Videoing On-Board an A/C

[GeorgEGNT]

Its that old grey area again! We've all heard the announcement on board aircraft stating something along the lines of "During take off and landing, all electrical equipment must be switched off". But does this really mean ALL electrical equipment, or is that phrase merely used to avoid confusion, that would inevitably be caused with a list of allowed and banned electrical items?

If you visit a website such as flightlevel350 or even youtube, you will find countless videos of people filming out of aircraft windows, during take off or landing.

I myself, am guilty of this crime against aviation, but I am wondering, is it ever took that seriously? Anyone with slight common sense would at least assume that a video camera will be harmless to an aircraft systems. Surely? :bored:

What I want to know is, what are the views of the PPruners on the subject? Pilots, Cabin Crew and SLF's alike. I am flying to Bristol in two weeks, and am currently considering videoing the O/B sectors take off and landing, however I'm still uneasy about it. What are your views?

[Leezyjet]

I personally have done it before, and I'm sure I will again.

I think the main reason is so that there are no "loose" objects that could go flying around inside the cabin in the event of an accident, and also so that people are payign attention a bit more to what is going on. I work in the industry, so I know whats going on anyway, and I've always got at least one ear tuned into whats happening, even though I may be looking through the screen of the camera, and it is always secure around my hand, so it would take a major deceleration for it to come loose, then that would be the least of our worries anyway !!.

It supposedly can interfere with the systems, how I'm not sure - something to do with elecromagnetic something or other, but as it doesn't transmit or receive, I'm not sure how. One possiblility I have read about on this subject is that the item could have been damaged that is not known about or not obvious, and has caused the item to emit some kind of mind altering waves that can affect the instruments if you are sat next to a cable harness.

There are plenty of occasions where film crews film onboard, one only has to purchase one of the many excelent videos from the f/deck and I'm sure they use bigger more technical cameras than your average handycam, the difference I guess is the f/crew will know they are filming and so would be more aware of any anomilies on the nav eqp etc whereas they won't be expecting joe public to be filming when they shouldn't be.

However, if the c/crew asked me not to then rather than argue the finer points with them, I'd just do what they asked and stop filming.

I do however think there is much more of an advantage for the accident investigators to have film/pics from inside the a/c of what happened, like the pics that came out of the AF crash in YYZ a few years back and the footage of the 767 overrun in Mexico thats now on Youtube. I'm sure they would have appreciated footage from inside that BA777 !!.

:\

[ladyflyby]

I always do a final sweep through the cabin and if I see a digital camera out or mobile phone, I get the passenger to put it away. If I see a mobile telephone on during flight and the passenger sniffs at my request to switch it off, I confiscate it!! :=
You know the rules, why be defiant and keep it on? All electrical equipment means ALL electrical equipment.

[iain8867]

It's not only that the camera could in an unfortunate incident become a projectile, but do you have the right to video people that you do not know! Even TV film crews that video people have to have their permission to air the video. The Film crews that film on board have the permission to video on board. If I found my ugly mug posted on you tube doing the demo I would not be best pleased about it!:}:}:}

[PAXboy]

I do however think there is much more of an advantage for the accident investigators to have film/pics from inside the a/c of what happenedI think you will find that of rather smaller interest to the investigators than you imagine. Besides, the rules are the rules. Everyone agrees that the risk is very small but no one wants there to be risk.

[Eboy]

Got to agree. Follow the crew instructions.

[NZScion]

As has already been posted here - don't push the rules. They are there primarily to protect the saftey of those on board, including yourself. All electric circuits form an electromagnetic field when they are on, everything from a telsa coil to a wristwatch (specifically exempted from the rules, along with pacemakers for example). Admittedly, although one device is not likely to cause sufficient interference to disrupt the systems on board (and how a sanctioned TV crew can get away with recording without interfering), the fact that you can have hundereds of pax on board means that even a small percentage of them using electronic devices could create a harzardous situation, and those in the front office may not realise that their systems are the subject of interference. The end result could just be an aircraft pranged into the ground because of you, and your lust to put your trip on Youtube.

Also, the argument that investigators would like to see a video of the cabin in a crash is a load of bollocks. You are far more likely to cause a crash, than help a team of professional crash investigators, who already have cockpit voice and flight data black boxes etc.



(or actually it might make it bloody easy - the idiot who recorded it all from seat 26A)

[Leezyjet]

but do you have the right to video people that you do not know! Even TV film crews that video people have to have their permission to air the video. The Film crews that film on board have the permission to video on board. If I found my ugly mug posted on you tube doing the demo I would not be best pleased about it!

Not true. You don't need permission if it is filmed in a public place, which the inside of an aircraft cabin is. Thats why Celebs can be papped as it isn't illegal in public.

the argument that investigators would like to see a video of the cabin in a crash is a load of bollocks

Well it isn't really is it. Any photo's, video's, accounts of the incident are very useful to an accident investigator as they could contain clues that might not be apparent from the 2 boxes, if filmed out of a window in an over run for example, could provide the investigators with rapid details of the point the a/c touched down, which the boxes won't until they have been anyalised.

Should the chap at the end of the runway at LHR who was the ONLY person to take pictures of the T7 on approach and crashing not have given his pics over to the AAIB as they were a load of bollocks ?. :rolleyes:

It also helps them see what really goes on during a live evacuation when people's lives are really at risk. All the pretend evacuations in the world, where people know it's going to happen cannot truly replicate that fear that your going to die and that is very useful in the design of e/exit layouts and cabin lighting etc. People on a mock test will behave very differently to how they would in a real situation, when they are pushing and shoving and climbing over seats to get out rather than forming nice neat orderly lines in a test. Based on real footage shot by some passenger in a cabin of a real evactuation a number of years back is now one of the reason why in evac tests the people taking part are told the first 30 or so out will get a couple of hundred £/$ to make people behave more like they would in a real life scenario. So someone filming in the cabin could have helped to potentially save mine and your lives.


You are far more likely to cause a crash

Now that is the sort of rubbish the papers write !!!. Name ONE instance of a commercial a/c crashing due to someone using a mobile phone or video camera !!. Thats like the argument that using your phone in a petrol station will blow it up, which too is utter rubbish as there have never been any recorded instances of that either !!!. There may be absolutey minute risk which is why the airlines say it, to cover their own asses just incase.

It seems to be ok for f/deck and cabin crew to use their own video equipment onboard. Just one look on fl350.com will show many many videos taken from the flight deck, and they are not professional ones either - some are more than likely shot by one of the pilots who is suppoed to be concentrating on flying/helping to fly the plane - THAT is more likely to cause a crash than some passenger in the back.

:hmm:

[MuttleyJ]

I don't think the aircraft cabin is a public place! I stand to be corrected, but surely it's the property of the airline. Otherwise, how can an airline eject a passenger during boarding, if it is a public place? :ooh:

[TightSlot]

Leezyjet - Just to check - if, as you maintain, one person's video is a good thing for safety, presumably the more videos the better. Therefore I assume that airlines should actively be encouraging customers to make use of video cameras at all stages of the flight, and possibly should consider issuing them to those customers that don't already have them? Or should it be only certain people that should use them?



:confused:

[NZScion]

Leezyjet, my point was not that your camera is going to make the plane crash, rather, it will be the straw that breaks the camels back and causes sufficent interference to cause an incident. Assume 10% of the pax on a 747 flight are using/have forgotten to switch their devices off. That is approx. 40 different devices emitting electromagnetic interference. Why can you not accept that these rules are in place to protect the saftey of all on board? Although no accidents have been proven to be caused by this do you need an accident to make you go without these for a few hours at most? If only one accident happens, will that just be an isolated case in your book? What about 10? 100?

[radeng]

Of course, it's complicated because not all of a passengers electronic devices can or should be switched off. Hearing aid - necessary to hear instructions. Some have radio, although the power level is so low that the CAA believe the advantages of having the hearing aid outweigh any possible EMC problems. Then there's pacemakers. Switch them off for take off and they're not needed afterwards! Before you ask, modern pacemakers DO have radios in them. Radio controlled insulin pump - difficult one. Other radio controlled implants - probably not a good idea to switch off.

[Skipness One Echo]

Be sensible. I generally have the window seat, hang the camera on the to armrest out of sight under a jacket or jumper and smile sweetly at the hosty. Then when I'm happy they're sitting down, then I snap out of the window......Let's see her try and confiscate £1000 worth of digital camera if a sweet non sarcastic apology is made. If there was any chance my NIKON was dangerous, it would not be permitted in the cabin. I refer you to that bottle of shampoo that was confiscated at security. Modern air travel is a pantomime of inconsistent rules implemented by knee jerk people. Screw the rules, and it's not often I say that. I await the righteous indignation of the trolly dolly fraternity.....

[TightSlot]

Let's see her try and confiscate £1000 worth of digital camera if a sweet non sarcastic apology is made

Please fly with me, please - just once - and then play your silly little games and watch what happens: Maybe you could record it for the enjoyment of your friends?

I await the righteous indignation of the trolly dolly fraternity.....

Nah - The best thing that can be done is to leave your post here, intact: It speaks far more eloquently about you than we ever could...

[rog747]

lol @ above poster saying most of the rules in aviation now are a pantomime,
well, he/she is true to a point...deffo its a panto, and a very bad one
and before you start shouting ''oh no its not!''
i gave up the airlines sadly after 35 years as i did not join to become a ruddy security guard...so give me some slack here,

so, lets put it in perspective if johnny wants to film the t/o or landing with his shiny canon ixus55 which was his xmas pressie and this is his 2 weeks with mum and dad to majorca then frankly we have all been taking piccies for 50 years...

u dont see that many peeps videoing away, u see more 'still' cameras used to click off a few snaps...

its the mobile phones that MAY one day be proved to be a problem.
for any airline now to sugget phones can be approved for use on board in the near future is gonna cause CC many more problems then you can ever imagine, best of luck to you trying to control that one,
its bad enough on the train or even the bus now listening to em, yuk.

so kids. relax abit about johnny taking afew snaps;)

WHAT I THINK IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT PAX ARE NOT TOLD TO KEEP THEIR SHOES ON for T/O or LANDING...and enforced.
this is far more an important issue to worry about than a camera regarding safety issues...
when you have to go down the slides in an unpremeditated event
(ie BA038 LHR crashland) and half the J class pax are sitting their in their socks for landing it is totally stupid and dangerous.
(oh and no i dont mean a pair of 7'' high heels LOL)

oh yeah what fun running around the grass amongst broken metal and burning fuel...hey ho

[10secondsurvey]

On one occasion I was flying in on AA to La Guardia, swooping low over manhatten, and little girl takes out her little camera to take a picture of the view....and along comes the cabin crew who threaten to confiscate the girls camera, as it is an electronic item. Whilst tchnically correct, I think it is a bit lame to stop someone taking pictures.

I must confess, I've photographed and filmed from aircraft, just be discrete, and nobody will know. No harm done.

[10secondsurvey]

ian8867

It is perfectly legal to photograph anybody you like in the UK, provided they are in a public place. However, there are very strict laws regarding what may be done with such an image. Without permission, it is not allowed to be used for commercial gain, or in a way that is likely to damage your standing or reputation and so on. But for example, say a photographer took a picture of you, they could print it, use it in say, an art or photography exhibition and so on, but not in a defamatory way, or for commercial gain. But nothing else.

But then this is the least of your worries as in the UK you are photographed hundreds of times everyday by all kinds of unknown people, in the bus, in the kebab shop, walking the dog, in the pub, waiting for a train, in a shopping centre... and so on. Keep your eyes peeled for just one day, and you'll be amazed at the number of times.

As regards taking pictures on a plane, it is private property (owned by a private company, e.g. ryanair), and as such an airline can refuse you permission to take pictures. Not sure if film is the same. But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, or rely on this advice...

[10secondsurvey]

Oh just another point. I'm not sure if the law is completely different on an aircraft as opposed to 'other' private property. But for example, let's say you were taking pictures in a private car park, and the owner came out and told you to stop, that is as far as it can be taken. The owner is NOT allowed to delete your pictures/film, or damage/confiscate your equipment - all of these would either be criminal damage or theft, regardless of the intention.

But airlines have lots of other rules anyway that probably permit the crushing of cameras, so it's probably as well to do what they say.

[Leezyjet]

Just to check - if, as you maintain, one person's video is a good thing for safety, presumably the more videos the better. Therefore I assume that airlines should actively be encouraging customers to make use of video cameras at all stages of the flight, and possibly should consider issuing them to those customers that don't already have them? Or should it be only certain people that should use them?


Well thats taking it a bit far isn't it !!.

Assume 10% of the pax on a 747 flight are using/have forgotten to switch their devices off. That is approx. 40 different devices emitting electromagnetic interference. Why can you not accept that these rules are in place to protect the saftey of all on board?

Because like the rules of liquids in hand luggage they are a complete over reaction in this H&S orientated world we now find ourselves in. It was even stated by explosives experts that making liquid explosives onboard an airliner in flight was complete nonsense as it would require around 10 hours of mixing in an ideal environment - so mixing it in a champagne bucket in an airline toilet, would at best produce a little bang rather than an explosion. Sadly the media pretty much chose to ignore this, as it was only aired on one of the 24 hour news channels and when the experts rubbished the claims, it was quickly taken off as it didn't instill the fear into people that the government and media love to create and coult then allow even more rediculous rules to be brought in to make the public "feel" safe.

And as regards the electronic devices being left on, in my experience the crew are actually the worst offenders for that !!.

WHAT I THINK IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT PAX ARE NOT TOLD TO KEEP THEIR SHOES ON for T/O or LANDING...and enforced.
this is far more an important issue to worry about than a camera regarding safety issues...
when you have to go down the slides in an unpremeditated event
(ie BA038 LHR crashland) and half the J class pax are sitting their in their socks for landing it is totally stupid and dangerous.
(oh and no i dont mean a pair of 7'' high heels LOL)

oh yeah what fun running around the grass amongst broken metal and burning fuel...hey ho

Completely agree, but that would mean a sensible rule being introduced which doesn't seem to be the case in the airline industry recently.

:hmm:

[AdamC]

I take pictures of aircraft whilst it's "prohibited" to do so, as far as I'm aware it's never caused a problem before? :confused: - I don't see what harm it's causing, yes there is the issue of the camera becoming launched through the cabin in an emergency - But i'd be more worried about the overheads opening and pax getting hit with heavy bags than a camera.

There is one simple way to avoid cabin crew detection, provided your not seated near them ;) is wait for the "CC seats for landing" command (or other, depending the airlines proceedure for that, ie double chime).

Recording/taking pictures in my eyes poses little, if any, threat to the safety of the aircraft. The devices obviousaly cannot interfere with the navigation equipment onboard because we're aloud to use them above FL100!! Unless it some how magically messes with the ILS, I have no idea how it poses a threat in that way.

Yes, I proberbly shouldn't do it, because it is after all prohibited..

[Skipness One Echo]

Exactly the point I made. The world is such a bossy, fussy rules and jobsworth's place these days where I am forced to take my bloody shoes off 10% of the time going through security. Bollocks to the that if the exploding shoe man is one of the other nine punters who don't get checked. Result? People see the rule as pointless and hate being pestered by it. It's the same in the cabin. If any electronic device I have is really gonna interfere with the aircraft, it should NEVER be permitted in the cabin.

[TightSlot]

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly irritated with this thread, or more accurately, some of the more infantile contributions.

Many of the arguments being made are based on no actual scientific fact, or knowledge, beyond your own prejudices and preferences, mixed with little understanding of the issues and a desire to justify your own personal gratification. The arrogance is simply breathtaking - some of you appear to judge it acceptable to not only confess to breaking the rules, but to promote doing so to others: To this end you gleefully post methods to by-pass the various safety checks while holding those charged with your safety in contempt and holding them up for mockery. Why? Because doing what you want to do is more important than the requirements of anything or anybody else, and you'll present any triviality that comes to hand in a bogus attempt to shore up your position.

This forum is at its' best when there is a healthy interplay between pilots, cabin crew and customers, and when a degree of mutual understanding and respect is shown. Ultimately, PPRuNe is run, and moderated by professional crew, in their spare time. If you seriously believe that any of us are prepared to waste that time bickering with puerile commentators then this may be a good time to re-consider your future in this forum. Enthusiasm for aviation is all well and good, but enthusiasm in itself does not imply knowledge or ability: Enthusiasm un-tempered by intelligence is the dominion of a labrador puppy.

:*

[Flintstone]

If any electronic device I have is really gonna interfere with the aircraft, it should NEVER be permitted in the cabin.

Well you have two options then. Either notify the CAA that you are unhappy about mobile phones. laptops and the like being onboard and ask that they implement a blanket ban of such devices (then others of your ilk can start whinging threads about 'Why Can't I Take My Laptop Abroad?') or leave them at home yourself.

Hang on, option three. Try exercising a modicum of common sense and just turn them off when you're asked to. If you don't like it, take the train.

And what type of idiot confesses to breaking a rule that's been introduced for his/her/ everyone else's safety? I tell you, the stupidity of some people makes me wonder how they ever make it to adulthood.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Let us be clear. There are rules to be adhered to while you are aboard an aircraft. They are laid down by ICAO and various aviation authorities and aviation governing bodies, including the airline itself. Break those rules and you could find yourself asked to leave the aircraft. If you regularly disregard the rules you could even find yourself unable to travel on ANY airline. Its not unknown. However, each airline does its level best to ensure you enjoy your flight - providing you abide by the rules.

Once you board an aircraft you will be required to abide by the Air Navigation Order, a legislative document of parliament, and the rules governing your travel with the airline. If you don't like the rules you have a major problem which might get you offloaded.

Also, you should bear in mind that something YOU think is innocuous may actually imperil the safety of the aircraft, in which case the Captain may land and order you off. You would then find that you are liable for the considerable cost of doing so. And, you can be assured that such an action will be reported to all airlines and you may well be refused travel with any airline in the future. Also not unknown. Do you then think it is worth being 'clever' - to see how you can skirt the system? Do you?

We would prefer that you keep your inane and irritating comments to yourself. They have no place here or on the aircraft or to cabin staff.

If however you would like some advice on how to conduct yourself on board an aircraft we have considerably talented professionals in PPRuNe who will be only too willing to assist you.

In the meantime you can expect any posts of the kind that suggest that you will ignore what is required for safety and comfort of others will be deleted and you yourself banned from further use of this site

[Skipness One Echo]

Fair enough, I will apologise for the tone of my post and to any offence it may have caused. My remarks were flippant and unhelpful.

However in my own case I only ever shot with a still camera, albeit a digital one. To my knowledge, and I have looked, this is not a problem transmitter in the way game boys or mobile phones and laptops are. If I am wrong, honest, PM me a relevant link.

Can I make one other point though. You say quite rightly that the rules in the cabin are there for our safety. The rules on the ground are there for our safety too, hence I would expect staff not to moan about having their yoghurt confiscated at security as it is bigger than the 100ml permitted. My underlying point is that when people, ( both staff AND passengers ) lose respect for rules becasue they seem remarkably harsh and ill judged, then we're in some trouble. I think that's where we are in the UK at the moment.

I have serious doubts that a plane load of passenegers with NIKON cameras shooting stills will interfere with anything. I have serious doubts about the ability to concoct a bomb in a plane loo with liquids brought on board which the experts tell us is almost impossible.
Transparency and a good reason to be prevented from behaving in a manner whilst doing no harm is a very BRITISH thing. It's why we never had a Hitler. People never take those kind of things seriously.....

[Heidhurtin]

<snip>
I have serious doubts that a plane load of passenegers with NIKON cameras shooting stills will interfere with anything. I have serious doubts about the ability to concoct a bomb in a plane loo with liquids brought on board which the experts tell us is almost impossible.
Transparency and a good reason to be prevented from behaving in a manner whilst doing no harm is a very BRITISH thing. It's why we never had a Hitler. People never take those kind of things seriously.....

So, you don't understand the logic behind a rule and so you feel free to ignore it? Are you an expert? Have you minutely investigated every detail? Can you comprehend that some people may know more than you do about explosives and/or the risk from electromagnetic interference?

I'm an electrical engineer and one thing I will TELL you is that EMI can crop up in the most unexpected of places, even after you've taken every precaution in the book. It's screwed with systems I've worked on more than once. I'm 100% confident that the guys who build aeroplanes know more about it than me and take precautions against it, (cable screening etc), but the one that kills you will be the one you didn't see coming...... If the nice cabin crew ask you to do something, it's generally best to just do it!

I hate to use flaming language on a forum, but c'mon people, get real!

[Contacttower]

Transparency and a good reason to be prevented from behaving in a manner whilst doing no harm is a very BRITISH thing. It's why we never had a Hitler. People never take those kind of things seriously.....


A rather simplistic way of looking at things but broadly I agree. Like with all these things there is a balance to be had...follow the 'rules is rules' attitude to it's logical conclusion and you are potentially in a dangerous situation, on the other hand I don't feel that the current rules appertaining to what you can and can't do on board an aircraft should, or deserve to be, disobeyed.

[PAXboy]

Thread drift
S1E
My underlying point is that when people, (both staff AND passengers) lose respect for rules because they seem remarkably harsh and ill judged, then we're in some trouble. I think that's where we are in the UK at the moment.Yes. But we have to go through this - before we can emerge the other side with a new way of doing things. We are still mid-way from the Empire and Post-War success, to something that we will be in another 30/50 years or so. It is fascinating to be living at a time when so many things are changing.

As far as the airline rules are concerned, you have mentioned both ground and air rules. The ground ones are predominantly made by politicians, so they tend to be silly and not be respected. The rules in the air are usually made by those whose hard cash and livelihood depend on them, so they tend to make more sense.

Transparency and a good reason to be prevented from behaving in a manner whilst doing no harm is a very BRITISH thing. It's why we never had a Hitler.Ah perhaps, "Why we have not had a Hitler yet ..."??

Any country can reach a complete nadir and then cometh the man? We had Cromwell who appeared to be the solution to the problem and then probably wasn't. We may well reach a low point when a dictator sounds plausible enough to enough people. I hope that it will not happen in my life time but do not assume that we are somehow different from other nations.

[HarryMann]

Seems quite a few of the posts on this thread just reflect modern society behavioural norms.... summed up in 3 words.

Selfish, selfish, selfish...

Like children just comprehending that imposed limits can be contested they wail... 'I will do what i want because its my right to behave anyway I like'

They just cannot see it erodes everyone's freedoms... and view compliance as 'weakness' in others..

Simply, we wouldn't need a nanny state if most peeps behaved even remotely sensibly... and more and more they plainly don't.