Use of professional cameras during flight

[Jetset320]

I am seeking information on whether restrictions on use of professional cameras on A320 aircraft (whilst inflight) are in place.

A Personal Electronic Device policy is in place that covers 'video cameras', but this does not really cover portable cameras used in TV productions, like the Cannon XF305, for example.

An old policy asks for an attestation in respect of emf generation of the recording and playback equipment. This was especially relevant for old version cameras. Is anyone in the know if this is still relevant for today's equipment?

[RevMan2]

"The use of electronic devices...." covers a multitude of sins. Strictly interpreted: if has a battery, you can't use it.
My Nikon F2 appears to be marginal....

[fantom]

When Kuwait got their new 320s they were keen to show them on TV. I had a news cameraman sit on the jumpseat AUH-DOH-KWI recording all the while.

Nil problematico as far as we were concerned.

Also, plus, as well, took the American School from Kuwait to Athens and, during my in-flight stroll, discovered they were all playing on hand-held game machines.

The FADECs didn't blink once.

[RevMan2]

Well, yes, we all know that non-transmitting electronic devices are unlikely "to interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems" (as the spiel goes), but given that the announcement says " Turn off your electronic devices at this time", the question was valid one.
Or are you calling BS on this one?

[Intruder]

For US aircraft, FAR 121.306 says the certificate holder (the airline) has absolute discretion in allowing use of electronic devices. Otherwise their operation is prohibited:

121.306 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

The airline can choose to continue the blanket prohibition merely by not testing or certifying or making a determination on any particular device or class of devices.

[Capn Bloggs]

The airline can choose to continue the blanket prohibition merely by not testing or certifying or making a determination on any particular device or class of devices.

So every airline has individually tested all manner of electronic gizmos to prove they are OK to use when the seatbelt sign is off? I don't think so... Looks to me that FAR 121.306 is widely ignored by all and sundry in the industry.

[lomapaseo]

So every airline has individually tested all manner of electronic gizmos to prove they are OK to use when the seatbelt sign is off? I don't think so... Looks to me that FAR 121.306 is widely ignored by all and sundry in the industry.

I am quite confident that all manner of electronic gizmos have been tested with the seatbelt sign both on and off by the seat occupants. The part 119 certifcate holder, under para (b)(5) has only to poll their surviving passengers to determine what has worked

[Intruder]

The airlines don't have to do any testing. All they have to do is make a determination (or not).

If the airline does NOT make a determination to the contrary, use of the devices are by default prohibited. So, the airlines' lawyers obviously will tell them to NOT make any determinations, thus increasing their liability exposure...

Besides, all the gabbing on cell phones before taxi is bad enough already. I certainly don't want it increased tenfold in both numbers and time exposure...