Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 09:31 On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$PH1.40481(a)edtnps82, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:021120090122566686%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085(a)edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >> >>> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't >>> be >>> surprised. >> >> you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but >> during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline >> staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with. >> >> >> what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet >> for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe. > > Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air > travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they > found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket... > > Take Care, > Dudley > > "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American Express. No cash or checks. Thank you."
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 09:48 On 11/2/09 3:54 AM, in article hcmc8g$1foi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:1YGdnXkO6qtZ6nPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message >> news:hckso8$1pcf$3(a)adenine.netfront.net... >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>> news:4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message >>>> news:hck4q7$d90$2(a)adenine.netfront.net... >>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:4aed24d3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> W >>> >>> Hello again Neil. >>> >>> I flew several years ago on a Dash 8-400 and was told not to use any >>> digital >>> equipment during the take-off and landing phases. More recently I flew on >>> an >>> A320 and was told not to use digital equipment at all. >>> In both cases the cabin crew took my requests courteously and seriously >>> and >>> checked with the captain. >>> >>> On the Dash 8-400 we were not far away from landing at Birmingham when >>> one >>> of the cabin crew confiscated a mobile phone from one of the passengers >>> who'd been trying to use it. >>> >>> This may well be different in North America. It seems that whatever the >>> North American airlines permit to-day so the European airlines will >>> permit >>> in a few years time. >>> >>> Regards, Rog. >> >> Rog, I knew about cell phones, because my sister -- who flies quite a lot, >> including internationally -- had told me they couldn't be used during >> takeoff or landing (or in flight either, if I understood her correctly). >> She mentioned that often after landing, as soon as the seat belts light >> went out you could hear cell phones snapping open all over the cabin. >> (*She* could hear that I suppose, but I never did, probably because my >> hearing is very poor.) I can understand prohibiting the use of cell >> phones. And I can understand prohibiting the use of laptops too, since >> probably most of them now in use have WiFi. >> >> But I'd be surprised if "digital equipment" was taken to include cameras, >> for this purpose, since as far as I know they don't generate any sort of >> external RF. I never even thought to ask, just took out my little Coolpix >> and snapped away through the window. On my last flight in fact, a short >> hop in a small Embraer 145, I was seated within about a yard of the flight >> attendant's station and in plain view of her when I was using the camera. >> > Hello again. > > The chance of a DSLR upsetting any of the aircraft systems is very, very > small but I'd prefer to play safe. > A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a > commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to > ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems. > > Regards, Rog. > > What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in overshooting their destination by 150 miles?
From: nospam on 2 Nov 2009 08:51 In article <hcmcdu$1foi$4(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you some > amusement. > There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's > toilet. it was mostly a publicity stunt. they aren't charging to pee.
From: nospam on 2 Nov 2009 08:51 In article <hcmc8g$1foi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a > commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to > ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems. how did she know? and if so, what proof is there that the radio was the cause of the problem? the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the cockpit, but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc. if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.
From: nospam on 2 Nov 2009 08:51
In article <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb-9208-b1ccdb0770e1(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > many airlines now allow cellphone use while taxiing to the gate after > > landing. > > That's pretty much become SOP. However, for international flights > arriving in the USA, one isn't allowed to have your cellphone on while > going through immigration & customs (or take photos inside this > area). Its not a technology issue, but a security issue. right, but that's not in flight :) > The general rule for the 'electronics off' is when below 10,000 ft > altitude, eg, takeoff up to 10K, and then when descending, 10K until > landing. The concern is for a potential for RF interference, and > while the objective risk is arguably small, the real issue is that it > is financially impractical to test 1,000,000 devices x 1,000 aircraft > variations to positively certify that no interference is present. it's also that the flight attendants aren't trained to determine if the device can cause interference and if it can, whether that function is disabled (e.g., airplane mode in a cellphone). it's *much* easier to say 'everything off.' they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch anything the crew might be saying. lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event something goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*. they also need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary. |