Panam and TWA pilots used to put newspaper and other material to block windows too, so as to keep out the sun(light).

The Indian government tries to ban photography even at airports on land not owned by the Indian government. One of those antiquated rules that really should bite the dust in the way that happened to the rule that until rather recently prohibited individuals from flying the Indian flag on their own land in India.

Dgca lifted those restrictions back in 2005. Photography is still prohibited at defense airports and unlikely to be changed.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/4011091/

+1

I did not suggest that the airline might be doing this, but that there is no end to hypotheses. His hypothesis, "they could have been flying with papers taped in the windows and just removed the ones that were in the front to allow them to taxi?" is as absurd as any of the ones I mentioned. The conclusion that my response does his opinion worth consideration is flawed. His opinion deserve refuting, which is what my response did.
If the airline did the hypothetical that I mentioned, something would really be wrong. I do agree with that conclusion. But there is no evidence that the airline did that. Nor is there any evidence that the pilots did what he suggested.

What if he had taken a picture of the aircraft door wide open. Would he claim that claim that AI flies with it's door open. Some technology. :D

In theory, it could be done, provided there is an on board compressor large enough pointed at the door from outside, to prevent interior air from rushing outside and a heater with enough BTU's to keep the interior temperature comfortable, despite the thermal leak. Due to the weight of the compressor and the heater, the aircraft would have to be made of ultra light material, and their weight and the size would would drastically reduce the number of passengers that could be carried on the aircraft.

What do the pilots do at night or in poor visibility? These conditons are even worse than flying with a part of the windows covered to block the sun.

lol.

Flying in Y is much more comfortable on AI thank most other European/US carriers

I am speaking of "defense airports". The restriction is ridiculous at them too.

I thought I was clear when I stated that I was not hear ro bash the airline. I find it rather strange that many are dismissing the claims of a 30 year veteran pilot of UA who was here on assignment and stated that he had never seen anything like this in his entire career. And for those of us who live in Delhi, you can by those Sun Block screens with the suction cups at almost every stoplight here in town........for a few rupees........if I were a pilot and it was common practice, i would at least make the investment in something more "classy" than newspaper........even if I had to spend the money out of my own pocket........if it is such a common problem, why wouldn't Boeing, Airbus, or Lockheed-Martin simply put built in shades in the cockpit windows as permanent features.........my guess is that such a feature is absent because the pilots are not supposed to block their view.......I think thats why they are supposed to wear those fancy avaitor glasses! None of us have access into the cockpits of the airlines to see what is actually taking place........but I would hope that someone is keeping an eye on things.......I am not convinced that this is common practice and if it is.........perhaps the FAA and other such agencies should ban the practice. one other thought, maybe newspaper is preferred so that in the event of a catastrophe the newspaper would burn and their would be no evidence......the little suction cup shields might survive.

Expressing an opinion contrary to yours is bashing? When the UA pilot claims that he has never seen windows being blocked by newspapers in his entire career, it should raise a doubt because it does happen. Obviously, he is not in the cockpit of every flight that has taken off. That he doesn't do it himself nor allows his crew to do it, is believable.

Even the picture you posted on your blog covers one side of the window, not the whole window, which.I am sure is different from partial covering. It does not, by any means, confirms your claim, just your fears. have you ever driven into the sun? Do you remember how annoying and difficult to see ahead of you? it's documented that in the fall and spring, more accidents take place going to and from work--east bound in the morning and west bound in the afternoon-, because sun is just above the horizon. Blocking the sun out by covering a window partially is not a safety hazard. Can pilots see much ahead of them on a moonless night? How about low visibility conditions? Landing in fog, which occurs very frequently at DEL between Sept. to March, is far more hazardous. But at airports equipped with CAT III landing systems, pilots can land safely.
How do you claim that the newspaper was taped? It could have just been put up without tape. It can be done, you know. But you are making up on your own, without any evidence that the newspapers were taped. I can;t see any tape in the picture you posted.
Sorry to point out the fallacies of your argument. But the picture proves neither proves what you claim, nor confirms anything but your belief.

Essentially whats the difference with this and a paper?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.1+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.246 Mobile Safari/534.1+)

As an airforce brat I disagree. There is nothing preventing another pakihole from repeating a survillance akin to 26/11. Although the blog poster appears to be american it was another american with **** ancestry that photographed and identified locations in mumbai for 26/11. Defense airports need to be on the no photograph list.

And I agree with this statement completely. It is not worth compromising the security of the country. That said, knowing how things are enforced, the fact that the photographer was not of south asian origin would have likely made the whole incident be disregarded completely, since that is how enforcement is in India.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.1+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.246 Mobile Safari/534.1+)

My guess is that suction cups often leave a mark on the window and are a nono by dgca. News papers though are easily removable and allowed in the CP. Also not to make a fine point but sunscreens are translucent while newspapers for most part are not.

This is getting to be much fun. There has been much said thus far about the plausibility of my logic.........but let's face it......while I have the a huge deal of respect for the country and for India in general.......sometimes "logic" does not seem to be at the forefront of the Indian psyche.......Why do pilots cheat on exams and fly with fake licences? Why do people drive outside of the painted traffic lanes as if none existed?Why to motorcycles, and automobiles drive up the wrong side of the road, why do cars cross four lanes of traffic to make a turn, why do the same back up on the major highways (against traffic) because they miss their exit? So the conspiracy theories are now coming out of the woodwork......and the American bashing is taking place........so be it.......while my arguments to you may not be logical (maybe they used some other method for securing the newspaper in the window and not tape.....I don't care....the fact is that the newspaper exists in the first place. I dont care if the used chewing gum!

Please answer this question: WHY DO THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE AIRCRAFT NOT INSTALL WINDOW SHADES AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT IN THE PLANE IF COVERING THE WINDOWS IS AN ACCEPTABLE AND STANDARD PRACTICE? Shouldn't they be there if all of your arguments advocating the practice as acceptable is true.......don't you think that after so many years and pilots offering feedback on improvements and design that they would have offered suggestions for improving the section of the plane that they spend their most time in? I am sure that a method of gathering feedback from the very people who ply the airplanes is in place.......so why aren't permanent shades part of the standard equipment on an airplane? if they were meant to be there they would be......isn't this a logical assumption?