Legalities on using a camera during take off and landing

[boardingpass]

It may be against the company's Ts and Cs of carriage (doubt that very much) and I'd want to see that in writing before I put my camera away

By flying you have already accepted the Ts and Cs. If you bothered to read them, you will find cabin crew can tell you to do pretty much anything and if you argue you get put in the restraints, a diversion, and you pay the costs...
From BA T&C, but almost all airlines are basically the same (emphasis in red added)...

7a) Our right to refuse to carry you
We may decide to refuse to carry you or your baggage if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen.
...
7a7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security.
...
11b) Diversion costs caused by unacceptable behaviour
If, as a result of your behaviour, we divert the aircraft to an unscheduled place of destination and make you leave the aircraft, you must pay us the reasonable and proper costs of the diversion.

11c) Using electronic devices on board the aircraft
For safety reasons, we may decide not to allow you to use electronic devices when you are on board the aircraft, including:

• mobile phones
• laptop computers
• personal recorders
• personal radios
• MP3, cassette and CD players
• electronic games or
• transmitting devices (for example, radio-controlled toys and walkie-talkies).

You must not use these items when we have told you that they are not allowed.

We will allow you to use hearing aids and heart pacemakers.

So basically, the message is listen to your cabin crew, do as your told, and if you think they are going above and beyond ask to speak to the Cabin Manager, then do as s/he says.

The other general piece of advice is always read the contract before accepting it.

[ExXB]

BA's T&C's are based upon (i.e. not identical, but very similar) IATA's Recommended Practice 1726 "Conditions of Carriage". So most 'network' airlines will have something similar.

Said RP has been reviewed by the UK's OFT, and after a few minor amendments by IATA, has been judged in compliance with UK legislation (which put into effect the EU's regulation on unfair contract terms).

Of course everyone reads their airline's T&Cs, they check that box before they can buy their ticket.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

Why is it that every nob-arse out there wants to filmevery take-off and landing as if they are waiting for something to go wrong????!!! To be the first to post on youtube or get a TV interview? YAY mummy i'm on telly!!

Aviation is a rule based activity. If you don't want to comply with rules in both the letter and the spirit, don't bother flying. Film some trains instead. Here endeth my two pennies worth.

[Sobelena]

Film footage has on some occasions assisted investigators with accident investigations. I suspect that they may have been glad that some "nob-arse" was filming at the time.

[NZScion]

Sobelena, can you please name such instances? I would have thought that the various voice/data recorders, ATC radar and voice recordings, not to mention CCTV at aerodromes (where the majority of accidents occur, or at least end up) would do the job.

If there were a tangible benefit to having video recording of the passenger cabin for accident investigators, then the cabins would have appropriately certified cameras mandated, not install some "nob-arse" in seat 7A.

[kappa]

Here is an instance

can you please name such instances?

This one has been extensively discussed in the PPRuNe thread and has been cited in a NTSB preliminary report.

757 Jackson Hole Runway Overrun Wednesday December 29, 2010

There are others, including a video taken from the window of the Qantas A380 that had an uncontained engine failure last November.

[Sobelena]

NZS, if you are an aviation professional you will know that there's a great deal more to an accident investigation then just establishing a cause. There are many other aspects of an accident which are of interest to investigators and the industry in general.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

I still fail to see how the you tube video of the 757 over run aids the investigation. Any config such as slats/flaps/spoilers/autobrake/thrust is logged on the data recorders. AA most probably have QAR recoreders as well to quickly 'download' the data to the safety dept / ntsb etc etc. A passenger camera is not going to reveal any CRM issues beyond the locked door. The same goes for the A380. The aircraft was in one piece post touchdown and therefore all the bits and damage can be assesed without camera. Should the worst have happened such as with the AF A330, the camera belonging to the occupant of seat 7A will be knackered and useless to any investigation. As will a fire damaged camera post evac. the best that can be hoped for is to determine the carming qualities of the Captain's PA to the pax.

[bealine]

On a Ryanair flight the other day, Cabin crew challenged someone who took a photo of his friends sat near to him and demanded he delete from his camera. We had not even closed the doors for departure !!!

There then followed an announcment to say that on Ryanair flights no photographs allowed inside aircraft at any time or of the cabin crew. Not come across this one in 35 years of air travel.

Always something new on Ryanair.

As has already been stated, the legal side of things is covered by the passengers' acceptance of the "Terms and Conditions" at the time the booking is accepted. If you fail to read the small print, then you have only yourself to blame - as with any purchase whether face to face, over the telephone or through the wundaweb!

To defend Ryanair's staff, airlines are very twitchy about photographs of their precious "brand" images, or their staff in uniform, appearing in the public domain. Nowadays, with "You Tube", "Facebook" "Twitter" et al, unauthorised images can appear very quickly.

Certainly, the BAA are very sensitive about Terminal 5, (and I suspect the new Star Alliance "East" Terminal once built), and it's not just for security reasons. The BAA's Press & Publicity department wishes to control what appears in public.

The guidelines we have been given as airline staff are that if Mum, Dad and Aunty Flo are taking a happy snap or two for the family album, that's fine. (Indeed, in the old days when Concorde was around, we may even have let them into a "closed" gate to get a better view!) However, if someone is clearly a "pro" with a tripod, telephoto lens, filters and all the other paraphernalia, or if someone is observed taking photographs of unusual objects (eg door locks, MAID card readers etc) then we are supposed to alert BAA security staff.

I don't think airlines and airport operators are deliberately setting out to be killjoys. There is a fine balance between safety, security and customer friendliness. (Indeed, after 09/11, the police actively encouraged our intrepid band of enthusiasts to help be the security services eyes and ears) If we can get the balance right, it will help everyone.

..............but I don't want a little RYR steward getting the sack because Michael O'Leary spotted his photograph on the internet either! .

[PPRuNe Pop]

Whether you can or whether you can't take pictures aboard ANY airline's aircraft is a matter for them. There is nothing in the ANO that forbids cameras and that is fact. However, it is probably best to ASK before taking a picture inside an aircraft, being nice costs nothing.

[Rwy in Sight]

Thanks for all your answers. It seems there is little justification based on purely technical issues. I understand it is more an issue of being upfront and ask if it is possible and never point the camera toward a crew member.

Lovely thread.

[Peter47]

I supose that every individual has a right to be asked not to be filmed, but I rather enjoy watching clips filmed from aircraft windows on youtube. Anyone who wants to stop this is a spoilsport in my view!

[hotmetal]

I supose that every individual has a right to be asked not to be filmed

A lot of people suppose this. In the UK in public places there is not a right not to be filmed. There is no presumption of privacy in a public place in the UK. I am thinking of streets in towns so an aircraft may be slightly different.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

You all know the actual reality of electronic devices interfering with aircraft systems is right?

Avionics in commercial airliners are heavily shielded for a start, there have also been nuemrous ground test which have never attributed any interference with flight instrumentation or systems due to mobile phones etc... (there was one test which showed a marginal effect on an ILS instrument but this phone was IN the cockpit)

There has never been a single incident attributed to electronic interference with in flight systems from within the A/C

In short your mobile phone will not turn of the autopilot!

Most FA's have a great deal of training etc etc... but on the technical details of aircraft and aircraft systems they aren't experts and are most likely perpetuating the myths they learnt in training.

I have use a mobile phone while in the cockpit on several occaions and i didn't end up upside down!!!

[NZScion]

Flying Kiwi, you obviously have not experienced any inflight interference.

I have personally had my handheld GPS (remember - no tx, only rx) interfere with one particular comm set, making both my transmissions unreadable to others (as confirmed by atc), and also making me miss incoming transmissions (even with squelch off). Fortunately, my primary box continued to function normally, and after figuring the problem out, the secondary returned to normal once my GPS was switched off. Furthermore I have observed VOR flags associated with my cellphone use when on VFR flights. The shielding might be up to scratch in the aircraft you fly, but in some of the ****boxes I've flown I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

Soblena, I disagree, the primary concern of an accident investigation is to determine the circumstances and causes of accidents with a view to avoiding similar occurrences in future. Other information of interest may be gathered in the course of an investigation, however this is of ancillary importance. As kappa pointed out, the Jackson Hole overrun is an example of this. While I have not been able to access the actual preliminary report, the press releases I have seen only briefly mention the pax video - "Additionally, the team has examined security camera videos provided by the airport as well as a video of the landing taken by one of the passengers.", which suggests that whilst the video has been reviewed as a matter of course in the investigation (remembering that all potential sources of information are reviewed), the video is of minor value to the investigation overall. To insinuate that passengers recording landings is of benefit to accident investigations, puts them in jeopardy of breaking both the laws, and the company terms and conditions previously mentioned in this thread. As I have previously mentioned, if there were a tangible benefit to having video recording of the passenger cabin for accident investigators, then the cabins would have appropriately certified cameras mandated, not install some "nob-arse" in seat 7A.

[TightSlot]

Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi_73

You all know the actual reality of electronic devices interfering with aircraft systems is *** right?

No, we don't, and neither do you: Sadly for your future career, neither does NZCAA who take a rather different view, as you would know if you flew heavy metal, which (from your previous posts), you appear not to do.

Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi_73

there have also been nuemrous ground test which have never attributed any interference with flight instrumentation or systems due to mobile phones etc...

And there have been numerous (albeit circumstantial) incidents in flight which have suggested interference. In my 30+ years flying experience I have twice had to track down electronic items in the cabin, at the Captains request, that were suspected of being the source of interference: On both occasions, turning items off cleared the fault. Ground tests prove little: The restrictions on phone use are largely precautionary, based on a balance of probability.

Most FA's have a great deal of training etc etc... but on the technical details of aircraft and aircraft systems they aren't experts and are most likely perpetuating the myths they learnt in training.

Quite correct - we aren't experts, just the poor sods charged with implementing the policies of the airline and legislative authorities. They may or may not be myths, but we are trained accordingly, and I have yet to meet a real airline pilot who has not supported his/her crew in the application of these rules. The application of the rules and procedures learned in training is precisely what Cabin Crew are paid to do - they're not there for any other reason.

Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi_73

I have use a mobile phone while in the cockpit on several occaions and i didn't end up upside down!!!

And this proves what? Is that a scientific study? A comprehensive analysis of global data? Aviation doesn't work like that: You don't get to cherry-pick those bits of legislation, good -practise and SOP that suit you, and ignore the rest - you would know this if you were flying jets as part of a large crew.

We've actually had numerous discussions in this forum previously, many of them surprisingly technical and in-depth: Those dissenting from the mainstream (i.e. agreeing with you) have done so based on factual evidence and technical knowledge, or 10,000+ hours experience rather than a couple of years in a cessna. This is the passenger forum - whether we like it or not, the use of mobile phones and other electronics is an issue to them (many of these contributors have extensive experience and fly regularly). Since it is an issue, we would be wise to treat it (and them) with a degree of respect, rather than pretending a degree of expertise that we don't have

Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi_73 on January 13th 2011

Having recently got my license in a shortish time my solo is still fairly fresh in my mind.

Congratulations and welcome to the world of aviation.

[MidlandDeltic]

However, if someone is clearly a "pro" with a tripod, telephoto lens, filters and all the other paraphernalia,

Having a telephoto lens, tripod or filters etc does NOT make you a professional photographer, nor someone intent on stealing secrets about on boad service, uniforms etc. I have had all of those things for my old film SLR, and am definitely not a "pro" - just someone who enjoys taking transport-related photos.

MD

[Ancient Observer]

NZS is right
Some electronic devices do interfere with some electronic systems on board planes.
Given that CC are not expected to know which ones do interfere and which ones do not, and whether or not the interference is a safety risk, the blanket instruction to turn them all off is the only way to deal with the issues.
if you do not like it, do not fly. Take the train/boat/car. AND - do not get on the plane when I'm on it.
The End.

[bealine]

I have had all of those things for my old film SLR, and am definitely not a "pro" - just someone who enjoys taking transport-related photos.

That's fine. If you enjoy taking transport related photographs, there really is nothing stopping you from obtaining the necessary permission:

BAA Heathrow: FAQs: Filming, photography and recording


I am also informed that taking photographs of celebrities at the airport or on an aeroplane without their consent is expressly forbidden and taking photographs of any airline or airport staff is also prohibited. The use of a camera or mobile phone in the Immigration or Baggage Hall is unlawful and both police and UK Border staff have powers to confiscate cameras or mobile phones being used in those areas.

[MidlandDeltic]

That's fine. If you enjoy taking transport related photographs, there really is nothing stopping you from obtaining the necessary permission:

BAA Heathrow: FAQs: Filming, photography and recording

Making my point exactly. That link is for professionals (eg the requirement for £5m public liability insurance, size of crew etc). My point was that the equipment you listed does NOT make the photographer a pro - many hobby photographers have such equipment, and anyone trying to film for less salubrious purposes would use far more discrete equipment.

You are not alone - many "security" employees on the railways make the same mistake.

MD