The pilots of Instagram: violating rules of the air(qz.com)
qz.com
The pilots of Instagram: violating rules of the air
http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/
13 comments
If the other guy has the controls it's not like you're going to grab them away from him without clearly communicating anyway... Plenty of time to drop the camera while you say "I have the controls" and he says "you have the controls".
Edit: They're trying to make this seem like it's texting and driving. The stakes are much higher and it's clearly not.
Edit: They're trying to make this seem like it's texting and driving. The stakes are much higher and it's clearly not.
Yeah, this is horsehit. I can mount my iPhone to my window and have it record high def video. Then I can go back into the video and pull a couple nice Instagrams after having not interacted with the device for hours.
> Something about this article rubs me the wrong way
Indeed. While I agree about the importance of discipline and safety in the cockpit, this article is slimy. This journalist gives off a mega sleazeball vibe.
Indeed. While I agree about the importance of discipline and safety in the cockpit, this article is slimy. This journalist gives off a mega sleazeball vibe.
They might be hinting about the issues that the Honeywell displays in the cockpit of some Boeing airliners supposedly have issues with WiFi interference. Complaining about the GoPro because of the WiFi is a stretch.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-mandates-fix-avoid-wi-fi-in...
Also, some newer airliners including the 787 use WiFi for the dispatcher datalink at the gate.
Edit: The WiFi issues with the display is overstated.
Also, some newer airliners including the 787 use WiFi for the dispatcher datalink at the gate.
Edit: The WiFi issues with the display is overstated.
This is just a giant rumor... Honeywell isn't making (for a plane or not) anything that can't hold up to wifi. The EM interference at altitude makes wifi look like a joke.
The FAA directive is real. The "issue" is based on lab tests, and I haven't heard of WiFi causing a display to go blank in flight.
I talked on a cell phone in a cirrus with a glass cockpit, guess what happened? Nothing. I've also done the same with streaming music. If the displays stopped working because of wifi they would always be left trying to navigate taxiways without them... And that would be a very real problem.
> photo with a complicated DSLR camera, but not to take a quick snapshot with any other device
I think it all comes down to distraction potential. DSLRs don't have apps and games etc on them.
I think it all comes down to distraction potential. DSLRs don't have apps and games etc on them.
>DSLRs don't have apps and games etc on them.
A pilot that lacks the discipline and or professionalism to stop himself from playing Flappy Birds instead of doing his job isn't going to magically become fit-for-purpose just because you took his toy away.
A pilot that lacks the discipline and or professionalism to stop himself from playing Flappy Birds instead of doing his job isn't going to magically become fit-for-purpose just because you took his toy away.
+1 there are lots of moving screens and distractions in the cockpit... A lot of being a good pilot is dealing with a ton of input and paying attention to the important things.
I don't necessarily agree with the rules, I am just looking at possible reasonings for them.
As to professionalism and temptation, they do come in shades of grey.
As to professionalism and temptation, they do come in shades of grey.
But that's not how the rules are written, what with the prohibition on wireless communication capability regardless of whether it's enabled. If the rules can't be honest about what they're really trying to regulate and why, then they are not deserving of respect. Politicized bullshit rules in the cockpit are way more dangerous than any personal electronics.
This David Yanofsky needs to get a life. The iPad for example is approved for use as a Class 1 EFB (ELECTRONIC FLIGHT BAG). So, there is no problem using an iPad or even some similar device in the cockpit. http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ope...
Also, this is a perfect example of why the FAA was and is foolish to insist upon banning the use of electronic devices for spurious and dishonest reasons (as they have done).
Also, this is a perfect example of why the FAA was and is foolish to insist upon banning the use of electronic devices for spurious and dishonest reasons (as they have done).
From the article:
> Pilots are allowed to use an “electronic flight bag,” which is usually an iPad or other tablet containing the aircraft’s operating manual, maps, and other important documents that were previously kept in an actual bag. (But if that iPad were used to take a photo, it would be considered a personal device and thus not allowed under FAA rules.)
> Pilots are allowed to use an “electronic flight bag,” which is usually an iPad or other tablet containing the aircraft’s operating manual, maps, and other important documents that were previously kept in an actual bag. (But if that iPad were used to take a photo, it would be considered a personal device and thus not allowed under FAA rules.)
Couldn't have said it better myself
While we're here, what problem are you trying to solve by writing this article? It's hard for me to believe that you really think that snapping a photo is a dangerous distraction while paging through sectionals or check-lists isn't.
I actually thought it was being sarcastic, until I got further in and realized it was not...
TY I used you link above.
For those interested, I believe §121.542(d) is the regulation they're referring to when they say the FAA has prohibited electronic devices. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf...
Part 121 of course only applies to airliners. For non-commercial flights, only §91.21 would apply, which is far less prohibitive. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4....
Part 121 of course only applies to airliners. For non-commercial flights, only §91.21 would apply, which is far less prohibitive. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4....
Is there a clear violation for a co-pilot or navigator who isn't actively participating in flight duties? If you've ever sat second seat on approach there's not much to do after turning final.
Well, that is a special case since the cockpit has to be sterile as pointed out in the article in which case NOTHING is allowed [EDIT (For clarify)] that is not to do with flight operations
iPads and iPhones are specifically allowed by certain regs... "Nothing" is not the case here.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ope...
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ope...
I originally wrote "nothing that is not to do with flight operations" but shortened it thinking that was implied.
i.e. A pilot that is not Pilot in Command in sterile cockpit cannot violate the sterility just because he doesn't have his hands on the controls.
i.e. A pilot that is not Pilot in Command in sterile cockpit cannot violate the sterility just because he doesn't have his hands on the controls.
If the iPad / iPhone is already in the cockpit how is sterility broken?
TY for working through this with me :).
Edit: using an approved device in an unforseen way != using an unapproved device.
Edit 2: This was reposted / moved to a proper reply.
Edit: using an approved device in an unforseen way != using an unapproved device.
Edit 2: This was reposted / moved to a proper reply.
[deleted]
The article hangs a key portion of its "violating rules of the air" argument on the claim that using a GoPro or similar WiFi-enabled camera is necessarily unlawful.
That claim seems shaky: it's possible to disable WiFi on newer GoPro devices via the setting labeled "TURN OFF WIFI," and simply leave it passively attached in the cockpit without ever touching it in flight. And as <tjohns> pointed out, not all GoPro cameras have WiFi.
But pointing out that important point would have made it a less incendiary story.
Disclaimer: I'm a pilot, though not a commercial pilot, and have enjoyed taking aerial SLR photos when I'm not pilot in command. Here are some of San Francisco and Baltimore's inner harbor: http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/san-francisco-aerial-view... http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-ni...
That claim seems shaky: it's possible to disable WiFi on newer GoPro devices via the setting labeled "TURN OFF WIFI," and simply leave it passively attached in the cockpit without ever touching it in flight. And as <tjohns> pointed out, not all GoPro cameras have WiFi.
But pointing out that important point would have made it a less incendiary story.
Disclaimer: I'm a pilot, though not a commercial pilot, and have enjoyed taking aerial SLR photos when I'm not pilot in command. Here are some of San Francisco and Baltimore's inner harbor: http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/san-francisco-aerial-view... http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-ni...
An idea to solve this peacefully - why not leave the recording devices unmanned, and working autonomously, outside of pilot's reach and sight? The important consideration, obviously, would be for devices to not be able to produce visual or audial signals, so pilots can't get distracted.
No distraction at critical moments and lots of shots to sort after plane has landed.
No distraction at critical moments and lots of shots to sort after plane has landed.
There's a company called PilotsEYE.tv that sells DVDs of exactly this. It seems to be mostly European airlines participating, but they have some serious aircraft filmed in operation. They load the cockpit up with GoPros. Not sure but there might also be someone in the jump seat catching snapshots of the console displays as well.
This one of a Lufthansa A380's final approach and landing from FRA to SFO is a really nice one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HKN-FWNq0
This one of a Swiss Air crew handling an A340 engine problem in-flight is a great watch as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEf35NtlBLg
This one of a Lufthansa A380's final approach and landing from FRA to SFO is a really nice one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HKN-FWNq0
This one of a Swiss Air crew handling an A340 engine problem in-flight is a great watch as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEf35NtlBLg
These videos are awesome, thanks for sharing!
This seems kind of far fetched. They are claiming that using a camera during any part of the flight is not allowed because such a camera these days might have the ability to communicate and therefore is a “personal wireless communications device”. Even if that is how the FAA would interpret the rule (unlikely) how can anyone know how communicative the device used to take the picture was?
Ultimately you have to trust the pilots judgment. This is pretty stupid even if some technical violation of the rules has actually occurred.
Ultimately you have to trust the pilots judgment. This is pretty stupid even if some technical violation of the rules has actually occurred.
See my comment, there's a huge difference between a pilot on a plane and the pilot in command...
They're missing a very important distinction between pilot and pilot in command.
at least they seems to be sober.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448...
It is pretty surprising that passengers got that fussy this time, as usually nobody bothers.
money quote:
""It's not such a big deal if the pilot is drunk," one [Airflot] representative said, according to the English-language Moscow Times, which had a reporter on board.
"Really, all he has to do is press a button and the plane flies itself. The worst that could happen is he'll trip over something in the cockpit.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448...
It is pretty surprising that passengers got that fussy this time, as usually nobody bothers.
money quote:
""It's not such a big deal if the pilot is drunk," one [Airflot] representative said, according to the English-language Moscow Times, which had a reporter on board.
"Really, all he has to do is press a button and the plane flies itself. The worst that could happen is he'll trip over something in the cockpit.""
I seem to remember an organisation in the UK pushing for a mandatory breathalyzer test for all pilots before boarding their aircraft for every flight, don't think it got anywhere though.
That article was an amazing read.
well, the live in Russia is "amazing" - this is why i chose "boring" live in the US :)
another typical episode:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338484/Helicopter-s...
"A helicopter crash that killed three people in Russia was caused by the drunk pilot allowing an also-inebriated passenger to pilot the aircraft, according to an inquiry."
another typical episode:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338484/Helicopter-s...
"A helicopter crash that killed three people in Russia was caused by the drunk pilot allowing an also-inebriated passenger to pilot the aircraft, according to an inquiry."
> at least they seems to be sober.
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car ...
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car ...
I was on a flight last yr on a small Beechcraft 1900D and I saw the captain filming the (night) landing on his iPhone. Maybe the co-pilot was doing the landing. Still.
I flew 172's as a kid and I took lots of pictures. There were times that it could be done safely, especially when the guy in the seat next to me had the controls. Would I have risked my life for a photo? Never. These guys are in the same boat.
After watching a few episodes of "Air Crash Investigations", this is very disturbing. That show reveals that a significant number of serious air disasters include mention in the final ATSB report that distracted pilots were a contributing factor in warning signs being ignored or incorrect actions being taken.
NTSB investigates most crashes, not ATSB.
I have mixed feelings about the tone of the article. Institutional distraction is a major cause of mishaps. In the BEA548 crash in 1972 its believed that an argument over industrial action contributed to the crash. No Personal Electronic Devices were involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight... Similarly, in Colgan Air 3407, the crash was caused as much by organizational issues such as scheduling, and resulting fatigue, as by distractions and chatter in the cockpit.
Pilots and airliners are approaching an "uncanny valley" of automation where pilot workload is reduced to the point they switch off and don't fly the plane. Fatigue and other human factors are a greater issue than camera/smartphone use in the cockpit.
Air Crash Investigation: Who's flying the plane http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1we1rd_mayday-s06e03-speci... This special describes the issues of automation.
I have mixed feelings about the tone of the article. Institutional distraction is a major cause of mishaps. In the BEA548 crash in 1972 its believed that an argument over industrial action contributed to the crash. No Personal Electronic Devices were involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight... Similarly, in Colgan Air 3407, the crash was caused as much by organizational issues such as scheduling, and resulting fatigue, as by distractions and chatter in the cockpit.
Pilots and airliners are approaching an "uncanny valley" of automation where pilot workload is reduced to the point they switch off and don't fly the plane. Fatigue and other human factors are a greater issue than camera/smartphone use in the cockpit.
Air Crash Investigation: Who's flying the plane http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1we1rd_mayday-s06e03-speci... This special describes the issues of automation.
[deleted]
Sorry about the acronym confusion. I'm Australian and accidentally substituted the Australian ATSB for the U.S. NTSB.
There's more than one person in the cockpit and only one of them is touching the controls at any point... This really isn't as dangerous as people are making it seem.
I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously taking pictures at flight-levels is a non-issue. However taking pictures on final doesn't sound right to me even for a 2 persons crew. Personally I have my own limit that I don't take pictures below 1000 feet AGL.
If they used an old school film camera would this be an issue?
I was wondering the same thing! "No electronic devices" would most certainly allow for a Polaroid.
Sounds like no as long as it isn't during take off and landing.
IMO this is why we need to get humans away from the controls. If it's such an intense situation that we need the utmost human focus for hours on end, then i'd say its a process that really ought to be improved by additional systems to assist the humans.
+1 This is a better answer... if they could do the CTA in Chicago first that would be great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elMXt00xyIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elMXt00xyIU
- Name dropping a couple random pilots (who are probably going to be fired), when it sounds like this is a systemic issue.
- Implying that using a GoPro camera during flight is illegal, since "most" devices have WiFi. Maybe true for newer devices, but none of my older GoPro cameras have WiFi. And I especially don't see the problem if recording was started before flight began.
- Glossing over the fact that all of this is legal, if done with a conventional (non-WiFI) camera when sterile cockpit rules aren't in effect.
Ya, using a laptop while flying is probably a bad choice. But I fail to see why it's okay to take a photo with a complicated DSLR camera, but not to take a quick snapshot with any other device. Especially considering that pilots are already allowed to use tablets as electronic flight bags now.