• Some airlines are getting pissed off at people taking pictures on planes and aren't being clear abou
    32 replies, posted
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/airlines-arent-clear-about-their-photography-policies/2015/05/07/8f6c6416-f01c-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html[/url] [quote=Washington Post]Next time you’re tempted to take a snapshot of an interesting cloud formation or your seatmate sprawling into your personal space on a plane, remember Arash Shirazi and Steven Leslie. Both of them are law-abiding citizens and air travelers. And both recently ran afoul of the airline industry’s confusing photography rules. With only days before the busy summer travel season unleashes millions of shutterbugs on America’s airports, it’s helpful to know about the airline industry’s little problem with cameras, so that your own camera doesn’t become hung up on it.[/quote] What the fuck are they thinking? If security was a legitimate concern, I'd be worried more about the armada of DigitalGlobe sats and a whole slew of others with varying purposes orbiting overhead all the damn time than just some random Joe that can only see a limited part of things from his vantage point.
[quote]A gate agent saw him snapping photos, stopped Shirazi and "demanded to know why I was taking a picture of airport equipment," he remembers. "I showed her the picture and offered to delete it, but she became even more combative, accusing me of being a security threat."[/quote] I want you to know that this American hero risked her life to stop a terrorist spy before he could leak sensitive photographs of what an average commercial airliner looks like. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety here in America.
If security was a legitimate concern, they'd probably start by going about deleting all the damn blueprints for passenger jets that are out on the internet and pretty much every public library in existence. Seriously, taking pictures of equipment? Are we really this fucking paranoid about bomb threats?
in the future, due to threat of terrorist attack plane passengers will be sedated before boarding the planes, and their unconscious bodies will be loaded upon freight trains or cargo ships and transported to their destination air terminal in order to protect the planes from any and all attacks
And let's not forget the 'please turn off all electronic equipment while flying' rule as well, which doesnt affect a plane in any wau
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;47689248]And let's not forget the 'please turn off all electronic equipment while flying' rule as well, which doesnt affect a plane in any wau[/QUOTE] it may interact with the instruments of the plane [QUOTE]Electromagnetic interference Electromagnetic interference to aircraft systems is the most common argument offered for banning mobile phones (and other passenger electronic devices) on planes.[citation needed] Theoretically, active radio transmitters such as mobile phones, walkie–talkies, portable computers or gaming devices may interfere with the aircraft. Non-transmitting electronic devices also emit electromagnetic radiation, although typically at a lower power level, and could also theoretically affect the aircraft electronics. Collectively, any of these may be referred to as portable electronic devices (PEDs). A NASA publication[10] details the fifty most recent reports to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) regarding "avionics problems that may result from the influence of passenger electronic devices." The nature of these reports varies widely. Some merely describe passengers' interactions with flight crews when asked to stop using an electronic device. Other reports amount to crews reporting an anomaly experienced at the same time a passenger was witnessed using a mobile phone. A few reports state that interference to aircraft systems was observed to appear and disappear as that particular suspect device was turned on and off. One entry in the ASRS, designated ACN: 440557,[11] reports a clear link where a passenger's DVD player induced a 30 degree error in the display of the aircraft's heading, each time the player was switched on. However, this report dates back to 1999 and involves a Boeing 727, an old type of aircraft that is no longer in use by airlines today.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47689226]in the future, due to threat of terrorist attack plane passengers will be sedated before boarding the planes, and their unconscious bodies will be loaded upon freight trains or cargo ships and transported to their destination air terminal in order to protect the planes from any and all attacks[/QUOTE] I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind that.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;47689312]it may interact with the instruments of the plane[/QUOTE] well the last flight i was on had inflight wifi so it is most likely no longer a problem
Most airlines allow you to use them in the air, but not during take off/landing.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;47689312]it may interact with the instruments of the plane[/QUOTE] Do note that the cabin crew only 'advise' passengers to switch off, they are not going to hold you at gunpoint to off your electronic devices. Loads of people don't follow the rule anyway, and people always turn their electronic equipment like smart phones on while the cabin crew are not looking
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;47689472]Do note that the cabin crew only 'advise' passengers to switch off, they are not going to hold you at gunpoint to off your electronic devices. Loads of people don't follow the rule anyway, and people always turn their electronic equipment like smart phones on while the cabin crew are not looking[/QUOTE] Its less a technical problem anyway. If shit goes wrong, its going to be during takeoff and landing. Its so your paying attention. Also its pretty funny they are so concerned about this, when I can read the precise location, speed, altitude, flight number and aircraft number of every aircraft in the immediate 30 mile area which nothing more than a $20 TV tuner and FM antenna and free software. It would probably work even farther with a proper antenna for ADS-B.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;47689248]And let's not forget the 'please turn off all electronic equipment while flying' rule as well, which doesnt affect a plane in any wau[/QUOTE] This rule largely doesn't exist anymore, I flew to Dubai and you were allowed things like laptops and phones out. Only time you weren't allowed them out was during landing/takeoff and during heavy turbulence
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;47689499]This rule largely doesn't exist anymore, I blew to Dubai and you were allowed things like laptops and phones out. Only time you weren't allowed them out was during landing/takeoff and during heavy turbulence[/QUOTE] It's becoming more and more a matter of airline policy than legislation as it was previously. I do know that when I was learning to fly if you had your mobile on you and switched on it would beep over the radio everytime you got a text message so there is that, but that was in dingy little planes with the phone right next to the radio equipment. I really don't think this photo thing is going to become a big problem, it will resolve pretty quickly.
[QUOTE=Demache;47689491]Its less a technical problem anyway. If shit goes wrong, its going to be during takeoff and landing. Its so your paying attention. [b]Also its pretty funny they are so concerned about this, when I can read the precise location, speed, altitude, flight number and aircraft number of every aircraft in the immediate 30 mile area which nothing more than a $20 TV tuner and FM antenna and free software. It would probably work even farther with a proper antenna for ADS-B.[/b][/QUOTE] This sounds 9/11 as fuck have fun with the NSA mr. al qaeda. For the record I dont know this guy at all ok. [editline]911[/editline] me googling how to spell al qaeda five or six times is irrelevant though it was just to call this guy out
[QUOTE=confinedUser;47689312]it may interact with the instruments of the plane[/QUOTE] You'd be lucky for the handful of milliwatts a cell phone puts out to affect the navball on a fucking Cessna if you put your phone up on the dashboard. A modern airliner is EM-hardened against lightning strikes and will survive a direct strike just fine. Your phone cannot affect a jet liner, simple as that.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47689226]in the future, due to threat of terrorist attack plane passengers will be sedated before boarding the planes, and their unconscious bodies will be loaded upon freight trains or cargo ships and transported to their destination air terminal in order to protect the planes from any and all attacks[/QUOTE] Razor planes, inspired by hl2's razor trains!
[QUOTE=Luni;47689102]I want you to know that this American hero risked her life to stop a terrorist spy before he could leak sensitive photographs of what an average commercial airliner looks like. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety here in America.[/QUOTE] "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHY ARE YOU TAKING PICTURES OF AIRPORT EQUIPMENT?" "Hold on, look at it, it's just a picture of the wing through the water-covered window you can't even see-" "DOES NOT COMPUTE. YOU ARE A SECURITY THREAT. WE WILL DOCUMENT THIS IN YOUR TRAVEL RECORD." Didn't realize they hired robots. [editline]9th May 2015[/editline] [quote]Steven Leslie faced a similar reaction from an airline employee when he started filming a passenger boarding a JetBlue flight. Leslie, a soft-spoken pharmacist flying from Albuquerque to New York, noticed a family with a sick child. The crew looked worried about the boy’s health. His family said he had cancer and had been medically cleared to fly. ... “It was my original intent to record this uncomfortable situation because I felt it was wrong,” he says. Apparently, JetBlue felt something was wrong, too. After the family was removed from the aircraft, an airline employee ordered that Leslie delete the video. He politely refused, and then he, too, was escorted from the aircraft. The reason? A crew member told him he didn’t “feel safe” being recorded. [/quote] Watch out, his camera is dangerous!
I really hate saying this, but with every single little stupid thing we do in the name of security, the terrorists win just a bit more.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;47690410]the terrorists win just a bit more.[/QUOTE] Every time
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47689338]well the last flight i was on had inflight wifi so it is most likely no longer a problem[/QUOTE] We don't even know if it was a problem to start with. No one can test it because it was out right banned, unless you're plane is 'shielded' from electronic interference, you cannot use your phone.
It's not just aircraft, it's everywhere. As a photographer, I've lost count how many times I've been approached and told to either delete my photos, go away or to come back with a piece of paper authorizing me to photograph on the property [i]or even facing the property[/i] (and for 95% of photographers, good fucking luck). Every single time, they play the "you're acting suspicious" card. [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3476632809_63a85dd292.jpg[/img] Really? Fuck off. Carpet banning photography in the name of security is bullshit. I've nearly been arrested because I was taking time lapse photos on a hill above a city bus yard at 2AM because they were responding on a "suspicious photographer on the hill".
i don't even trust myself to take pictures, i only trust my government to take pictures of me
protip: if something shouldn't be photographed, dont place it where it can easily be photographed also [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Boeing_787-8_N787BA_cockpit.jpg[/t] good god think of how useful this pic should be to terrorists by their logic, and thats just quickly searching boeing 787. [editline]9th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LSK;47689539]This sounds 9/11 as fuck have fun with the NSA mr. al qaeda. For the record I dont know this guy at all ok. [editline]911[/editline] me googling how to spell al qaeda five or six times is irrelevant though it was just to call this guy out[/QUOTE] dude all that stuff is online [url]http://www.flightradar24.com/41.37,-82.11/7[/url] if it was illegal to track planes then why is that data being put up freely online
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;47689218]Just erase the memories of when everyone was in or near a plane and we're all good.[/QUOTE] "Welcome aboard passengers, this is your captain speaking. Please pay close attention as our stewardess explains the proper safety procedures for the flight, and enjoy the trip." "Good morning, passengers! Our first step to ensure your safety before take-off is to buckle in. Simply take the buckle and ensure that it clicks solidly into position, like so. *click* Also ensure that your tray table is in the upright and locked position and that your seat is in the fully upright position during take-off. Vomit bags are located in the back of the seat in front of you for easy access in case of turbulence or motion sickness, and in case of an emergency hull breach oxygen masks will deploy from the ceiling. Also worth noting is the federally mandated Chloroform-soaked Rag On A Stick that will deploy shortly." "Wha-*SHUNK* babablzzzzzzzz...."
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47689226]in the future, due to threat of terrorist attack plane passengers will be sedated before boarding the planes, and their unconscious bodies will be loaded upon freight trains or cargo ships and transported to their destination air terminal in order to protect the planes from any and all attacks[/QUOTE] I would pay for this service. I've never had an enjoyable plane journey of which I thought "wow, am I glad I was conscious during that flight".
[QUOTE=pentium;47691117]It's not just aircraft, it's everywhere. As a photographer, I've lost count how many times I've been approached and told to either delete my photos, go away or to come back with a piece of paper authorizing me to photograph on the property [i]or even facing the property[/i] (and for 95% of photographers, good fucking luck). Every single time, they play the "you're acting suspicious" card. [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3476632809_63a85dd292.jpg[/img] Really? Fuck off. Carpet banning photography in the name of security is bullshit. I've nearly been arrested because I was taking time lapse photos on a hill above a city bus yard at 2AM because they were responding on a "suspicious photographer on the hill".[/QUOTE] Imagine if someone reported the guy taking a picture of the guy taking a picture of the security camera for that poster.
[QUOTE=pentium;47691117][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3476632809_63a85dd292.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] That's something I would imagine seeing in GTA
Y'know it would be pretty odd to see a guy sitting directly below a security camera taking a photo of it, but at the same time I'm really wondering what the hell someone could get from that photo that's so critical he be reported.
if someone really wanted to get photos of a place for nefarious purposes, they'd use a phone, not a dslr or whatever
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;47692600]Y'know it would be pretty odd to see a guy sitting directly below a security camera taking a photo of it, but at the same time I'm really wondering what the hell someone could get from that photo that's so critical he be reported.[/QUOTE] That's a good point. If someone was trying to get the coverage of the security cameras, they'd be trying to get lots of shots from multiple angles that had as much as possible in view.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.