Are digital cameras on your banned-on-takeoff/landing list?
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the guide warned us not to take photos with digital cameras as it was liable to set off the alarm system
They may have just said that as an excuse to stop you taking pix.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what's your take on this? Is it peculiar to Australia? Those of you operating in US, Europe, do you have the same restrictions? Is this something that cabin crew are instructed in their training to include in the "shouldn't-be-turned-on" list, or are FA's just making it up as they go along?
"All carry-on baggage shall be safely stowed prior to movement of the aircraft on the surface and during take-off, periods of in-flight turbulence and landing."
CAR 705.42 - Carry-on Baggage
However, the PED regulation here does give the airline the right to refuse the use of a PED:
"No person shall use a portable electronic device on board an aircraft except with the permission of the operator of the aircraft."
CAR 602.08 - Portable Electronic Devices
Australian CAO 20.16.3 (9) has similar stowage requirements:
Loose articles in the cabin of an aircraft, including items of equipment and crew members and passengers’ personal effects, shall be stowed so as to avoid the possibility of injury to persons or damage to the aircraft through the movement of such articles caused by in-flight turbulence or by unusual accelerations or manoeuvres.
Civil Aviation Orders Part 20 - Carriage of Persons
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - 309A: Instructions about activities on board aircraft
Something that will need addressing is the on board use of medical Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) using radio. These will soon ( some at present do) include pacemakers, hearing aids, and other aids for the disabled - e.g., those for assisting walking, and sphincter control. A complication (certainly in the US) is that attempts to prevent their use or prevent people travelling who use them will face legal challenges under the Americans with Disabilities laws. Plus, of course, getting people to turn off hearing aids is actually a counter productive safety issue. And before anyone asks, there is a move to put radio transceivers in hearing aids, while radio transmitters in pacemakers are already in circulation.
Those of us in the business make jokes about this - a radio device for sphincter control suffering interference - you could really be in the sh*t!!! Or very constipated..........Another application suggested has been for erection control for paraplegics - and at this stage, this thread is rapidly heading for Jet Blast!!
On the upside, the radiated power levels are extremely low, and the UK CAA has said that with the power levels and frequencies involved, they don't see a problem. Nevertheless, one can see yet more difficulties for CC ( as if, says I as SLF, they don't have enough already)
I suspect this is another of those cases where the rules are a long way behind the reality of practice.
Those of us in the business make jokes about this - a radio device for sphincter control suffering interference - you could really be in the sh*t!!! Or very constipated..........Another application suggested has been for erection control for paraplegics - and at this stage, this thread is rapidly heading for Jet Blast!!
On the upside, the radiated power levels are extremely low, and the UK CAA has said that with the power levels and frequencies involved, they don't see a problem. Nevertheless, one can see yet more difficulties for CC ( as if, says I as SLF, they don't have enough already)
I suspect this is another of those cases where the rules are a long way behind the reality of practice.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having previously been an Avionics engineer albeit with flingwing (helicopters) and still involved in the electronics field, I can tell you that Flight Safety is paramount and the elimination of risk no matter how small is definitely advantageous to all in an aviation environment. A digital still camera in common with a video camera and a whole host of portable electronc devices in common use today, utilises a microprocessor. The microprocessor is governed by an electronic clock which governs the speed at which it can process its program. Today, these clock speeds or frequencies are very high and are in the RF (radio frequency) spectrum. Dependant on a number of factors such as proximity to aircraft antennas or electrical cable, there exists a possibility that such devices could induce voltages or cause interference within aircraft on board electronic systems. Whilst modern aircraft electrical circuits are designed to minimise such risk with screened cables bonding, faraday cage of the fuselage etc. there still exists a small risk that interference may be caused. Personally I am not a gambler, but even if the odds are very low, that an interaction could be caused, I would prefer that the risk was not taken.
Sorry if this sounded a bit techy, but there are sound reasons for all flight safety instructions, which should always be obeyed even if the logic is not always clearly understood.
Wishing you all a safe flight.
Clubber
Clubber
Sorry if this sounded a bit techy, but there are sound reasons for all flight safety instructions, which should always be obeyed even if the logic is not always clearly understood.
Wishing you all a safe flight.
Clubber
Clubber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought regarding camera use is that taking aerial photos may actually be illegal. Not so much in Europe I'd guess, but certainly in the CIS and other areas.
Oh and the dangers of mobile phones is BS, modern jet aircraft land and take-off with phones being used all the time. NOT me, before anyone bites, and not an airline I use, but it does happen.
Oh and the dangers of mobile phones is BS, modern jet aircraft land and take-off with phones being used all the time. NOT me, before anyone bites, and not an airline I use, but it does happen.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, as its something I'm interested in. I regularly take an early am flight EDI-LON, which at this time of the year conicides with sunrise. Am I on climb out allowed to take photos? Once in the cruise, am I allowed to take photos? In both scenarios, photos would be taken with a digital camera?
Answers will be appreciated.
Cheers
Jordan
Answers will be appreciated.
Cheers
Jordan
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radeng said:
This remark set me thinking about one PED which might actually do something to aircraft systems and which I do not see discussed, which is the AED – the Automated External Defibrillator used in aircraft to treat passengers suffering from heart fibrillations.
This web-site http://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/biphasic/defib3.htm indicates that AEDs put out a 1-2 kV pulse lasting a few milli-seconds, depositing maybe 200 Joules. Another site quotes a pulse duration of about 1/300 second. Now 200 J in 1/300 second represents an instantaneous power of 200 X 300 watts or 60,000 W, rather more than a mobile phone which I assume is nearer to one watt (but continuously). Some of this energy might be radiated. The geometry of the leads and paddles of an AED in use is not well defined, nor is the proximity to aircraft electronics known in advance. An AED might radiate quite well particularly if the leading and trailing edges of the pulse are as sharp as shown on the above web-site. Does anyone have information on any tests which have been done?
The use of AEDs has been very successful on aircraft and apparently without any adverse effects on the aircraft. But then they are not used very often, are they? One could end up with two emergencies instead of one.
Oddly enough AEDs are apparently much more successful when used in aircraft than on the ground because they are available immediately and applied by trained people. The American Heart Association quoted here http://www.atri.org/LifesavingEquip.htm says “Defibrillation within the first minute of sudden cardiac arrest can save the lives of up to 90% of its victims. However, with each minute of delay until defibrillation, the survival rate drops by 10%”.
Reverting back to the subject of digital cameras, Onan the Clumsy said:
It did cross my mind that they might have wanted to give the impression that they had a super duper alarm system when maybe they hadn’t, or maybe didn’t even have one at all. However, I do not think they minded photos in general because, as I said in my post
This is in contrast with, for instance, the channel tunnel trains in which flash photography is discouraged in the vehicle-carrying cars becaus it can trigger the alarms installed after the train fire a few years ago.
Cheers,
Something that will need addressing is the on board use of medical Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) using radio.
This web-site http://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/biphasic/defib3.htm indicates that AEDs put out a 1-2 kV pulse lasting a few milli-seconds, depositing maybe 200 Joules. Another site quotes a pulse duration of about 1/300 second. Now 200 J in 1/300 second represents an instantaneous power of 200 X 300 watts or 60,000 W, rather more than a mobile phone which I assume is nearer to one watt (but continuously). Some of this energy might be radiated. The geometry of the leads and paddles of an AED in use is not well defined, nor is the proximity to aircraft electronics known in advance. An AED might radiate quite well particularly if the leading and trailing edges of the pulse are as sharp as shown on the above web-site. Does anyone have information on any tests which have been done?
The use of AEDs has been very successful on aircraft and apparently without any adverse effects on the aircraft. But then they are not used very often, are they? One could end up with two emergencies instead of one.
Oddly enough AEDs are apparently much more successful when used in aircraft than on the ground because they are available immediately and applied by trained people. The American Heart Association quoted here http://www.atri.org/LifesavingEquip.htm says “Defibrillation within the first minute of sudden cardiac arrest can save the lives of up to 90% of its victims. However, with each minute of delay until defibrillation, the survival rate drops by 10%”.
Reverting back to the subject of digital cameras, Onan the Clumsy said:
It might have been that they just didn't want photos of the inside of the museum taken out of the building.
There was no caution associated with film cameras or flash photography, only with digital cameras.
Cheers,
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 23rd Nov 2004 at 14:55.
PickyPerkins has a very valid point.
I haven't thought about external defibrillators - I assume that in the sort of emergency where one would be in use, the intermittent nature of the interference could be expected and handled.
As mere SLF, I'm probably wrong, but I live in the hope that flight deck people have sufficient suspicion about electronics that they're ready to take over in the event of a demonstrable malfunction. I've only made a living out of the stuff for 40 years, and I don't trust it! Additionally, I expect that if the emergency is such that a defib is being used in the passenger cabin, the gang up front will have been told about it, and will likely be pretty busy aiming to get on the ground with an attending ambulance pretty quickly.
Whether or not an implanted defibrillator can produce enough energy to cause trouble is another matter.
And, as a radio engineer by profession, involved with EMC, I totally agree with gulfclubber.
I haven't thought about external defibrillators - I assume that in the sort of emergency where one would be in use, the intermittent nature of the interference could be expected and handled.
As mere SLF, I'm probably wrong, but I live in the hope that flight deck people have sufficient suspicion about electronics that they're ready to take over in the event of a demonstrable malfunction. I've only made a living out of the stuff for 40 years, and I don't trust it! Additionally, I expect that if the emergency is such that a defib is being used in the passenger cabin, the gang up front will have been told about it, and will likely be pretty busy aiming to get on the ground with an attending ambulance pretty quickly.
Whether or not an implanted defibrillator can produce enough energy to cause trouble is another matter.
And, as a radio engineer by profession, involved with EMC, I totally agree with gulfclubber.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For general interest, work is actually underway to create 'microcell' controllers for GSM for installation in a/c.
They will permit pax to use their phone in the air. But these microcell controllers will automatically instruct any GSM phone on board to operate at absolute minimum RF power.
As the frequencies of operation will be well known it should not be too difficult to ensure that the a/c systems are certified for immunity for this to be compatible.
The problems with PEDs are
i) could cause interference on some (unknown) frequency
ii) they are portable and could be placed too close to some sensitive part of the a/c
The combination of i and ii is not good from any risk assessment
Just because you used some device in that seat on that day without problem doesnt mean the problem didnt exist.
They will permit pax to use their phone in the air. But these microcell controllers will automatically instruct any GSM phone on board to operate at absolute minimum RF power.
As the frequencies of operation will be well known it should not be too difficult to ensure that the a/c systems are certified for immunity for this to be compatible.
The problems with PEDs are
i) could cause interference on some (unknown) frequency
ii) they are portable and could be placed too close to some sensitive part of the a/c
The combination of i and ii is not good from any risk assessment
Just because you used some device in that seat on that day without problem doesnt mean the problem didnt exist.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ask gavin
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there not a crash in China in which the pax turning on their mobile phones attributed to the crash of the airbus?
Can you not do with out the fecking things for the length of a flight???
One Ball if i ever had you on my flight i'd make sure the "Chief Sandwich Maker" makes you a real good arsnic salad!
EB
Can you not do with out the fecking things for the length of a flight???
One Ball if i ever had you on my flight i'd make sure the "Chief Sandwich Maker" makes you a real good arsnic salad!
EB
