milksheikh

Not true -- the MTA attempted to create such a rule but dropped it in response to public comment and legal review.

The current policy (from http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm) is:

AA 777

Like everyone else said I think its the delivery of the rule that made the situation worse than it had to be. That being said this has happened to me a few times. I've found that the flight attendants are usually cool with it - sometimes they have asked me what I am doing (I usually take pictures of the meals and out the window) and for the most part they dont care.

The worst encounter I have had was on a STL-LGA. I was sitting in F on the flight and decided to take a picture of the nice sunset out the window - not of the cabin of f/a procedures etc. The flight attendant came up to me and, right off the bat, demanded my camera!! Of course she wasnt about to get the camera and I asked her what the big deal was. She said that I couldnt take pictures out the window (what she caught me doing) and that she now needed my camera. I said to her that I know you cant take pictures of the procedures etc, but I was only taking a picture of the sun! It went back and forth and finally she said that I could keep the pictures, but if I wanted to continue she would have to "get the captain involved." At this point I didnt want to start a war so I let it go, but when we landed I spoke with the captain and he said as long as we were above 10,000 it was fine with him... Oh well...

Rampo

On landings at DCA I don't think I've ever been on a flight where there wasn't at least one person taking photos out the window of the monuments and DC skyline.

videomaker

Another case of an overbearing FA. Trying to take away a camera is way over the top. I've also taken some sunset photos and no one seemed to mind.

But before reading this thread, I didn't know what AA's policy actually was. So that's good to know--at least when they follow it.

JDiver

That is completely overbearing and an abuse of authority; I would surely have reported this martinet, and I hope you did too. Now we all (readers of this thread) know where in American Way the policy is written, so it's also a good point to be able to pull it out and point it out to ignorant tyrants like her (thank goodness there are few of her kind.)

skye1

It is clearly stated policy, as sluggo said, out there at least since the hijackings era.

I agree with the others on the "delivery" problem. One of the rudest AA FA's I've ever encountered was on an NRT-LAX flight. Specific observable behaviors were documented, AA was informed. A 10K mileage bonus was rewarded to the customer, with a personal acknowledgement from AA, when AA CS was able to ascertain that "it was really THAT bad." (and, as sluggo has also rightly encouraged, the excellent service I've gotten from astounding FA's doesn't go without notice to AA either).

The footage used for the NBC story I did was reviewed frame by frame by the air marshalls (en route, even) before it was allowed to be sent to NBC. They took the time to review with me what they were looking for, And, in doing so, I was absolutely stunned & amazed at the gazillion things one could learn from such footage, far beyond the obvious referred to here, far beyond what people here have speculated that a terrorist can learn. While sworn not to repeat it all, (and I'm not searching for drama here), I can honestly say that even the most avid frequent flying flight fanatic wouldn't even begin to think of.

I've also been recently reminded of how 9/11 directly affected AA. One does not have to fly AA often to encounter employees who were either personally acquainted with or only a few degrees of separation from those murdered in the attacks. While the incident was many years ago, I have no problem cutting AA policy-making a little slack in working with their employees in moving forward from it.

Daze

[QUOTE=AA 777;8607344 but if I wanted to continue she would have to "get the captain involved." At this point I didnt want to start a war so I let it go, but when we landed I spoke with the captain and he said as long as we were above 10,000 it was fine with him... Oh well...[/QUOTE]

Another promulgation of a non-existant rule.....what if you had been "below 10,000"? How would a passenger know? Do they announce that in addition to portable electronics being shut down photos are now prohibited? Is a passenger expected to know the significance of the chimes in the cabin? Oh wait, that would be a definite sign of a terrorist....not a reader of Flyertalk or an airline enthusiast.

I fully understand why airline personel are nervous and cautious now, and there is a rule published in American Way on photography. But, come on, flight crews, at some point life has to go on and everything isn't "because of 9-11".

cxn

I am just about to buy a small video camera for my flights/travel/everything. My preference is to get something like this: Flip Video Camera because of the size and the quality of pictures. This way, if I need to record something, it quickly comes out of my pocket .

That being said, I think what they airlines really want is to avoid something like this: Stuck on Delta

slabeaume

I guess when they say turn off any devise with an on/off switch, that would apply to a camera, also. Although I've taken pictures out the window countless times even during take off and landing and never was told it was against regulations. I can understand why they wouldn't want terrorists taking pictures inside the plane or below 10,000 feet. I guess the only way you can try and prevent that is to prevent everyone from doing it.

Aleks

I assume the "10,000 feet rule" and how a passenger can tell if they are above/below that flight level is during the initial climb and the seat belt sign is switched off and likewise for the descent - not an exact science but a good rule of thumb.

Cameras in cell phones - I wasn't aware that cell phones could be used in flight yet!

The plane spotters that were arrested were taking photos of aircraft in Greece, not Turkey.

BenjaminNYC

I don't think I would like someone I don't know taking my picture while I put my stuff away. (And I really do love attention.)

Dave Noble

Many Mobile Phones have a flight mode which means that it can be used in flight but with the phone part disabled

Dave

uncertaintraveler

Seems to me that using this method would be the way around AA's rule: so long as every picture you take is a picture of someone you know or are flying with, then the photograph is merely the "recording of [a] personal event[]," and is, therefore, in accordance with AA's policy. The fact that your photograph may have picked up some of AA's personnel, equipment, or procedures in the background is immaterial.

videomaker

I don't want to get into something that would be better discussed in the TS/S forum, but really, all this sounds more like intense paranoia and/or job justification on the part of FAMs.

Back on topic, I can't say AA's policy on photography is unreasonable. But as other posters have pointed out here, there can be some problems with the execution.

engineroom

i am curious if this is in the Conditions of Carriage that one i am sure agrees to somewhere when purchasing a ticket

if not i am curious how something printed in American Way can be a enforced as a rule?