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??
