Why cant i use a camcorder on landing

[philip2004uk]

i was just wandering as i think you could years ago or maybe not but just wandering thanks

[davedek]

I have on a recent flight landing at LGW from inside an A320, was i not supposed to?

[philip2004uk]

i dont know whether it interferes with the plane but i thought you could years ago especially when i see these videos and documentarys with fil crew inside the plane.

[john_tullamarine]

Camcorders fall under the banner of personal electronic devices. Having used a variety over the years for various flight test purposes, some readily interfere with aircraft electronics, most don't.

Problem in line operations is that, unless the device is cleared for use in the aircraft and location in the aircraft, if the folk up front don't know that you are using it .. then they are denied that information in trouble shooting any displayed problem ...

[CosmosSchwartz]

It's also one less object to become a missile in the cabin should the approach and landing go wrong, the same reason you wouldn't sit and hold a bag during landing.

[Farrell]

I sat speechless arriving into BKK when a mother, unstrapped her toddler and allowed him to run up the aisle to go to the toilet while the plane was on final!

Cabin crew member, who was already strapped in, just reached out and arm and grabbed him onto her lap.

I have never seen someone get such a dressing down as the one she gave the mother when the plane got to the gate.

[PAXboy]

There are two things that a camcorder might have to upset avionics.

Many electronic devices are controlled by a micro-processor. These oscillate at a high frequency (as we know from PC advertisments) this produces a radio frequency emission.

Also, many camcorders have an RF output. If your camcorder has a Phono jack that is coloured yellow, then it is producing a radio signal, rather than one that is transmitted by conductivity.

Granted these emissions are small but it varies with each device and the components that generate RF may not be well sheilded. Also, you do not know what equipment may be located near your seat but covered by a decorative panel. Therefore - no devices allowed.

My memory is rather faded on these things, so I sit to be corrected.

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Fernando_Covas]

It makes me laugh how things are being banned when they were fine a few years back. I have used a video camera or a camera on landing/take off before. Now all of a sudden I can't. Whats the difference now? A good one was I was passing through BHX on my way LGG when I was searched at the security search point and told that my zippo lighter would have to be left behind because it contained a flamable liquid. Now 18months ago I took my lighter through security at the same airport with no problems at all. Why has the "rules" changed now? Still, at least the dreaded mobile phone is still banned and it should remain that way.

[philip2004uk]

thats cleared things up i still wont use it then. but what about airband radio receivers.

[Self Loading Freight]

PAXboy-

The yellow phono connector is baseband video - no RF. Now that every TV in the world has at least one video in, nobody bothers with RF modulators any more - at least, not on handheld gear. I had digital cable installed last year, and being a very technical sort of chap have a very ancient colour TV with no video in. The installer spent five minutes looking for the SCART socket before I took pity on him... he'd never seen a TV without one before.

Philip2K4-

Airband radios are a no-no. They deliberately generate a radio signal that's very close to the frequencies they listen to, and this can most definitely interfere with things that should not be interfered with.

It's amazing what can interfere. I'm just testing a spectrum analyser here, and was intrigued to spot a lot of spikey noise on 2.4GHz (the Wi-Fi band). After some sniffing around, it turned out to be my iPod, which should by rights be totally silent up there...

R

[Middle Seat]

Could security have anything to do with it? Once cAArier in the US has banned all photography in and around its aaircraft. There's great paranoia in the states when anyone photographs, much less videotapes things like airports, airplanes, ferries, cruiseships while at the dock, etc etc etc.

[Final 3 Greens]

Camcorders fall under the banner of personal electronic devices. Having used a variety over the years for various flight test purposes, some readily interfere with aircraft electronics, most don't.

John_Tullamarine speaks with expert knowledge and he says that some devices cause a problem.

Aviation authorities legislate on the side of caution and therefore tend to prohibit and the airlines under their rules have to comply.

Thus Iberia don't allow PDAs, but BA do.

Although one may initially criticise this tendency to ban, look at the airline safety stats today, compared to 40 years ago. Its a hell of a sight safer business and I tend to feel that this justifies SOPs that are cautious.

Landing (and approach for that matter) are critical flight phases, let's not bugger about with anything that might cause a problem - yes, you 'll probably get away with it, but why take the risk when one considers the stakes?

[PAXboy]

FC Whats the difference now?
Carriers found that some Pax use any excuse to launch a claim for compensation. One particular country's pax in particular.

So the ruling was simple: ANYTHING that MIGHT cause a problem, even just ONCE, even we are not sure - is BANNED.

The same reason drives the frequent selection of seat belt signs to ON during the cruise. If the signs are on and you ignore them and get hurt, you would have great difficulty getting compensation.

SLF Thanks for the correction. Always been a stills camera chap myself. Actually, you might be able to help. With these new fangled cine cameras being so small - how do they get the Super 8 Cartridge in?

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Torque2]

You may think that the camera will not interfere with anything however the newer digital types sometimes do. I've had experience of someone using a diigital camera on an airbus 321 which caused the fuel guages to read totally wrong whilst it was in in operation and on a 320 caused the tip tank valves to open and transfer fuel into the main tanks way before they should have done, not a problem but disconcerting as its not reversible. The unguided missile problem on landing or the sudden change in G and pitch on go-around could well cause the operator to lose control of his equipment and injure someone else as well.
Cheers.

[radeng]

About the only things that can be kept going are pacemakers, hearing aids and wristwatches.

What's going to happen with the move to radio controlled implants for such functions as sphincter control, pain relief, control of Parkinson's disease, automatic insulin injection, hearing aids with radio transmitters in them, paraplegic movement stimulation, etc etc, I don't know.

Whether the legislation everywhere on facilities for the disabled will be invoked or not could be interesting, to say the least. In some cases, switching off the radios could actually make the user effectively more dangerous, in that they may not be able to move in an emergency.

[sixmilehighclub]

One or two medical devices probably wouldnt cause a problem on take off or landing, but then on the sly, two phones get switched on, a couple of digital camcorders, 3 or 4 blackberries, 3 PDAs, then maybe its not such a good idea.

Its easier for airlines to say ALL electronic items must be switched off because it is impossible for the crew to understand the risk of each electronic item in existence and police which ones can remain on or off.

Many are commenting on here about how it never used to be a problem. Surely thats because of the amount of new technology available, and the number of people buying them. I remember often being one of maybe 3 people on an aircraft with a cassette walkman in the days before mobile phones and digital technology, but was still grilled on what electrical and electronic stuff was in my hold luggage.

There not much evidence either way of the real risks of electronic devices but why risk it?

[Final 3 Greens]

For those interested in hard evidence of interference by GSM phones, the CAA did a study and it can be found here..

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF

Note the conclusion in para 6.4 that the use of eletronic equipment could cause loss of terrain clearance under some circumstances.

[BigGrecian]

Ever put your mobile near the dashboard on the car?

The results are a good enough reason for me not to use my mobile on a plane!

[Kestrel_909]

why on earth would you want to video the inside of a passanger cabin as it landed??

Who said video the inside of the passenger cabin? I'd say he probably wants to video the landing through the window.

You really must have nothing else in your sad lif

Well there is videography but it's second only to to coming on the net and calling other people sad

Thanks Kestrel - Da Dog's contribution (referred to above) was irrelevant so I've removed it, and his right to post further on this thread has been amended

[Evening Star]

Alternately, try the ES approach, where I use my old trusty totally mechanical Nikon FM to get nice photies through the window at any point of a flight. No mindless autofocus to be confused by glass either. Big solid clunk, but no horrible nasty electrical stuff anywhere.

Of course, was naughty boy on last two trips by taking photos from air over Russia. Very illegal occupation apparently that will get my wrist slapped by local security boys. Afterall, photo of wing over sunset clouds might just contain a state secret...