Photography in the cockpit . . .

[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?

[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....

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!!

[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 ......


Role on....

[nonsense]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

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:

You Tube

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 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.