
The pilots of Instagram: violating rules of the air - kldavis4
http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/
======
tjohns
Something about this article rubs me the wrong way:

\- 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.

~~~
rurounijones
> 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.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>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.

~~~
aosmith
+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.

------
fnordfnordfnord
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...](http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11011.pdf)

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).

~~~
comrh
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.)

~~~
yanofsky
Couldn't have said it better myself

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
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.

------
paracaidista
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...](http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/7027DA4135C34E2086257CBA004BF853?OpenDocument&Highlight=121.542)

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....](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11)

~~~
aosmith
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.

~~~
rurounijones
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

~~~
aosmith
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_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11011.pdf)

~~~
rurounijones
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.

~~~
aosmith
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.

------
declan
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/san-francisco-aerial-view.jpg)
[http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-
ni...](http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-night.jpg)

------
drdaeman
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.

~~~
joezydeco
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](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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEf35NtlBLg)

~~~
aosmith
These videos are awesome, thanks for sharing!

------
upofadown
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.

~~~
aosmith
See my comment, there's a huge difference between a pilot on a plane and the
pilot in command...

------
aosmith
They're missing a very important distinction between pilot and pilot in
command.

------
trhway
at least they seems to be sober.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448262/Aeroflot-
says-drunk-pilot-no-big-deal.html)

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.""

~~~
mbillie1
That article was an amazing read.

~~~
trhway
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...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338484/Helicopter-
smash-Russia-caused-pilot-letting-drunk-passenger-controls.html)

"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."

------
plg
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.

~~~
aosmith
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.

------
gilgoomesh
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.

~~~
neurotech1
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548)
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...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1we1rd_mayday-s06e03-special-
who-s-flying-the-plane_shortfilms) This special describes the issues of
automation.

~~~
gilgoomesh
Sorry about the acronym confusion. I'm Australian and accidentally substituted
the Australian ATSB for the U.S. NTSB.

------
lsh123
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.

------
mikeytown2
If they used an old school film camera would this be an issue?

~~~
bashinator
I was wondering the same thing! "No electronic devices" would most certainly
allow for a Polaroid.

------
maerF0x0
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.

~~~
aosmith
+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)

