I'd love to but they made me erase them "for safety reasons..."

I forgot to mention, the chap next to me was also taking photos with a Sony Cybershot and ended up decapitated. I think the wrist strap somehow got around his head.

Judging by the amount of takeoff and landing videos on youtube,especially Ryanair people seem to do it all the time,however I have also been told by CC to turn a camera off.
I dont think using a camera causes any intererence with aircraft systems,its down to how strict the cabin crew are,some will overlook it ,some wont.
I personally love watching aircraft videos and hope it doesn't get too strict and totally banned.

At least the Kiwis recognise that pacemakers and hearing aids shouldn't be switched off. BA CC have told me that pacemakers are ok 'because they don't have radios in them'. However, there are over 500,000 out there with radios.......my employer has shipped over 200k radios to a pacemaker manufacturer! Hearing aids are out there with radios on them, and then tehre are the other devices such as insulin pumps, neuro stimulators, sphincter controllers etc. Fortunately, they are all very low power and not in bands that can cause problems for avionics.

There was an enquiry once from an Australian firm about making a radio controlled implant for dealing with erectile disfunction........

I have to say I find items (3) & (4) above (my bold) hilarious given that cameras, electronic or not, seem to be banned.

You might think that the law is antiquated, but this does not absolve anyone from complying with it. That cameras are not specifically mentioned in the exceptions means that passengers potentially leave themselves liable for prosecution if they use cameras during safety critical phases of flight.

Furthermore the "...nor may any operator or pilot-in-command of an aircraft allow the operation of..." means that the crew needs to ensure you (SLF) do not use any unauthorised electronic devices. If you fail to comply with their instructions you could also potentially be falling foul of the law, in New Zealand this is CAR 91.5 (Compliance with crew instructions and commands). Likewise, if the crew fail to ensure you are complying, then they are at risk of falling foul of the law.

I suppose another way of looking at it is driving along a straight road with no traffic above the speed limit. Even though it might be safe (in the sense of not having a crash, you perceive it as safe), you are still breaking the law, and if you are caught the police probably won't care that you were able to do so safely, they will just issue the ticket.

I doubt that a refusal to turn off an insulin pump, neuro stimulator or similar would be considered an offence merely because they're not on the list. The inclusion of shavers as allowed devices surprises me, having heard the interference that one can cause to radio.

For information about the use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) in the UK have a look at AIC 1/2004 (Pink 62):

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...4_P_001_en.pdf

Cameras fall into the category of 'unintentionally transmitting PEDs'

Quote:

---

3 Policy - Unintentionally Transmitting PEDs

---

Police Powers re Deletion of images
 

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

It is rather stating the obvious that implanted medical equipment shouldn't (in many cases, cannot) be turned off.......although I doubt that they have yet realised that there are many implants with radio transmitters in them.

Ryanair T& C's

A camera,to my mind, is portable & is a recording device. Note also that the list is not exhaustive!

It is one of these laws that is to be obeyed but apparently has very little serious foundation.

Rwy in Sight

Airlines have the right to make T&Cs regarding the use of certain equipment on board their a/c for whatever reason and the CC have the right to enforce these company rules if they so wish.

It is however utter nonsense to suggest that a camera will interfere with a/c systems. Commercial airline pilots by the hundreds, if not thousands, use their own personal cameras on the FD, including the filming of take-offs, approaches and landings (either from the jumpseat or by securing their camera to something. Furthermore, amateur and professional aviation video companies annually make hundreds of FD videos during all phases of commercial flights.

Please keep up at the back. Section 44 was suspended by the government in July 2010 pending a review. The review recommended its repeal. It has, however, also recommended that there be provision for the power to be used in exceptional emergencies, but only where a senior police officer who reasonably suspects an act of terrorism will take place authorises its use in circumstances where the powers are considered necessary (rather than the current requirement that the powers be ‘expedient’) to prevent such an act. It is recommended that an emergency authorisation last for a maximum 14 days, and be tightlylimitedin both time and geographic area. Further, any request for the use of the temporary powers ought to set out why the powers are necessary and on what bases they can be justified. Finally, where an authorisation is in place the search should only be conducted for the purpose of looking for evidence that the person being searched is a terrorist or the vehicle is being used or may be used for terrorist purposes. These changes will be set out in primary legislation expected shortly.

If I may.......it is, of course, a question of good manners to request the permission of a FA or crew to take a picture of her/him/them and you should not be surprised if they refuse. I suspect this has happened and its not surprising then, that they might object if that is their wish. Insofar as the use of cameras is concerned I very much doubt that they are construed as a portable recorder since these devices are offered all over the internet as portable audio recorders. In my many years in aviation I have not heard of a camera being bought into question other than above. As for using them during take-off or landing - I cannot see the problem.

It may be noted that a camera can emit tiny amounts of energy via LED panels but the level would so small as to be of no consequence whatsoever.

west lakes they are clearly referring to electronic equipment.
Whilst most cameras contain some sort of battery, some are entirely mechanical.
Those cameras would clearly not be covered by the above.

So can I carry on using my Daguerreotype camera, with its wet coated glass plates, while in flight? Those nice Messrs Orville and Wilbur Wright never seemed to object.

The CC are seated for take-off and landing; they can't see passengers using a camera at that time - unless the pax who are in row 1.

I think I am going to get sick here..........
 

Back in the early 70s I was walking across the ramp in Lagos Nigeria towards a Pan Am 747. On that occasion some tourist took out their camera to photograph a family member in front of the 747 they were about to go aboard. The few isolated soldiers stationed around went bonkers; yelling and waving their weapons at the poor sod. I have spent a significant part of my life living in “developing nations” and I know what was going on (culturally, directive by order-etc); yet the military response was completely unseemly.

I think it is beyond tragic that in some places to simply listen to ATC communications is a crime and taking a picture out of an airplane window leads to similar threats of prosecution and incarceration. One of the greatest professional joys for me was to take people on their 1st flight and have the opportunity to show them the flight deck (preferably in flight). Every aspect of aviation fascinated me as a youngster and I was “hooked” at an early age.

We in the United States have gone absolutely crazy. In the news now is a case of an Alaska State legislator (high ranking elected government representative) who is travelling by sea now because she refused an intrusive public physical search of her prosthetic (breast cancer survivor) device at the airport.


Alaska state rep objects to airport search demand


I am shocked that the American public tolerates (I fly almost exclusively domestic) groping and virtual strip searches and bothers to fly any more.

So here we are “hammer the lawbreaker”, “throw the book at them”, threaten them with prosecution, “their electronic device could cause the avionics to fail at a critical time and crash the airplane”, “it’s the law”, “follow the regulations” and everything is a security threat…… WHAT IN THE WORLD HAVE WE BECOME? My own nation now reminds me of the worst of what I saw on that hot and muggy ramp in Lagos Nigeria decades ago; out of control and unreasonable goons behaving poorly.

It isn’t going to get better, and I am not going to “solve” the problem(s). It’s a shame that I am looking forward to finishing my career and never going to the airport again (if I can help it). Meanwhile, better put the camera away it’s for all of our safety…….makes me want to :yuk:.

On my Ryanair flights, 3 years ago, I used both digital and film-cameras...indeed, I popped-off about 25 frames on the return to Liverpool, including a fast taxi,takeoff and landing.

I agree that an obsolete, Eastern-bloc -built Praktica, flying about the Cabin, would be likely to inflict some damage on the corpses it struck.

Statistically, I'd suggest that "death / injury by camera" is a non-event.

At greater than one in several billion, the CC obviously had higher priorities. :}

edited to add:-
I'd be frightened to fly in any aircraft that had such piss-poor R.F. shielding that domestic portable -electronics could upset it....I exclude phones
as their purpose IS to emit R.F. but again ,one has to question the engineering and design of Avionics/Comms that have such poor selectivity/filtering/rejection, thata ubiquitous piece of domestic trivia can screw it over.

Are the manufacturers REALLY selling crap at phenomenal prices , simply because it's "approved?"

The fact that they have not attempted legal redress ,for this smear and inference their stuff is not "phone-proof", makes me wonder.


At the time that cell-phones went mainstream, Petrol Filling Stations (gas-stations ,for our cousins) made a blanket ban on their use on the forecourt......

The risk of static-electricity from the phones,proved entirely without foundation.

light-aircraft are "earthed" to the fuel-pump during fuelling.....I believe that mobile Bowsers are earthed via chassis/(conductive) tyres.

Anyone ever ground a car during filling? - thought not!

How many petrol-stations blown-up as a consequence , in the last 110 + years?? :p

Particularly when the 'virtual strip searches' don't work!

And I don't buy the suggestion this was because they weren't paying attention. Once maybe, twice perhaps but not several times. :=