21 ms·

The pilots of Instagram: violating rules of the air

93 points by kldavis4 12y ago

plg 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
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.
- aosmith 12y ago
  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.
- neurotech1 12y ago
  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_548 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-special-who-s-flying-the-plane_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1we1rd_mayday-s06e03-speci... This special describes the issues of automation.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - gilgoomesh 12y ago
    Sorry about the acronym confusion. I'm Australian and accidentally substituted the Australian ATSB for the U.S. NTSB.
trhway 12y ago
at least they seems to be sober. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448262/Aeroflot-says-drunk-pilot-no-big-deal.html 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.""
- rurounijones 12y ago
  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.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  > at least they seems to be sober. Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car ...
- mbillie1 12y ago
  That article was an amazing read.
  - trhway 12y ago
    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-smash-Russia-caused-pilot-letting-drunk-passenger-controls.html 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."
paracaidista 12y ago
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/0/7027DA4135C34E2086257CBA004BF853?OpenDocument&Highlight=121.542 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=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4....
- aosmith 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      iPads and iPhones are specifically allowed by certain regs... "Nothing" is not the case here. http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11011.pdf http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ope...
      - rurounijones 12y ago
        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.
drdaeman 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    These videos are awesome, thanks for sharing!
tjohns 12y ago
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 12y ago
  > 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.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    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.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >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 12y ago
      +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.
aosmith 12y ago
They're missing a very important distinction between pilot and pilot in command.
maerF0x0 12y ago
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 12y ago
  +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
upofadown 12y ago
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 12y ago
  See my comment, there's a huge difference between a pilot on a plane and the pilot in command...
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
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_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11011.pdf 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).
- comrh 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    Couldn't have said it better myself
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      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.
- aosmith 12y ago
  TY I used you link above.
- ryanjmo 12y ago
  I actually thought it was being sarcastic, until I got further in and realized it was not...
mikeytown2 12y ago
If they used an old school film camera would this be an issue?
- comrh 12y ago
  Sounds like no as long as it isn't during take off and landing.
- bashinator 12y ago
  I was wondering the same thing! "No electronic devices" would most certainly allow for a Polaroid.
declan 12y ago
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.jpg http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/san-francisco-aerial-view... http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-night.jpg http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/baltimore-inner-harbor-ni...
lsh123 12y ago
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.

93 points by kldavis4 12y ago

plg 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago

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.

aosmith 12y ago
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.
neurotech1 12y ago
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_548 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-special-who-s-flying-the-plane_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1we1rd_mayday-s06e03-speci... This special describes the issues of automation.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gilgoomesh 12y ago
  Sorry about the acronym confusion. I'm Australian and accidentally substituted the Australian ATSB for the U.S. NTSB.

trhway 12y ago

at least they seems to be sober. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448262/Aeroflot-says-drunk-pilot-no-big-deal.html 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.""

rurounijones 12y ago
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.
nkozyra 12y ago
> at least they seems to be sober. Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car ...
mbillie1 12y ago
That article was an amazing read.
- trhway 12y ago
  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-smash-Russia-caused-pilot-letting-drunk-passenger-controls.html 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."

paracaidista 12y ago

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/0/7027DA4135C34E2086257CBA004BF853?OpenDocument&Highlight=121.542 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=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4....

aosmith 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    iPads and iPhones are specifically allowed by certain regs... "Nothing" is not the case here. http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11011.pdf http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ope...
    - rurounijones 12y ago
      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.

drdaeman 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  These videos are awesome, thanks for sharing!

tjohns 12y ago

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 12y ago
> 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.
- wtallis 12y ago
  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.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >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 12y ago
    +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.

aosmith 12y ago

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

maerF0x0 12y ago

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 12y ago
+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

upofadown 12y ago

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 12y ago
See my comment, there's a huge difference between a pilot on a plane and the pilot in command...

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

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

comrh 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Couldn't have said it better myself
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    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.
aosmith 12y ago
TY I used you link above.
ryanjmo 12y ago
I actually thought it was being sarcastic, until I got further in and realized it was not...

mikeytown2 12y ago

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

comrh 12y ago
Sounds like no as long as it isn't during take off and landing.
bashinator 12y ago
I was wondering the same thing! "No electronic devices" would most certainly allow for a Polaroid.

declan 12y ago

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

lsh123 12y ago

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.