We have had downward facing cameras on the B777 since 1998, considering that on approach we are doing over 200 mph, its extremely difficult to focus on anything that we fly over.

However, some of our playjets have cameras which can be zoomed in from 35000 ft, its amazing what you can see flying over the south of France.

Personally to avoid this intrusion on privacy, i suggest that all airliners be banned from flying during daylight hours..... :):):)


Mutt.

and all sorts of military drones and paper planes too...:ok:

Mutt makes a fine suggestion.

In order to preserve the privacy of Dormansland residents, all flights over-flying the town should be made at night... ;)

--
HaM:}

OR perhaps the residents of Dormansland are creating WMDs in their back gardens. In which case their argument for privacy is completely justified in my book.

PATHETIC!

and here I thought such turkey's only existed in Germany :} (sorry if I insulted any birds....)

we had a complaint here once about a glider plane flying in a thermal in one spot.... it was over a housing project and one owner was sure the pilot was circling there just to look at this guys wife who was sunning in the garden :uhoh: (probably wasn't worth it anyway :E )

Westy

Makes an amusing change from the usual whinging about noise! :E

If anyone wants to try aerial photography this site has links to get you started. You can now fit still and video cams to anything from a kite to a model rocket.

Hicam

This page has photos taken by hobbyist who "obviously has a serious passion for altitude"....

Projects

Example photo

Just make sure you follow the CAA rules and the guidelines from the BMFA.

Well as I reside at seven miles final to one of the London Airports, and therefore as someone who gets to look down at his house every day, I shall redress the balance by mooning at the lady next door when I fly over ... and doing the same from my back garden when I know from the roster that the Chief Pilot is overhead.

This article provides an ideal opportunity to employ the expression "Get a Life!"

LIMA18:

I think Dormansland is twinned with Royston Vasey.

Loose rivets was correct. There was a famous case in the seventies, where Lord Goldstein(or similar) successfully sued Skyviews and General. The law apparently states that a persons property extends to the centre of the earth and infinitely skywards. He had demanded the return of the negatives of a series of speculative aerial shots, but had been denied.

I think they have a valid point if you think about it. A papparazi could be sitting there taking snap shots of the fast moving ground view portrayed on the seatback in front of him, any one of which shots could be magnified later into a blurred image of what might possibly some fat blob sunbathing topless.

On the other hand maybe there should be a new item on checklists to remember to look out the window on finals /takeoff if passing over someone's wee patch of garden.

Good to know there are still plenty plonkers out there.

I find it rather unusual that a pilots' forum where there has been extensive negative reaction to the possibility of installing video cameras in cockpits (on the grounds of invasion of privacy) would feature a discussion where others who would wish to protect their own rights to privacy are absolutely trashed.

(PPRuNe’s discussion of cockpit video recording followed the suicide/murder EgyptAir crash into the Atlantic)

If pilots can argue for protection from video surveillance, then why don't those on the ground have the same right?

Sure, pilot video surveillance would be close-up, versus the Emirates' camera surveillance of those on the ground being long-distance, but surely the general principle of privacy is the same in both cases, is it not?

Or is it one law for the rich (metaphorically speaking, not $$), and another for the poor plebs on the ground??

McGinty,

I'm not sure it is the same principle. I can't see that an image of something 2000 ft below in which it would be pretty much impossible to identify anyone is an invasion of privacy. Especially considering passengers get the same view
by just looking out of the window.

I very much doubt any pilot would object to being filmed from a distance of 2000 ft.


--
HaM

I wonder if any of these people have video cameras that they used on holiday and if they have the people in the backgrounds permission etc etc etc.

Where will this Nanny State, Nimby, get rich quick and sue them till they bleed madness stop.

Why don't they agree to another runway at LGW and that will move the problem for them.

Saddam for prime minister...that should deflect their attention!

whoopps.... i will get a knock on the door tomorrow.

crasy
 

all i can say is that ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE NUTS (no offence)
French too by the way:cool:

all i can say is that english people are crasy :cool:

Move from the LGW area......

LIMA18/Nr Fairy..I have it on very good authority that Dormansland is in fact twinned with the modest Northern Swedish hamlet of Nømby Arsøl...

:E

One wonders what poor old Nømby Arsøl did to be twinned with somewhere like that.

Looks like a large number of villages are missing their idiots.

'taint only the shy inhabitants of Dormansland who are eejits. I remember an attempt (failed) to establish a gliding site a few years back where one of the objectors, an alleged ex-pilot, claimed that glider pilots could look into people's bedrooms!!!

- well possibly true, if said glider pilot was either a) Superman or b) about to enter said bedroom, via the window at about 80 knots while still wrapped in the glider.

there's nowt so queer as folk