Photography from inside an Aircraft..???

[Flame]

Recently saw a guy being told not to take pictures out of an aircraft window at a French airport by a member of the cabin crew on a Ryanair flight. He asked why..and was told that Ryanair do not allow it. He was told to put his camera in the overhead bin, but he wanted to put it in the seatback and was not allowed.

Can anyone tell me why it is not allowed to take pictures out of a aircraft window and is this an IAA rule or a FR rule..?

I know about security being an issue, but this poor guy was made to feel about 2 inches tall by the crew member and I thought it was a little over the top

Pictures of aicraft at terminals and of terminals themselves at civilian airports are available everywhere so whats the issue..??

[chiglet]

Not "sure" about France, but the Belgian AIP states that "Ariel Photography Whilst Overflying Belgium is Forbidden". How the chuff they can enforce said "Law", I dunno :confused:
watp,iktch

[Flame]

Chiglet;

Many thanks for that, I wonder how it applies in Belgium to taking pictures while still on the ground..?? from within the aircraft

Thanks

[TopBunk]

From BA's Flying Crew Orders

The captain is responsible for ensuring that national laws re photography from the air are observed .....

There is no restriction to the carriage of cameras in the aircraft cabin provided that they are carried in a bag or a case, however in-flight photography is prohibited over the followoing countries..

Austria, Belgium, Canada (specified areas), Columbia, Cypres, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Myanmar, Okinawa, Pakistan, Phillipines, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, USA (prohbitied areas only), Former USSR states, Uruguay, Vietnam, Former Yugoslavia.

As to how you discharge my duties, that is another question, as is how the pax/cabin crew know where they are!

And of course I have no nice photos taken from the air over any of theses countries;)

[EasyBaby]

it also interferes with pax privacy, those who don't want to be filmed/pictured and also companies and crew can get a little creeped if they think a rival's checking them out!!

[eal401]

Former USSR states

Oops. But it was such a nice view.

:D

[Landing_24R]

Hi Flame,

As I understand it Ryanair do not allow any photographs to be taken on board their aircraft. It may well be that the country involved has a policy regarding airport photography too, but Ryanair won't ever let you use your camera whilst on board regardless of where you are, I believe it is company policy.


Cheers
Landing_24R

[AFFF]

Seen plenty of photographs taken onboard, and out of Ryanair aircraft, many on the internet. It would appear that some Ryanair staff don't know their own company policy.

AFFF

[Flame]

"Topbunk" et all

Many thanks for the answers, but Easybaby...the pics the guy was taking were out of the window and not of anyone or anything inside the cabin.

Am I correct in thinking that, its up to the individual carrier concerned..and if its not against local law...how do they enforce it.

EG..If the guy taking the pics from inside the FR aircraft was doing nothing against UK law (taking pictures of aircrfat at a UK airport), and if he refuses to stop after being asked to do so by a crew member..what can the company do.

In the case I witnessed, I was shocked at the way this man was spoken to and addressed by a male steward.

[X-QUORK]

Flame,

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ryan Air expect pax to pay a Courtesy surcharge if they want to be spoken to politely. Personally, I'd have torn the steward a new orifice if he'd spoken to me without a basic level of respect.

[PPRuNe Radar]

EG..If the guy taking the pics from inside the FR aircraft was doing nothing against UK law (taking pictures of aircrfat at a UK airport), and if he refuses to stop after being asked to do so by a crew member..what can the company do.

If the aircraft was in UK airspace, or it happened on board one of the UK registered FR aircraft wherever it was, then the passenger would be disobeying a lawful order from the Commander of the aircraft (indirectly, since the crew are his/her representatives). This is an offence against the Air Navigation Order and so what the airline could do is have him arrested and charged if landing at a UK airfield.

[Globaliser]

But if the pax is doing nothing unlawful (ie not taking pics of the interior of the FR a/c, and taking entirely lawful pics only of other a/c) - why is the commander's order to him a lawful one?

[Edited to fix parenthesis location.]

[Flame]

Globaliser;

My question exactly, how can someone be charged doing something that is legal..!!!

I am still at a loss to understand, if it is or is not legal to take pictures out of an aircraft at, say a UK airport or overflying UK airspace, or for that matter Irish airspace or at an Irish airport

Thanks all
:confused: :confused:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Flying Lawyer is much better placed to argue this than me ;) Mine are the interpretations of a layman and as the sometime commander of an aircraft, albeit not an airliner.

Flameasked what could be done if someone refused to stop doing something after being asked by the cabin crew to desist. My answer above is what could happen. It may not happen of course, the decision would be taken by the commander of the aircraft whether to press for action by the legal authorities under that legislation. This would depend entirely on the circumstances.

The issue is not really whether the thing you are being asked to stop is legal or not. That is NOT what you would be charged with. I personally would see no problems with taking pictures of aircraft whilst on stand, but it is not my airline and I don't make or have any part in determining their company rules and policy.

As another example, having your mobile phone on in an aircraft is not (to my knowledge) illegal but the Aviation Authorities back the airlines in the policy of having them switched off in case they interfere with aircraft systems. You could argue that you were not going to switch it off because it was not illegal to have it on. However you would then be refusing an order of the aircraft commander.

And of course there are a whole host of other things which as a passenger you are asked to do (or not do). The fact you are asked to do something (or not do something) is not necessarily because they are illegal (and thus must actually be legal activities by default), however the airline policy and/or the decision of the commander is that you should do these things (fasten seat belts, etc) or not do them (play electrical transmitting equipment during take off or landing). As the commander has not asked you to do anything which is illegal, I would imagine any court in the land would rule that he has made a reasonable and legal instruction to you. If you ignore that, then the law is there to deal with you should you cause a disruption to the flight.

Of interest, the commander only has the powers of law once the doors have closed. So shoot away your cameras until then :)

UK Air Navigation Order Article 59 is the legislation which ties all persons on board the aircraft obeying the lawful commands of the commander.

Every person on board an aircraft must obey the lawful commands of the commander.

A further piece of legislation can also be used if you are abusive when pushing your case, namely Article 59A

- No person shall while on an aircraft:

a, use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew

b, behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards the crew of the aircraft; or,

c, intentionally interfere with the performance by a crew member of his duties

I'll see if Flying Lawyer wants to put a view in here. Anyone got a couple of grand for his consultancy fee ?? ;)

PS I have several pics of a group of us inside the cabin of an airborne FR aircraft whilst on a lads trip. No one from the crew ever mentioned it as a problem or attempted to stop us so there does seem to be some inconsistency in their 'policy'. !!

[Final 3 Greens]

Was it a joint civilian/military airfield?

That would likely make photography a "no no."