risk of creating interference with
the aircrafts avionics than someone sitting in seat 55A or 43J filming the
takeoff through the window?
--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.
Sylvia Else
Well, at least if something seems to be going wrong with the avionics
the potential electronic culprit is readily available to be turned off...
.... if one believes that mostly digital avionics really have such a low
noise immunity, but don't interfere with each other.
Sylvia.
Snapper
> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
>the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
>you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
>interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
>difficult to address.
Yep, that's fine, I s'pose. But if there is a risk of interference
occuring, why do it in the first place?
Podge
"GB" <gb0...@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:13qlq3k...@corp.supernews.com...
> Snapper <snapp...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> news:01f5c7af$1$17207$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...).
>> With all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff
>> and landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is
>> it that the aircrew can get away with it?
>
> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
> the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
> you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
> interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
> difficult to address.
But if there was any suspected interference from video recording, perhaps a
quick look around the cabin would find the person who was filming out the
window (or the person who had left the camera on by mistake). Anyway, after
today's New Zealand events, I'm more concerned about the lack of security at
certain airports:
Podge
Podge
"Snapper" <snapp...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:02eca48f$1$21899$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> GB wrote...
>
>> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
>>the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
>>you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
>>interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
>>difficult to address.
>
> Yep, that's fine, I s'pose. But if there is a risk of interference
> occuring, why do it in the first place?
>
True, in this monster 700 plus postings thread, I think most people did
agree that it's better to err on the side of caution with regard to
passengers' use of portable electronic devices during takeoffs and landings:
Having said that, it was interesting to see that, nobody posting to that
monster thread was able to find even one officially reported instance of
where the use of a digital camera or a video camera was suspected as causing
interference to an aircrafts avionics. I'm pleased about that, it gives me
the confidence to keep on flying!
Podge
.
Qanset
GB wrote:
Snapper <snapp...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:01f5c7af$1$17207$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...).
> With all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff
> and landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is
> it that the aircrew can get away with it?
JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
difficult to address.
This definetly has to be your PET subject>
Does'nt it GB???
GB
--
"Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)
Qanset
This subject has been strongly argued and debated for 10 years or
more.
British and US Govts have conducted trials and tests to determine
this, with
no evidence to prove otherwise. If a carrier imposes restrictions
for safety sake
Then so be it. We just go along with what they want.
Sylvia.
Kwyjibo
"Qanset" <Qan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47B2A4BC...@hotmail.com...
<a complete dog's breakfast of a post - AGAIN>
FFS will you turn of the HTML shit and learn how to format a post. Your crap
is unreadable and makes Atec's posts look like the works of a literary
genius in comparison. It's almost impossible to figure out who is saying
what.
--
Kwyj.
Pits
> "Podge" <Po...@flight.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"GB" <gb0...@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
> >news:13qlq3k...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>news:01f5c7af$1$17207$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> >>> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...).
> >>> With all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff
> >>> and landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is
> >>> it that the aircrew can get away with it?
>
> >> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
> >> the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
> >> you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
> >> interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
> >> difficult to address.
>
> >But if there was any suspected interference from video recording, perhaps a
> >quick look around the cabin would find the person who was filming out the
> >window (or the person who had left the camera on by mistake).
>
>
> Tell me, have you actually *been* on a large aeroplane?
>
> --
> Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
> 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
> Price your own web plan:http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/
Craig I think Mister Podge was very sincere in his post and trying to
add his suggestion to the thread.
I read it in the spirit that he was not saying the hull large
aeroplane was immediately about to fall out of the sky.
But more in the sense perhaps of
* Ding! captain to cabin crew director "appears some of the SLC has
an electronic device going back there go have a quick scout around
and kick him or her in the tail "
However, your point on the ability to rat through all the lockers
under seats etc really would be a heck of a task is appropriate.
As a pax one of my pre departure/boarding habits is to take battery
off back of phone and diss the A Cells in the camera and put them in
the lap top bag.
Wish I had a quid for every time I have observed a phone go off in the
coat or overhead locker.
On another tack have you noticed the recent detection of certain crews
from at least 2 Asian carriers bringing offensive and awful stuff into
Adelaide airport ?
This begs the question - why are they suddenly checking contents of
tech crews laptops upon arrival ?
RT
"Pits" <spaml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:04e180ca-9e4d-469d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On another tack have you noticed the recent detection of certain crews
> from at least 2 Asian carriers bringing offensive and awful stuff into
> Adelaide airport ?
> This begs the question - why are they suddenly checking contents of
> tech crews laptops upon arrival ?
Grass(ed)
Pits
> "Pits" <spamlis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Per ZAKer A ree . But wanted to see what some other "experts" came
up with :)
But Good that these "things" got nailed in my book
Qanset
Problem fixed, now go and flush your head down the toilet.
Kwyjibo
Good.
> now go and flush your head down the toilet.
Do you want me to look for your previous posts while I'm down there?
--
Kwyj.