Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific - Flight path, takeoff, SYD-MEL

Thought that this would be a good archive addition to this forum. ^

If you are taking off from Sydney to Melbournr (or I assume, any other Australia western destination?), then this is what you'll see from the left side:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swgwkzwocqg

The harbour is on the right of the plane, and from what I hear the plane banks to the right on North American departures, and you'd have a nicer view of the city. :)

If you are taking off from Sydney to Melbournr (or I assume, any other Australia western destination?), then this is what you'll see from the left side:But only if you're taking off from that runway, and in that direction. And the initial view's the same as that which you'd get flying to any destination, if you take off from that runway and in that direction. ;)

I liked the way you automatically adjusted for the the somatogravic illusion.

What device were you using to record that?

Do United permit the use of such devices during ascent and decent?

I was using a digital camera that has a video option.

Technically, because they ask you to turn off 'anything with an on-off switch', what I did was not allowed.

However, because this particular device is very low powered, does not transmit or recieve, and is VERY far from the cockpit, I took it upon myself to break the rule because I am 100% confident it is not possible for it to cause any interference.

Others may disagree, but that's my opinion on the matter. I don't break rules often even if I think they are stupid, but this was the only way to capture this cool moment in my travels. :)

The captain even said 'take out your cameras' when we took off from Sydney on the way back to LAX (views of the harbour). Technically I guess only conventional 'non-electronic' cameras would be allowed but I saw many digital cameras clicking away (I was seated in the middle of the plane on the return trip).

However, because this particular device is very low powered, does not transmit or recieve, and is VERY far from the cockpit, I took it upon myself to break the rule because I am 100% confident it is not possible for it to cause any interference.Actually, virtually every electronic device transmits RF to some extent because of the electronic clocks inside them - that is, the processor clocks that drive the electronics. Not as much as devices that deliberately transmit RF, but it's very probably transmitting nonetheless. Also, the distance from the flight deck is also not necessarily a good indicator, as the aircraft systems which could be interfered with are all over the aircraft.

The risk is indeed low, but if this is your rationale for not following the rule, then I believe that it's flawed.

Sure, everything electronic emits something.

And we made it to MEL just fine. :)

Obviously so. The risk is low. But don't kid yourself that there's none.

I've made the observation from time to time that there are two approaches to safety, if there's a known very low risk but the consequences could be catastrophic: Avoid the risk until the risk has been eliminated; or accept the risk until the catastrophic occurs. The last time I made that observation in another PPlace, someone kindly pointed out that NASA used to adopt the first model in relation to the Space Shuttle, and changed to the second.

Obviously so. The risk is low. But don't kid yourself that there's none.

I've made the observation from time to time that there are two approaches to safety, if there's a known very low risk but the consequences could be catastrophic: Avoid the risk until the risk has been eliminated; or accept the risk until the catastrophic occurs. The last time I made that observation in another PPlace, someone kindly pointed out that NASA used to adopt the first model in relation to the Space Shuttle, and changed to the second.

The risk is very low though as an example if mobile phones were dangerous why wouldnt the FAA ban there use?

The risk is very low though as an example if mobile phones were dangerous why wouldnt the FAA ban there use?Many civil aviation regulatory authorities do ban the use of mobile phones. As for the US, I don't know the FAA's precise decision-making reasoning on this, but the FCC has an equivalent ban in any event.

Many civil aviation regulatory authorities do ban the use of mobile phones. As for the US, I don't know the FAA's precise decision-making reasoning on this, but the FCC has an equivalent ban in any event.


But the FCC's ban is to avoid phone cells being overloaded, not because of the danger they may cause to aircraft. And now airlines are installing their own cells on board so you can use phones, which doesn't give much creditibility to the electronic equipment is bad theory. There are also during takeoff and landing much stronger electronic signals hitting the plane that would be much more likely to effect instrumnets, television and radio transmission towers electricity cables etc. On-board device electrical interference has yet to be replicated in a laboratory

But the FCC's ban is to avoid phone cells being overloaded, not because of the danger they may cause to aircraft.Maybe so, but it means the FAA doesn't have to address the issue.And now airlines are installing their own cells on board so you can use phones, which doesn't give much creditibility to the electronic equipment is bad theory.The point of installing picocells on board is that the handsets transmit at their lowest power setting. Without a picocell, they will instead tend to transmit at their highest power setting, maximising the risk of interference.There are also during takeoff and landing much stronger electronic signals hitting the plane that would be much more likely to effect instrumnets, television and radio transmission towers electricity cables etc.I am not an expert, but I don't believe this to be true. AFAIK, electricity cables don't transmit RF. And other distant RF emitters are unlikely to have the same effect on aircraft electronics as a 2W transmitter sitting right next to them, which is roughly what a mobile phone transmitting on maximum power amounts to.On-board device electrical interference has yet to be replicated in a laboratoryUntrue. The UK CAA has demonstrated exactly such interference in the laboratory.

The risk is still low. But we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist.

To the OP.... nice pics. It's a view i know well, and I could almost see where I work just in behind Botany Bay!
:)

Maybe so, but it means the FAA doesn't have to address the issue.The point of installing picocells on board is that the handsets transmit at their lowest power setting. Without a picocell, they will instead tend to transmit at their highest power setting, maximising the risk of interference.

Presumabley then if it is safe for a mobile phone to operate on its lower setting, where it is emitting radio waves, it would not be unsafe for the OP to use a video camera?


I am not an expert, but I don't believe this to be true. AFAIK, electricity cables don't transmit RF. And other distant RF emitters are unlikely to have the same effect on aircraft electronics as a 2W transmitter sitting right next to them, which is roughly what a mobile phone transmitting on maximum power amounts to

I have seen a ADF instrument completely deflect flying over high tension power lines then swing back this was at an elevation of about 700ft, and in a light aircraft, and there would not be to many commerical jets using HF to navigate, but it can happen. From transmission towers while most of the signal would have disipitated by the time it gets to the aircraft there are in some cities (Sydney for example) television transmission towers that are located within range of the approaches, and transmitting at 50MW. I am like you though no expert so it is purely speculation on my part:) , but I would also add that it is strange that a 2W mobile phone would effect a system that has been designed to fly through lightning.

Presumabley then if it is safe for a mobile phone to operate on its lower setting, where it is emitting radio waves, it would not be unsafe for the OP to use a video camera?Maybe. But I refer back to the two approaches to safety I set out earlier. One thing is for sure: With the advent of picocells on board, a hell of a lot more work is being done on this issue now than before.I am like you though no expert so it is purely speculation on my part:) , but I would also add that it is strange that a 2W mobile phone would effect a system that has been designed to fly through lightning.Lightning does kill aircraft systems; I don't think that any pilot would be sanguine about a lightning strike. Although this recent ATSB report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/aair200506780.aspx) was largely about mechanical damage, lightning can damage electrical/electronic systems too.

One thing is for sure: With the advent of picocells on board, a hell of a lot more work is being done on this issue now than before.

Agreed. Amazing how once they see $$$ it becomes a priority.

Or perhaps the potential of $$$. I predict (and hope) that picocells onboard will prove to be as expensive a failure as the previous generation of satellite telephones. Quite apart from any safety issues, it is such a blessed relief to be somewhere where neither my phone nor anybody else's phone rings. Sometimes I think that mobile phones should be required to have a battery life of only 20 minutes, so that people simply cannot use them except in emergencies.

Actually, virtually every electronic device transmits RF to some extent because of the electronic clocks inside them - that is, the processor clocks that drive the electronics. Not as much as devices that deliberately transmit RF, but it's very probably transmitting nonetheless. Also, the distance from the flight deck is also not necessarily a good indicator, as the aircraft systems which could be interfered with are all over the aircraft.

The risk is indeed low, but if this is your rationale for not following the rule, then I believe that it's flawed.

If the clock in my digital camera poses a risk to the aircraft, I give up, I'll just stay home.