Photography in the cockpit . . .

[Pedota]

A couple of legal eagles have spotted an interesting angle for pilots taking photos in the cockpit . . . see When 'selfies' extend to plane cockpits, pilots could land themselves in trouble (http://theconversation.com/when-selfies-extend-to-plane-cockpits-pilots-could-land-themselves-in-trouble-35617)

Rebecca Johnston (University of Notre Dame) and David Hodgkinson (University of Western Australia) have posted this interesting article in The Conversation. The original Quartz missive is also worth a read . . . see The pilots of Instagram: beautiful views from the cockpit, violating rules of the air ? Quartz (http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/)

Last week, Quartz published an article showcasing photographs pilots have taken from the cockpit of aircraft to post on Instagram. As explained in the story, by taking these photos - many of which appear to have been snapped during flight, take-off, or landing - pilots are violating the rules of the air. This is certainly the case in the United States and the European Union, for example, but what about elsewhere?

United States regulations

The longstanding “sterile cockpit” rule requires pilots to refrain from non-essential activities during critical stages of flight, including while the aircraft is involved in taxi, take-off and landing (and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight). “Non-essential activities” include eating and engaging in conversation and reading publications not related to the operation of the aircraft. It certainly covers cockpit selfies during landing. Alarmingly, as reported in Quartz, one #iger - or for those of us unfamiliar with the Instagram hashtag “Instagrammer” - posted:


“[a]bout to land this plane but first, #lmtas” (that is, first, let me take a selfie).

Earlier this year, the United States Federal Aviation Administration further issued new regulations barring airline pilots from using electronic devices, including laptops and mobile phones while on duty in the cockpit unless the purpose of using such devices is directly related to the operation of the aircraft or emergency, safety-related or employment related communications. These rules further restrict the ability for pilots to use these devices, placing a complete ban on personal use of such devices while piloting a commercial aircraft. Again, this restriction certainly covers taking photos - even at cruising altitude.

EU regulations

There are similar regulations in the EU. The European Aviation Safety Agency’s Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material sets out that due to the higher risk of interference and potential for distracting crew from their duties, portable electronic devices should not be used in the flight compartment, other than to assist the flight crew in their duties in certain circumstances.

The rules applying to pilots in Australia, however, are somewhat different.

Depending on the circumstances, it’s generally ok for crew members to take photos inside an aircraft cockpit. Kent Wien/Flickr, CC BY-NC

Australian regulations

Under Australian law, a common law duty of care (an obligation owed to any person whom it is reasonably foreseeable would be injured by the lack of care of that person) is owed by the pilot in command of an aircraft to persons including passengers and fellow crew members.

There are also statutory duties owed by the crew members of an aircraft under legislation which includes the Civil Aviation Act and regulations made under that Act.

Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act provides that:

“[a] person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger’ either the life of another person or the person or property of another person.”

Under the Civil Aviation Regulations, a pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time, the safety of people carried on the aircraft, and the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

Under the same regulations, the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot “is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to a flight until the engine or engines is or are stopped at the termination of a flight”.

If two or more pilots are required to be on board an aircraft, the pilot in command must ensure that two pilots remain at the controls at all times when the aircraft is taking off, landing and during turbulent flight conditions.

There appear to be no Australian laws or regulations which specifically prevent the taking of photographs by crew members of an aircraft. It is clear that crew members can take photographs – of each other and the view outside the aircraft. It is also clear, however, at common law and under statute that, depending on the operation of the aircraft and the circumstances – and it all comes down to circumstance - the taking of such photographs may well be prohibited.

It may also be an #offence.

[Sunfish]

I'm going to miss a certain persons selfies, our world class regulator will no doubt follow the FAA and EU.

.....However they will go further and make even the possession of such devices a criminal offence.

----And leave a massive grey area regarding the use of fixed GoPro cameras.

[bugged on the right]

Pilots should always be in control of their aircraft and should not be taking photos when on finals. This should be always be done by the attractive hostess or passenger who is sitting on your lap.

[Australopithecus]

No electronic devices is a good rule. That's why I only use an old fashioned wooden view camera with wood tripod. Sure, its cumbersome, but its the law.

[fujii]

This has already been and gone on the "Spectators' Balcony" forum. It was a non event. Many shots were taken from the jump seat. The FAA is not too concerned. The following from Avweb.

A widely cited story posted on the blog Quartz on Friday raises the question whether airline pilots who post aerial photos online are violating FAA rules against using "personal wireless devices" in the cockpit, but the FAA told AVweb picture-taking is OK with them -- as long as pilots use the proper equipment. "A pilot at the controls is permitted to take a picture with a non-wireless camera and not be in violation of this regulation," the FAA wrote in an email. "However, a pilot at the controls is not permitted to take a picture with a cell phone." Tablets and personal computers also are not permitted, and no photos of any kind are allowed during aircraft operations when the "sterile cockpit rule" is in effect, typically below 10,000 feet.

To gauge the extent of possible violations, David Yanofsky wrote, "Quartz has monitored hundreds of Instagram accounts over six months and collected a trove of photos and videos taken by people clearly sitting in the pilot or co-pilot seat on commercial flights. Many images appear to have been captured during critical phases of flight, like takeoff and landing." The story found that the rule appears to be "widely flouted," and posted a PDF of a recent story in a magazine published by the Air Line Pilots Association that features photos shot from airliner cockpits. The Quartz story notes that GoPro video cameras that are WiFi enabled also are apparently forbidden by the FAA rule.

ALPA told AVweb in an email that the organization is committed to safety and professionalism. "This includes strict adherence to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and airline policies and procedures. Under the FARs, a critical phase of flight is considered to be any non-cruise portion of the flight below 10,000 feet, including ground taxi. The use of personal cameras during non-critical phases of flight is not prohibited by the FARs. While some photos may appear to be taken in critical phases of flight, they may well have been taken in non-commercial operations such as repositioning or maintenance flights or corporate flights where such photos are not prohibited by the regulations. Every day and on every flight, the professional airline pilots of ALPA are committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety and exhibit complete professionalism."

[maggot]

Oh gawd dont tell me they're gunna ban extreme cockpit lookback shots now??!

[almostover]

The world has gone nuts! We are such a bunch of whoosey's
Talk about a now over regulated industry with the constant fear of being caught doing such trivial things

AO

[Bankstown]

Interesting article on Quartz, while we are on the topic of the law, aren't they breaching copyright law by publishing photographer's work without permission or credit? Instagram is not the copyright holder.

What's good for the goose.......

Understanding Photographic Copyright | PPA (http://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720)

[compressor stall]

The whole pissweak Quartz article appeared to be written around the premise that pilots were in contravention of FAA regulations regarding personal electronic devices in the cockpit.

Most photos were either

1. taken from the jumpseat
2. taken from a passenger window
3. taken with a fixed camera that can be set to take photographs at preset intervals during flight requiring no pilot interaction.

For the remaining few, a camera does not come under the FAA definition of a personal electronic device, unless it is a wifi transmitter (which admittedly some of the newest cameras are capable of).

So in a nutshell, sensationalist and above all completely flawed.

[Keg]

The truly stupid thing is the principle. The FAA says that taking photos with a camera is OK. So a bulky DSLR is cool by them. However taking a photo with an iPhone is verboten. An iPhone can be slipped into the top pocket with no distraction whatsoever.

I get that they don't want people live tweeting their flights using in flight wifi and the fact that some crew did such things (e.g. on descent into JFK) was simply begging for trouble. But there is a big difference between getting out your iPhone to take a quick piccie and using your DSLR. However the FAA has deemed the former unsafe whilst the latter is no problem.

[Capt Kremin]

Go Pros everywhere on Qantas.

We7qdE4pMtk

[AviatoR21]

New JQ CP there too!

[Lazerdog]

If you are carrying passengers and are concerned for their safety, why in the world would you allow a distraction such as setting up and worrying about a video camera in the cockpit? Do the job at hand, and forget about social media.

[Eastwest Loco]

Kremin - you bugger!

I have seen that before and had to watch again - and the eyes leaked for the second time. All those wonderful aeroplanes. And what a classy lady Captain.

All the bean counters and Management idiots have tried their hardest to destroy the industry and the culture, but the core remains and will never be breached.

Best regards

EWL

[SOPS]

Two weeks ago, after 35 years and 22000 hours, I retired from this industry. Thank :mad:

[TBM-Legend]

Camera trouble led to RAF Voyager grounding, investigation finds - 3/19/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/camera-trouble-led-to-raf-voyager-grounding-investigation-397216/)

[Bula]

I think that has more to do with unsecured items than photography...

[AEROMEDIC]

Many images appear to have been captured during critical phases of flight, like takeoff and landing." The story found that the rule appears to be "widely flouted," and posted a PDF of a recent story in a magazine published by the Air Line Pilots Association that features photos shot from airliner cockpits. The Quartz story notes that GoPro video cameras that are WiFi enabled also are apparently forbidden by the FAA rule.Isn't this the point?

Why be doing something else during the critical phases when you should be focussed on your tasks?

Just wondering.

[dodo whirlygig]

"you should be focussed on your tasks"


Absolutely, both of them. LOL!!!

[The name is Porter]

Two weeks ago, after 35 years and 22000 hours, I retired from this industry.

Perfect timing :D

[KiwiJr]

Fun police are at it again, why can't we show the public what we do from in the cockpit? It's the digital age of EFB's, iPhones and iPads so I can't see a problem with cameras on the flightdeck.

Just don't do stupid stuff like this guy!

Check out the 30 second mark, what height do you think he's at?

https://youtu.be/nSJnwnNYoIM

[Icarus2001]

Until a law is tested in a court of law there is by definition no case law precedent. Therefore the outcome will be unknown.

If a crew of a major airline can take off at night without switching the runway lights on and our dear regulator cannot successfully prosecute them, then I probably would not worry too much about a go pro style camera, depending where you post the data.

You probably have more to fear from your company HR department and their social media policy.

[mickjoebill]

Something had to drop if one attempts to operate a camera in one hand, paraglider in the other.
Could have lost his hand or the prop!
At least he had the forsight to have already deployed a parachute.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QeJ0k_QDh8



Mickjoebill

[LeadSled]

If a crew of a major airline can take off at night without switching the runway lights on and our dear regulator cannot successfully prosecute them, Icarus 2001,
The evidence of the crew was that the lights were on.

Testing of the lighting timing on the spot, and the recorded on and off times supported the crew evidence that the lights were on, and that they probably went off (the timer ran out) very shortly after they became airborne.

There was a serious credibility issue, in my opinion, as to the source of the allegations.

In complete contrast, a Go-Pro recording from the cockpit is irrefutable evidence of a Go-Pro in the cockpit, what must be determined then is a matter of process: Was there an engineering order, what other permissions were required, and were they obtained.

In short, the QF B-737 crew were not "convicted", because there was no evidence (even in the balance of probabilities) beyond a reasonable doubt that the event had occurred.

What would you prefer, that a CASA allegation is, in and of itself, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime has been committed.

The treatment of the QF crew of that aeroplane was an absolute disgrace and an abuse of process.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Of course, it is the DPP that runs cases, CASA itself does not directly prosecute, but Oh Boy!!! can they take administrative action that will make your life hell, or eliminate your aviation career, and you chances on appeal in the AAT (if you can afford it) are not good, no matter how strong your case.

[Icarus2001]

We are in heated agreement.

The lights case was to illustrate a point.

Gopro data is time stamped, but anyone can set the time stamp, so it can be impossible to prove WHEN it occured. This adds to the complexity of PROVING.

I think people are tilting at windmills, or perhaps pointing their camera at them?

:ooh:

[Capt_SNAFU]

Our company has instructed us that the mounting of go pros etc requires engineering approval. Now I don't want to sound all negative, but I would not want to be called to head quarters if after doing such a thing and you were identified, not having permission. I think the company could make life quite difficult for you. Thoughts or suggestions?

The Company is obviously screwed in the head and using this engineering thing as an excuse. If fighter pilots can have a go-pro on the jet and survive the pounding that the receive whilst doing that, I don't think an airliner is in any trouble.

[LeadSled]

The Company is obviously screwed in the head and using this engineering thing as an excuse

Cap'n SNAFU,
Quite an appropriate handle, really.
The company is absolutely correct, an engineering order is required.
What you might be able to do/get away with under the rules of the Taxpayers Flying Club have nothing to do with civil requirements.
Tootle pip!!

[Down and Welded]

One of my favourite images is a photo Capt de Crespigny snapped from his A380 overhead London at night. Somehow, looking at that, it didn't feel as if it might have been a foolhardy thing to have done.

Then again, perhaps there's ways to use a camera and there's ways to use a camera...

[Soab]

Just goes to prove that there are some real 'PRATS" out there.


No doubt written by some idiot that wouldn't know which way to sit in a Pilots seat.


Why do we have to put up with these Twits, and why does the public even listen to them?

[Pinky the pilot]

Why do we have to put up with these Twits, and why does the public even listen to them?

Quite possibly because, as one of my old Instructors from years ago once said to me;
'When it comes to matters of Aviation the average non aviating Australian is basically, an extremely stupid person!'

At the time I thought the observation somewhat harsh. Now, I'm not so sure....:hmm:

Edited to add: Struth, all you have to do is listen to any talk-back radio program and you will quickly realise that there are people out there who are definitely not playing with a full deck!!:eek:

[Sunfish]

Pinky:

'When it comes to matters of Aviation the average non aviating Australian is basically, an extremely stupid person!'

I've lost count of the number of times this has been brought home to me. I still remember being solemnly told by a dinner party guest that the reason jet engines are in pods on wings is so the pilot can jettison them if they catch on fire….and even after I patiently explained about fuse bolts, etc. he was still arguing that there were jettison levers in the cockpit!!!!

Anyone have other examples?

[Ushuaia]

Professional pilots know when to stop giving things air-time. The more you bang on about something like this, the more likely someone will take it up as their latest "cause".

So in response to: "Anyone have other examples?" why don't we just stop. Stop bringing this thread back to the top.

[Alien Role]

Sunfish, how's this; was once asked what the lines were running down the gear struts to the wheels?
Explained that they were flexible cables to drive the wheels whilst on the
ground to get enough speed to get airborne - subject went away quite happy with the explanation ......:suspect::rolleyes:


Role on....

[nonsense]

Anyone have other examples?

OK, I'm a mere engineer and yachty who owns a small outboard motor (just establishing my complete lack of credentials here...).

Having watched "Qantas 767 on 60 minutes" on youtube (post #11), I disappeared down the youtube rabbithole and found myself watching this video of an ultralight struggling to get off the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jz0bJ3xWs4

The guy who shot the video and posted it, who helped push the thing off the runway afterwards, explains that the owner (can't bring myself to call him a pilot) had failed to notice that the prop was fitted backwards.

And in the comments, the experts are queuing up to insist that if the prop was on backwards, the aircraft would have been pushed backwards!

Real Dunning Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) stuff, too ignorant to have any concept of how little they know!

[CaptainMidnight]

Anyone have other examples?

A friend flew PA31's for an RPT service. She was waiting beside the aircraft while the pax walked from the terminal building to board, and noticed one was wheeling a pushbike (full size standard type - not one of the fold ups).

When told he couldn't bring that on board, she said he looked at the aircraft like he was just realising it didn't have a pack rack, then he asked why he couldn't park the push bike in the aisle ........

[Soab]

nonsense
Having watched "Qantas 767 on 60 minutes" on youtube (post #11), I disappeared down the youtube rabbithole and found myself watching this video of an ultralight struggling to get off the ground:

Yes, But in all fairness to the guy.


He had already reached V1 by the time he passed the guy with the Camera.