Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

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?

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.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:12:11 +1300, "Podge" wrote:


"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
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.

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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:46:24 GMT, Matt Ion
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

"Podge" wrote:

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)

"Chris Pisarra" wrote:
The argument that some electronic device will interfere with the
plane's navigation is bull****--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 http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Podge" wrote:

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/trave...#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 http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"David J Taylor" wrote:
off, before the aircraft doors are closed. When the device is turned
back on again, it will already be set to flight or safe mode and
deemed safe. At no point during the flight will you be permitted to
make or receive phone calls or SMS texts, send or receive emails, or
use the internet."

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

Cell phone systems are not compatible with aircraft
operation.

Can you imagine, for example, how many cell sites will
be triggered if you are at 35,000 feet over London and
try to get a dialtone?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Paul Furman wrote:
Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
In article , says...

But if a "switched on" digital camera really does
present a danger to aircraft navigation systems, why
would the pilot of ANY plane allow it to be used on
his aircraft?
You've hired a pilot or have a friend take you up for
aerial photography.
Presumably, you're going to want to do that on a
relatively clear day, when Visual Flight Rules are in
effect, and navigation is performed using a map,
compass, and looking for landmarks. After all,
pictures of things on the ground look better without a
cloud in the way.
No one is saying that your digital camera is going to
gum up the carbeurator and cause you to plunge,
screaming, to the earth below.
However, should the weather change and your
pilot/friend need to make an instrument approach,
she's going to expect you to stow away your camera,
check your harness, and shut up unless spoken to.

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

And of course, the weather in your area *never* changes.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:36:17 +1300, "Podge" wrote in
:

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
. ..

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.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Richard wrote:
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.