Legalities on using a camera during take off and landing [Archive]

Hotel Tango

18th Feb 2011, 13:02

SOE is correct, other than the security aspect in some countries, it's a SAFETY issue. Mind you, in my opinion, if the impact is severe enough for a small camera to decapitate someone then it will be severe enough for the heavy overhead bins and their contents (including duty free glass bottles) to come down and maim you too. The problem with some so-called safety issues on aircraft is that they are too selective. CC may rightly ask pax to secure their cameras yet they will ignore overloaded overhead bin issues.

By the way, I have seen a commercial pilot (Captain of a major airline - in uniform) using his camera on landing. Nothing said by CC.

SLFLurker

18th Feb 2011, 14:01

Both Virgin and BA on their safety instruction cards explicitly forbid the use of cameras during takeoff and landing.

lfc123

18th Feb 2011, 15:41

From what I recall many airlines in their safety announcements refer to refraining from using "all electronic devices" during take-off and landing. A camera would, presumably, be an electronic device under that rule.

FL370 Officeboy

18th Feb 2011, 18:28

It's quite simple. Just think of it as:

Taxi, Takeoff and Landing (basically when seatbelt sign is on) = ALL electronic devices off

In Cruise (seatbelt sign off) = electronic devices that do not transmit or receive can be used (inc mobiles in flight safe mode)

Teaboy24

18th Feb 2011, 18:36

etrang

19th Feb 2011, 13:04

A camera would, presumably, be an electronic device under that rule.
It depends, some cameras are entirely mechanical. Most have a small battery, but then so do digital watches.

Actually in a crash it would decpaitate someone, that's the other reason they insist on them not being used and eveything heavy is supposed to be stowed.

HT is correct, in any accident severe enough that a small camera would "decapitate" you, you would already be dead. Not "everything heavy" is supposed to be stowed. A large book is much heavier than a lightweight camera, and not only do CC not tell you to stow books before landing, they helpfully make an announcement to tell you about the personal reading light above you so that you can keep reading.

Agaricus bisporus

19th Feb 2011, 13:07

But legally you are supposed to follow the instructions of the crew.

er. Not quite.

You are required to obey the legal commands of the Captain.
Is that command legal? I doubt it.

It is highly unlikely to be "illegal" to use a camera in flight, and if it was it is a matter for the civil authorities in the country in question and nothing to do with the airline unless thay choose to report you. It is even less likely that the cabin crew know local laws in that sort of detail, isn't it?

It may be against the company's Ts and Cs of carriage (doubt that very much) and I'd want to see that in writing before I put my camera away. The only legal aspect is failure to obey etc, and that is nothing to do with a cameras.
It's unlikeky that you'd be held to be in breach of the "captains instructions" if you hadn't had a specific warning to that effect first, particularly for something as trivial as that.

Finally, we are told that the Captain has no legal command over pax until the doors are closed. It may not be as simple as that in reality (declining to carry you for various reasons, but use of a camera cannot be one of those.) but that is the legal position.

Let's see that instruction in writing first anyway, or is it just crew throwing their weight around? I know where my money is.

farci

19th Feb 2011, 14:19

ExXB

19th Feb 2011, 14:43

I've also heard that AA (and possibly some of the other US airlines) prohibit photographs of AA staff (including cabin attendants). Not necessarily for the usual reason (protecting privacy, avoiding stalkers, etc) but to protect their 'procedures'. i.e. they don't want competitors filming their activities with the objective of copying them.

I admit, I heard this some years ago, it may no longer be the case - if it ever was.

Cough

19th Feb 2011, 15:15

Don't forget that if you are using a camera during takeoff and landing, then you are distracted away from the cabin environment. Thus in the event of something serious happening, you are likely to either a) not notice or b) keep using you camera (thinking of the fortune post event) putting yourself and therefore others seated near you at risk, rather than following crew instructions.

Thus, the crew (acting on the Captains authority) are issuing you a lawful, safety related, command.

I wonder if the Ryanair change of policy follows the incident at CIA?

Fack5

19th Feb 2011, 17:56

if you are using a camera during takeoff and landing, then you are distracted away from the cabin environment. Thus in the event of something serious happening, you are likely to ..... not notice

That's right. Once I was on a B747 where the cabin caught fire. Also, both engines on the side I was sitting on fell off together. At the same time, we had an explosive decompression followed by a ditching.

But I was taking pictures so I never noticed a thing and sat there with my camera while everyone else evacuated.

:rolleyes:

Are you SERIOUS? Some of the things they fill the heads of the crew with just amaze me.

TightSlot

19th Feb 2011, 18:20

...is it just crew throwing their weight around? I know where my money is.
As a general rule, most CC have quite a lot of stuff to do pre-departure. I suppose it is conceivable that some crew member, somewhere, could be sufficiently bored that they choose to start an argument with a passenger, knowing the premise to be incorrect, for no apparent reason, but... I know where my money is.

There are two points that always fascinate me when reading these periodic discussions about the use on board of mobiles/cameras/ipods/Kindles/whatever.

Firstly - While you may be (or consider yourself to be) an expert on the functionality and capabilities of your piece of kit, there is no way that the CC can be expected to understand and be familiar with, every aspect of every product. Clearly, under these circumstances, some form of blanket restriction is necessary unless we are to take the passengers word for it: Although there can be no doubt that all of you here would tell the truth, the possibility exists that some misguided soul might tell a porky, or even, heaven forbid, not fully understand the technicalities of their own device or appreciate the possible danger of non-compliance.

Secondly - I'm always amazed that the whole electronics thing is such a big deal to some folk - it's 15 minutes out of your life without the toys. As impositions go, it seems (to me at least) fairly minor, if occasionally mildly irritating? Commercial Aviation is mass transport, and just like society, has rules: Some of those rules may be inconvenient, but most of us recognise that we cannot have a system where we obey only those rules that please us - we start to discover this from about the age of two onwards. It seems to me that arguing with the crew over such a trivial matter can only result in something of a Pyrrhic victory - neither party can possibly feel happier, and that's if you win. I'm savoring a mental picture of Agaricus bisporus being carried down the aircraft steps in restraints, kicking and struggling as he loudly debates the semantics of "Commanders authority with doors open" and "Legal vs Illegal Commands" with a brace of burly coppers. I'm sure that later on, in Court, he will be proved right in a landmark judgement from the ECHR - but for now, he's missing his flight and making life that bit less pleasant for everybody else he has come in contact with - because of a camera

Skipness One Echo

19th Feb 2011, 21:22

I witnessed that too on Ryanair some time back. A fellow pax was warned that if he refused to delete his picture the police would be called on landing as it was 'illegal'. I put this down to a grumpy FA but maybe there is more to this?

Certainly not illegal, I doubt the Police in the UK would bother turning up at all.
"He took a photo of a friend on a commercial flight? Dear God we'll be right there!"

etrang

20th Feb 2011, 03:08

Once I was on a B747 where the cabin caught fire. Also, both engines on the side I was sitting on fell off together. At the same time, we had an explosive decompression followed by a ditching.

But I was taking pictures so I never noticed a thing

WOW. You must have got some great photos. Care to share them with us?

NZScion

20th Feb 2011, 04:18

The use of unauthorised portable electronic devices is explicitly forbidden on New Zealand registered aircraft during safety critical phases of flight. Other countries may word their rules differently, or may not have similar rules at all (although this would surprise me, a cursory search shows that U.S. FAR § 91.21 contains similar restrictions).

New Zealand CAR 91.7 (http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_091_Brief.htm)
91.7 Portable electronic devices

...

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), 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 aircraft flying under IFR during an
instrument approach or departure procedure or during any other critical
phase of flight.
(c) Paragraph (b) does not apply to⎯
(1) hearing aids;
(2) heart pacemakers;
(3) portable voice recorders;
(4) electric shavers;
(5) electronic watches; or
(6) any other portable electronic device if the operator of the aircraft
has determined that the portable electronic device to be operated
will not cause interference with any aircraft system or equipment
in the aircraft on which it is operated.
(d) In the case of—
(1) an aircraft being operated on air transport operations, the
determination required by paragraph (c)(6) must be made by the
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be
used; and
(2) any other aircraft, the determination required by paragraph (c)(6)
may be made by the pilot-in-command or the operator of the
aircraft on which the particular device is to be used.

Fack5

20th Feb 2011, 08:30

WOW. You must have got some great photos. Care to share them with us?

I'd love to but they made me erase them "for safety reasons..."

I forgot to mention, the chap next to me was also taking photos with a Sony Cybershot and ended up decapitated. I think the wrist strap somehow got around his head.

Richard Le page

20th Feb 2011, 09:11

Judging by the amount of takeoff and landing videos on youtube,especially Ryanair people seem to do it all the time,however I have also been told by CC to turn a camera off.
I dont think using a camera causes any intererence with aircraft systems,its down to how strict the cabin crew are,some will overlook it ,some wont.
I personally love watching aircraft videos and hope it doesn't get too strict and totally banned.

radeng

20th Feb 2011, 11:37

At least the Kiwis recognise that pacemakers and hearing aids shouldn't be switched off. BA CC have told me that pacemakers are ok 'because they don't have radios in them'. However, there are over 500,000 out there with radios.......my employer has shipped over 200k radios to a pacemaker manufacturer! Hearing aids are out there with radios on them, and then tehre are the other devices such as insulin pumps, neuro stimulators, sphincter controllers etc. Fortunately, they are all very low power and not in bands that can cause problems for avionics.

There was an enquiry once from an Australian firm about making a radio controlled implant for dealing with erectile disfunction........

SamYeager

20th Feb 2011, 15:26

(c) Paragraph (b) does not apply to⎯

(1) hearing aids;
(2) heart pacemakers;
(3) portable voice recorders;
(4) electric shavers;
(5) electronic watches; or
(6) any other portable electronic device if the operator of the aircraft
has determined that the portable electronic device to be operated
will not cause interference with any aircraft system or equipment
in the aircraft on which it is operated.

I have to say I find items (3) & (4) above (my bold) hilarious given that cameras, electronic or not, seem to be banned.

NZScion

20th Feb 2011, 20:59

You might think that the law is antiquated, but this does not absolve anyone from complying with it. That cameras are not specifically mentioned in the exceptions means that passengers potentially leave themselves liable for prosecution if they use cameras during safety critical phases of flight.

Furthermore the "...nor may any operator or pilot-in-command of an aircraft allow the operation of..." means that the crew needs to ensure you (SLF) do not use any unauthorised electronic devices. If you fail to comply with their instructions you could also potentially be falling foul of the law, in New Zealand this is CAR 91.5 (Compliance with crew instructions and commands). Likewise, if the crew fail to ensure you are complying, then they are at risk of falling foul of the law.

I suppose another way of looking at it is driving along a straight road with no traffic above the speed limit. Even though it might be safe (in the sense of not having a crash, you perceive it as safe), you are still breaking the law, and if you are caught the police probably won't care that you were able to do so safely, they will just issue the ticket.

radeng

21st Feb 2011, 07:07

I doubt that a refusal to turn off an insulin pump, neuro stimulator or similar would be considered an offence merely because they're not on the list. The inclusion of shavers as allowed devices surprises me, having heard the interference that one can cause to radio.

Morris542

21st Feb 2011, 15:30

For information about the use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) in the UK have a look at AIC 1/2004 (Pink 62):

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2004_P_001_en.pdf

Cameras fall into the category of 'unintentionally transmitting PEDs'

3 Policy - Unintentionally Transmitting PEDs

3.1 To control the use of unintentionally transmitting PEDs, the operator should implement the following procedures:

(a) All PEDs should be switched OFF, fully disconnected from any in-seat electrical power supply and stowed for taxi, take-off, approach and landing, and during abnormal or emergency conditions.

Note 1:

This restriction applies to equipment carried on board by the passenger or provided to the passenger by theoperator.
Note 2:

This restriction does not apply to time measuring equipment, implanted medical devices or permitted medical equipment.
(b) Announcements should be broadcast to provide passengers with sufficient opportunities to verify that all of their PEDs
are switched OFF.

3.2 The cabin crew should monitor use of PEDs during non-critical phases of flight and, where necessary, action should be taken to ensure that any suspect equipment is switched OFF.

A2QFI

21st Feb 2011, 15:42

radeng

21st Feb 2011, 16:21

It is rather stating the obvious that implanted medical equipment shouldn't (in many cases, cannot) be turned off.......although I doubt that they have yet realised that there are many implants with radio transmitters in them.

west lakes

21st Feb 2011, 16:56

Ryanair T& C's

11.2 ELECTRONIC DEVICES

For safety reasons, we may forbid or limit operation aboard the aircraft of electronic equipment, including, but not limited to cellular telephones, laptop computers, portable recorders, portable radios, CD players, electronic games or transmitting devices, including radio controlled toys and walkie-talkies. Operation of hearing aids and heart pacemakers is permitted.

A camera,to my mind, is portable & is a recording device. Note also that the list is not exhaustive!

Rwy in Sight

21st Feb 2011, 19:10

It is one of these laws that is to be obeyed but apparently has very little serious foundation.

Rwy in Sight

Sobelena

21st Feb 2011, 19:28

Airlines have the right to make T&Cs regarding the use of certain equipment on board their a/c for whatever reason and the CC have the right to enforce these company rules if they so wish.

It is however utter nonsense to suggest that a camera will interfere with a/c systems. Commercial airline pilots by the hundreds, if not thousands, use their own personal cameras on the FD, including the filming of take-offs, approaches and landings (either from the jumpseat or by securing their camera to something. Furthermore, amateur and professional aviation video companies annually make hundreds of FD videos during all phases of commercial flights.

hotmetal

21st Feb 2011, 20:12

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Please keep up at the back. Section 44 was suspended by the government in July 2010 pending a review. The review recommended its repeal. It has, however, also recommended that there be provision for the power to be used in exceptional emergencies, but only where a senior police officer who reasonably suspects an act of terrorism will take place authorises its use in circumstances where the powers are considered necessary (rather than the current requirement that the powers be ‘expedient’) to prevent such an act. It is recommended that an emergency authorisation last for a maximum 14 days, and be tightlylimitedin both time and geographic area. Further, any request for the use of the temporary powers ought to set out why the powers are necessary and on what bases they can be justified. Finally, where an authorisation is in place the search should only be conducted for the purpose of looking for evidence that the person being searched is a terrorist or the vehicle is being used or may be used for terrorist purposes. These changes will be set out in primary legislation expected shortly.

PPRuNe Pop

21st Feb 2011, 20:35

If I may.......it is, of course, a question of good manners to request the permission of a FA or crew to take a picture of her/him/them and you should not be surprised if they refuse. I suspect this has happened and its not surprising then, that they might object if that is their wish. Insofar as the use of cameras is concerned I very much doubt that they are construed as a portable recorder since these devices are offered all over the internet as portable audio recorders. In my many years in aviation I have not heard of a camera being bought into question other than above. As for using them during take-off or landing - I cannot see the problem.

It may be noted that a camera can emit tiny amounts of energy via LED panels but the level would so small as to be of no consequence whatsoever.

etrang

22nd Feb 2011, 05:27

west lakes they are clearly referring to electronic equipment.
we may forbid or limit operation aboard the aircraft of electronic equipment, including, but not limited to cellular telephones, laptop computers, portable recorders,

Whilst most cameras contain some sort of battery, some are entirely mechanical.
Those cameras would clearly not be covered by the above.

Chuchinchow

22nd Feb 2011, 10:39

So can I carry on using my Daguerreotype camera, with its wet coated glass plates, while in flight? Those nice Messrs Orville and Wilbur Wright never seemed to object.

Coquelet

22nd Feb 2011, 13:32

The CC are seated for take-off and landing; they can't see passengers using a camera at that time - unless the pax who are in row 1.

Northbeach

22nd Feb 2011, 14:32

Back in the early 70s I was walking across the ramp in Lagos Nigeria towards a Pan Am 747. On that occasion some tourist took out their camera to photograph a family member in front of the 747 they were about to go aboard. The few isolated soldiers stationed around went bonkers; yelling and waving their weapons at the poor sod. I have spent a significant part of my life living in “developing nations” and I know what was going on (culturally, directive by order-etc); yet the military response was completely unseemly.

I think it is beyond tragic that in some places to simply listen to ATC communications is a crime and taking a picture out of an airplane window leads to similar threats of prosecution and incarceration. One of the greatest professional joys for me was to take people on their 1st flight and have the opportunity to show them the flight deck (preferably in flight). Every aspect of aviation fascinated me as a youngster and I was “hooked” at an early age.

We in the United States have gone absolutely crazy. In the news now is a case of an Alaska State legislator (high ranking elected government representative) who is travelling by sea now because she refused an intrusive public physical search of her prosthetic (breast cancer survivor) device at the airport.

Alaska state rep objects to airport search demand (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_lawmaker_airport_search.html)

I am shocked that the American public tolerates (I fly almost exclusively domestic) groping and virtual strip searches and bothers to fly any more.

So here we are “hammer the lawbreaker”, “throw the book at them”, threaten them with prosecution, “their electronic device could cause the avionics to fail at a critical time and crash the airplane”, “it’s the law”, “follow the regulations” and everything is a security threat…… WHAT IN THE WORLD HAVE WE BECOME? My own nation now reminds me of the worst of what I saw on that hot and muggy ramp in Lagos Nigeria decades ago; out of control and unreasonable goons behaving poorly.

It isn’t going to get better, and I am not going to “solve” the problem(s). It’s a shame that I am looking forward to finishing my career and never going to the airport again (if I can help it). Meanwhile, better put the camera away it’s for all of our safety…….makes me want to :yuk:.

cockney steve

22nd Feb 2011, 14:41

On my Ryanair flights, 3 years ago, I used both digital and film-cameras...indeed, I popped-off about 25 frames on the return to Liverpool, including a fast taxi,takeoff and landing.

I agree that an obsolete, Eastern-bloc -built Praktica, flying about the Cabin, would be likely to inflict some damage on the corpses it struck.

Statistically, I'd suggest that "death / injury by camera" is a non-event.

At greater than one in several billion, the CC obviously had higher priorities. :}

edited to add:-
I'd be frightened to fly in any aircraft that had such piss-poor R.F. shielding that domestic portable -electronics could upset it....I exclude phones
as their purpose IS to emit R.F. but again ,one has to question the engineering and design of Avionics/Comms that have such poor selectivity/filtering/rejection, thata ubiquitous piece of domestic trivia can screw it over.

Are the manufacturers REALLY selling crap at phenomenal prices , simply because it's "approved?"

The fact that they have not attempted legal redress ,for this smear and inference their stuff is not "phone-proof", makes me wonder.

At the time that cell-phones went mainstream, Petrol Filling Stations (gas-stations ,for our cousins) made a blanket ban on their use on the forecourt......

The risk of static-electricity from the phones,proved entirely without foundation.

light-aircraft are "earthed" to the fuel-pump during fuelling.....I believe that mobile Bowsers are earthed via chassis/(conductive) tyres.

Anyone ever ground a car during filling? - thought not!

How many petrol-stations blown-up as a consequence , in the last 110 + years?? :p

ExXB

22nd Feb 2011, 18:29

I am shocked that the American public tolerates (I fly almost exclusively domestic) groping and virtual strip searches and bothers to fly any more.

Particularly when the 'virtual strip searches (http://www.newsmax.com/US/TSA-gun-bra-scanners/2011/02/22/id/386980?)' don't work!

And I don't buy the suggestion this was because they weren't paying attention. Once maybe, twice perhaps but not several times. :=

boardingpass

22nd Feb 2011, 18:37

It may be against the company's Ts and Cs of carriage (doubt that very much) and I'd want to see that in writing before I put my camera awayBy flying you have already accepted the Ts and Cs. If you bothered to read them, you will find cabin crew can tell you to do pretty much anything and if you argue you get put in the restraints, a diversion, and you pay the costs...
From BA T&C, but almost all airlines are basically the same (emphasis in red added)...

7a) Our right to refuse to carry you
We may decide to refuse to carry you or your baggage if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen.
...
7a7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security.
...
11b) Diversion costs caused by unacceptable behaviour
If, as a result of your behaviour, we divert the aircraft to an unscheduled place of destination and make you leave the aircraft, you must pay us the reasonable and proper costs of the diversion.

11c) Using electronic devices on board the aircraft
For safety reasons, we may decide not to allow you to use electronic devices when you are on board the aircraft, including:
mobile phones
laptop computers
personal recorders
personal radios
MP3, cassette and CD players
electronic games or
transmitting devices (for example, radio-controlled toys and walkie-talkies).You must not use these items when we have told you that they are not allowed.

We will allow you to use hearing aids and heart pacemakers.
So basically, the message is listen to your cabin crew, do as your told, and if you think they are going above and beyond ask to speak to the Cabin Manager, then do as s/he says.

The other general piece of advice is always read the contract before accepting it.

ExXB

22nd Feb 2011, 18:47

BA's T&C's are based upon (i.e. not identical, but very similar) IATA's Recommended Practice 1726 "Conditions of Carriage". So most 'network' airlines will have something similar.

Said RP has been reviewed by the UK's OFT, and after a few minor amendments by IATA, has been judged in compliance with UK legislation (which put into effect the EU's regulation on unfair contract terms).

Of course everyone reads their airline's T&Cs, they check that box before they can buy their ticket.

BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES

23rd Feb 2011, 15:55

Why is it that every nob-arse out there wants to filmevery take-off and landing as if they are waiting for something to go wrong????!!! To be the first to post on youtube or get a TV interview? YAY mummy i'm on telly!!

Aviation is a rule based activity. If you don't want to comply with rules in both the letter and the spirit, don't bother flying. Film some trains instead. Here endeth my two pennies worth. :ugh:

Sobelena

23rd Feb 2011, 18:01

Film footage has on some occasions assisted investigators with accident investigations. I suspect that they may have been glad that some "nob-arse" was filming at the time.

NZScion

23rd Feb 2011, 19:27

Sobelena, can you please name such instances? I would have thought that the various voice/data recorders, ATC radar and voice recordings, not to mention CCTV at aerodromes (where the majority of accidents occur, or at least end up) would do the job.

If there were a tangible benefit to having video recording of the passenger cabin for accident investigators, then the cabins would have appropriately certified cameras mandated, not install some "nob-arse" in seat 7A.

kappa

23rd Feb 2011, 21:20

can you please name such instances?

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blFw4Y1dtps) has been extensively discussed in the PPRuNe thread (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/438003-american-airlines-jet-goes-off-runway-jackson-hole-wyoming.html) and has been cited in a NTSB preliminary report.

757 Jackson Hole Runway Overrun Wednesday December 29, 2010

There are others, including a video taken from the window of the Qantas A380 that had an uncontained engine failure last November.

Sobelena

23rd Feb 2011, 21:24

NZS, if you are an aviation professional you will know that there's a great deal more to an accident investigation then just establishing a cause. There are many other aspects of an accident which are of interest to investigators and the industry in general.

BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES

25th Feb 2011, 11:50

I still fail to see how the you tube video of the 757 over run aids the investigation. Any config such as slats/flaps/spoilers/autobrake/thrust is logged on the data recorders. AA most probably have QAR recoreders as well to quickly 'download' the data to the safety dept / ntsb etc etc. A passenger camera is not going to reveal any CRM issues beyond the locked door. The same goes for the A380. The aircraft was in one piece post touchdown and therefore all the bits and damage can be assesed without camera. Should the worst have happened such as with the AF A330, the camera belonging to the occupant of seat 7A will be knackered and useless to any investigation. As will a fire damaged camera post evac. the best that can be hoped for is to determine the carming qualities of the Captain's PA to the pax.

bealine

25th Feb 2011, 15:12

On a Ryanair flight the other day, Cabin crew challenged someone who took a photo of his friends sat near to him and demanded he delete from his camera. We had not even closed the doors for departure !!!

There then followed an announcment to say that on Ryanair flights no photographs allowed inside aircraft at any time or of the cabin crew. Not come across this one in 35 years of air travel.

Always something new on Ryanair.

As has already been stated, the legal side of things is covered by the passengers' acceptance of the "Terms and Conditions" at the time the booking is accepted. If you fail to read the small print, then you have only yourself to blame - as with any purchase whether face to face, over the telephone or through the wundaweb!

To defend Ryanair's staff, airlines are very twitchy about photographs of their precious "brand" images, or their staff in uniform, appearing in the public domain. Nowadays, with "You Tube", "Facebook" "Twitter" et al, unauthorised images can appear very quickly.

Certainly, the BAA are very sensitive about Terminal 5, (and I suspect the new Star Alliance "East" Terminal once built), and it's not just for security reasons. The BAA's Press & Publicity department wishes to control what appears in public.

The guidelines we have been given as airline staff are that if Mum, Dad and Aunty Flo are taking a happy snap or two for the family album, that's fine. (Indeed, in the old days when Concorde was around, we may even have let them into a "closed" gate to get a better view!) However, if someone is clearly a "pro" with a tripod, telephoto lens, filters and all the other paraphernalia, or if someone is observed taking photographs of unusual objects (eg door locks, MAID card readers etc) then we are supposed to alert BAA security staff.

I don't think airlines and airport operators are deliberately setting out to be killjoys. There is a fine balance between safety, security and customer friendliness. (Indeed, after 09/11, the police actively encouraged our intrepid band of enthusiasts to help be the security services eyes and ears) If we can get the balance right, it will help everyone.

..............but I don't want a little RYR steward getting the sack because Michael O'Leary spotted his photograph on the internet either! .

PPRuNe Pop

25th Feb 2011, 15:33

Whether you can or whether you can't take pictures aboard ANY airline's aircraft is a matter for them. There is nothing in the ANO that forbids cameras and that is fact. However, it is probably best to ASK before taking a picture inside an aircraft, being nice costs nothing.

Rwy in Sight

25th Feb 2011, 17:09

Thanks for all your answers. It seems there is little justification based on purely technical issues. I understand it is more an issue of being upfront and ask if it is possible and never point the camera toward a crew member.

Lovely thread.

Peter47

25th Feb 2011, 18:52

I supose that every individual has a right to be asked not to be filmed, but I rather enjoy watching clips filmed from aircraft windows on youtube. Anyone who wants to stop this is a spoilsport in my view!

hotmetal

26th Feb 2011, 09:28

I supose that every individual has a right to be asked not to be filmed
A lot of people suppose this. In the UK in public places there is not a right not to be filmed. There is no presumption of privacy in a public place in the UK. I am thinking of streets in towns so an aircraft may be slightly different.

FlyingKiwi_73

2nd Mar 2011, 00:27

You all know the actual reality of electronic devices interfering with aircraft systems is :mad: right?

Avionics in commercial airliners are heavily shielded for a start, there have also been nuemrous ground test which have never attributed any interference with flight instrumentation or systems due to mobile phones etc... (there was one test which showed a marginal effect on an ILS instrument but this phone was IN the cockpit)

There has never been a single incident attributed to electronic interference with in flight systems from within the A/C

In short your mobile phone will not turn of the autopilot!

Most FA's have a great deal of training etc etc... but on the technical details of aircraft and aircraft systems they aren't experts and are most likely perpetuating the myths they learnt in training.

I have use a mobile phone while in the cockpit on several occaions and i didn't end up upside down!!!

NZScion

2nd Mar 2011, 07:23

Flying Kiwi, you obviously have not experienced any inflight interference.

I have personally had my handheld GPS (remember - no tx, only rx) interfere with one particular comm set, making both my transmissions unreadable to others (as confirmed by atc), and also making me miss incoming transmissions (even with squelch off). Fortunately, my primary box continued to function normally, and after figuring the problem out, the secondary returned to normal once my GPS was switched off. Furthermore I have observed VOR flags associated with my cellphone use when on VFR flights. The shielding might be up to scratch in the aircraft you fly, but in some of the ****boxes I've flown I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

Soblena, I disagree, the primary concern of an accident investigation is to determine the circumstances and causes of accidents with a view to avoiding similar occurrences in future. Other information of interest may be gathered in the course of an investigation, however this is of ancillary importance. As kappa pointed out, the Jackson Hole overrun is an example of this. While I have not been able to access the actual preliminary report, the press releases I have seen only briefly mention the pax video - "Additionally, the team has examined security camera videos provided by the airport as well as a video of the landing taken by one of the passengers.", which suggests that whilst the video has been reviewed as a matter of course in the investigation (remembering that all potential sources of information are reviewed), the video is of minor value to the investigation overall. To insinuate that passengers recording landings is of benefit to accident investigations, puts them in jeopardy of breaking both the laws, and the company terms and conditions previously mentioned in this thread. As I have previously mentioned, if there were a tangible benefit to having video recording of the passenger cabin for accident investigators, then the cabins would have appropriately certified cameras mandated, not install some "nob-arse" in seat 7A.

TightSlot

2nd Mar 2011, 08:13

You all know the actual reality of electronic devices interfering with aircraft systems is *** right?
No, we don't, and neither do you: Sadly for your future career, neither does NZCAA who take a rather different view, as you would know if you flew heavy metal, which (from your previous posts), you appear not to do.
there have also been nuemrous ground test which have never attributed any interference with flight instrumentation or systems due to mobile phones etc...
And there have been numerous (albeit circumstantial) incidents in flight which have suggested interference. In my 30+ years flying experience I have twice had to track down electronic items in the cabin, at the Captains request, that were suspected of being the source of interference: On both occasions, turning items off cleared the fault. Ground tests prove little: The restrictions on phone use are largely precautionary, based on a balance of probability.
Most FA's have a great deal of training etc etc... but on the technical details of aircraft and aircraft systems they aren't experts and are most likely perpetuating the myths they learnt in training.
Quite correct - we aren't experts, just the poor sods charged with implementing the policies of the airline and legislative authorities. They may or may not be myths, but we are trained accordingly, and I have yet to meet a real airline pilot who has not supported his/her crew in the application of these rules. The application of the rules and procedures learned in training is precisely what Cabin Crew are paid to do - they're not there for any other reason.
I have use a mobile phone while in the cockpit on several occaions and i didn't end up upside down!!!
And this proves what? Is that a scientific study? A comprehensive analysis of global data? Aviation doesn't work like that: You don't get to cherry-pick those bits of legislation, good -practise and SOP that suit you, and ignore the rest - you would know this if you were flying jets as part of a large crew.

We've actually had numerous discussions in this forum previously, many of them surprisingly technical and in-depth: Those dissenting from the mainstream (i.e. agreeing with you) have done so based on factual evidence and technical knowledge, or 10,000+ hours experience rather than a couple of years in a cessna. This is the passenger forum - whether we like it or not, the use of mobile phones and other electronics is an issue to them (many of these contributors have extensive experience and fly regularly). Since it is an issue, we would be wise to treat it (and them) with a degree of respect, rather than pretending a degree of expertise that we don't have

Having recently got my license in a shortish time my solo is still fairly fresh in my mind.
Congratulations and welcome to the world of aviation.

MidlandDeltic

2nd Mar 2011, 08:54

However, if someone is clearly a "pro" with a tripod, telephoto lens, filters and all the other paraphernalia,

Having a telephoto lens, tripod or filters etc does NOT make you a professional photographer, nor someone intent on stealing secrets about on boad service, uniforms etc. I have had all of those things for my old film SLR, and am definitely not a "pro" - just someone who enjoys taking transport-related photos.

MD

Ancient Observer

2nd Mar 2011, 10:49

NZS is right
Some electronic devices do interfere with some electronic systems on board planes.
Given that CC are not expected to know which ones do interfere and which ones do not, and whether or not the interference is a safety risk, the blanket instruction to turn them all off is the only way to deal with the issues.
if you do not like it, do not fly. Take the train/boat/car. AND - do not get on the plane when I'm on it.
The End.

bealine

2nd Mar 2011, 18:26

I have had all of those things for my old film SLR, and am definitely not a "pro" - just someone who enjoys taking transport-related photos.That's fine. If you enjoy taking transport related photographs, there really is nothing stopping you from obtaining the necessary permission:

BAA Heathrow: FAQs: Filming, photography and recording (http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%5EMedia+cent re%5EFilming+and+photography%5EFAQs/4fb584e8148c0210VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/)

I am also informed that taking photographs of celebrities at the airport or on an aeroplane without their consent is expressly forbidden and taking photographs of any airline or airport staff is also prohibited. The use of a camera or mobile phone in the Immigration or Baggage Hall is unlawful and both police and UK Border staff have powers to confiscate cameras or mobile phones being used in those areas.

MidlandDeltic

4th Mar 2011, 19:06

That's fine. If you enjoy taking transport related photographs, there really is nothing stopping you from obtaining the necessary permission:

BAA Heathrow: FAQs: Filming, photography and recording (http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%5EMedia+cent re%5EFilming+and+photography%5EFAQs/4fb584e8148c0210VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/)

Making my point exactly. That link is for professionals (eg the requirement for £5m public liability insurance, size of crew etc). My point was that the equipment you listed does NOT make the photographer a pro - many hobby photographers have such equipment, and anyone trying to film for less salubrious purposes would use far more discrete equipment.

You are not alone - many "security" employees on the railways make the same mistake.

MD

bealine

6th Mar 2011, 07:26

You are not alone - many "security" employees on the railways make the same mistake.Quite........but let's turn the discussion around for a minute.

1. In the UK, airports and railway stations are at a "Severe Alert State", meaning that a terrorist attack is highly likely.
2. Anti-terror laws have been introduced to make an effort to disrupt reconnaissance activities by terrorist groups.
3. Most airport/railway workers, or for that matter police officers, cannot recognise the difference between a "professional photographer", a "criminal photographer" or an "hobby photographer". However, you can hardly blame anyone for that - how can you tell the difference between an aeroplane enthusiast, a terrorist or a spy? - a sad fact that has got more than a few young lads in trouble overseas on a number of occasions!

So, to exercise fairness, and ensure you can take your aeroplane pictures without hindrance, the BAA have introduced a permit system - indeed, if you were to check with the intrepid group of aviation enthusiasts who brave the elements at the airport perimeter every weekend, they are delighted to fully co-operate with airport staff and police in watching for any suspicious vehicles, activities or bogus plane spotters!

I can understand the BAA wanting anyone with tripods and stuff to have Public Liability cover - if someone trips over your kit, on those hard hard floors in Terminal 5, there could be a nasty injury for which the BAA would not want to be held responsible - and why should they be? In these days of "where there's blame, there's a claim", the PIL requirement is as much for your protection as for theirs! I am also pretty sure that our of our band of aeroplane enthusiasts, very few probably have PIL.

Hotel Tango

6th Mar 2011, 08:51

Most airport/railway workers, or for that matter police officers, cannot recognise the difference between a "professional photographer", a "criminal photographer" or an "hobby photographer".

So because of their inadequacies Joe Public is prevented from going about their law abiding business? Isn't that effectively surrendering our basic freedoms to the terrorists? I guess they're winning the war then!

I have no problems with an i/d check, but I do become agitated if some ignorant job's worth tries to move me on when I'm on public property engaged in a legal activity.

bealine

6th Mar 2011, 10:29

So because of their inadequacies Joe Public is prevented from going about their law abiding business? Isn't that effectively surrendering our basic freedoms to the terrorists? I guess they're winning the war then!

I have no problems with an i/d check, but I do become agitated if some ignorant job's worth tries to move me on when I'm on public property engaged in a legal activity.

I have tried to answer this thread civilly, but I am finding it ever more difficult. If you only knew it, you have far more "freedom" to engage in this highly intrusive and invasive hobby in the UK than almost anywhere else on the planet...........indeed, there are places quite close to home where photography at an airport could see you shot dead!

For your information, Airports, Railway Stations, Bus Stations and land owned by the Crown Estates or various Civil Service Ministries is not designated public land.

Certainly, at Heathrow Airport we have a duty to ensure that our celebrity guests can enjoy a bit of privacy without their every movement appearing in the next day's "Hate Mail" or "Sleazerag Sun"

Hotel Tango

6th Mar 2011, 11:13

If you only knew it, you have far more "freedom" to engage in this highly intrusive and invasive hobby in the UK than almost anywhere else on the planet...........indeed, there are places quite close to home where photography at an airport could see you shot dead!

Firstly I was not aware that I was being uncivil to you. That was certainly not my intention. I was talking about public areas not airport (railway, etc.) property.

There are the odd exceptions but your statement (above) paints a much darker and untrue picture of the reality.I am a keen amateur aviation photographer who resides outside the UK. Using common sense I have never encountered problems, let alone be shot at, in the many European and non-European countries I regularly visit. In fact, quite a number provide far superior facilities than the UK do - and that's a fact. I do not go near military or obviously restricted areas. Very few airports in the UK now provide official spectator areas and this in turn encourages enthusiasts (and I include non-spotters) to look for alternative spots around the perimeter. Many of these spots are close to but outside airport property (adjacent roads or fields) yet it is not uncommon to be challenged by airport security or personnel. I will gladly present I/D but I draw the line if they attempt to move me on.

hotmetal

6th Mar 2011, 21:22

For your information, Airports, Railway Stations, Bus Stations and land owned by the Crown Estates or various Civil Service Ministries is not designated public land.
The lawful right to take photos in the UK is not limited to 'public land'. What is public land anyway? Almost every square inch apart from a few areas of ancient common land are owned by somebody. I hope you are not involved in law enforcement. This sort of misunderstanding is why the government and police have had to issue guidelines to clarify the issue. I would suggest a public place is a place to which the public have access.

The Metropolitan Police Service’s approach towards photography in public places is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs.

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.

Freedom to photograph/film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel

hellsbrink

7th Mar 2011, 06:58

Certainly, at Heathrow Airport we have a duty to ensure that our celebrity guests can enjoy a bit of privacy without their every movement appearing in the next day's "Hate Mail" or "Sleazerag Sun"

Which is why only "approved" photographers are allowed access to areas where they can take photos of the so-called "celebrity" guests so these pics appear in the Hatemail, Scum, Express, Mirror, Star, Sport, etc?

mingocr83

9th Mar 2011, 20:51

Well.. is very unfortunate to find that hostile environment there. Last flight I made in CM, the crew was veeeery accesible with me regarding taking pics on board. I visited both galleys with crew getting the meals ready and stuff. The Senior CC gave me a tour on how the galley worked, how they stored the food there and stuff. He also made sure if I was capable on operating the emergency exit (my seat was on that row).

After a while I noticed there was a free Business class seat, I politely requested if I could take the seat... they said it was Ok and moved me there, they even took my camera bag from the bin and put it on the bin on top of my new seat.

I do agree with one of the comments made by one ppruner regarding letting them know if its possible to take pics on board. I made the request to the captain that was standing on the door when we were boarding.... he said it was ok with him and told the CC he agreed on that. The captain invited me to take some pics and videos about the cockpit preparations/preflight checks. The F/O was Costarrican so the environment was very favorable to me. The only thing they told me was "please do not take the radio scanner out"...:=