Getting a buzz out of recording Takeoffs/Landings

[munitalP]

I was thinking about this the other day - I seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to video all of my take offs and landings... when I replay these videos to my non-aviation-geek friends, I get little to no response or interest whatsoever.

I see a quite a few aviation buffs out there include takeoff/landing videos in their trip reports, and I really enjoy watching these - do you guys get into this as well? Do you have any favourites?

I've chucked a few of my previous videos up on Youtube - a few of these are below:


YouTube - Landing Sydney (Hamilton Island HTI - SYD) Virgin Blue 737-700

YouTube - Taking Off: Hamilton Island - Sydney (HTI - SYD) Virgin Blue 737-700

YouTube - Taking off from Rarotonga (Cook Islands) Air NZ 767

YouTube - Landing Sydney NZ831 ZQN - SYD (A320)

YouTube - Taking off in Queenstown Air NZ 831 ZQN - SYD 10/07/2009

YouTube - Landing in Lismore Rex SAAB 340

YouTube - Landing in Queenstown (NZ834 BNE - ZQN)

Do you guys have any good ones to share?

The Queenstown take off bought back some memories! I have had some good times in Queenstown and Wanaka, we used to ski treble cone and cardrona every year. One time I was there in autumn and had some time to kill, so went to the local flying club and bought an hours flying time - the good old days when I had money to spend...

Another time was during the chiefs of state meeting in AKL, Mrs1 and I decided to get out of AKL for the week and headed south to the timeshare in Wanaka where we spent a week skiing. I was at the time surprised at the amount of US military equipment scattered around the airport - lots of it - turns out the following week Bill Clinton arrived at Arrowtown for a few days vacation... someone should have reminded the US SS that it was not Tora Bora!

Anyway, to the OP, I cant agree with what you do with the filming of the takeoff's, the rules are the rules and I dont think that you can assimilate travelling 1km over the speed limit to possibly causing technical issues on an aircraft that could cause an issue on take off.

I cannot see how a camera, MP3 player or iPod would interfere with electronics though...

Mr!

 

[haydensydney]

The Queenstown take off bought back some memories!

Indeed... ZQN has the best views i've seen on approach/departure... theres nothing quite like stepping off the aircraft and seeing the Remarkables right there in your face. Quite spectacular.

 

[straitman]

OK. So the issue is more with me flouting regulations besides the impact my little digital camera can physically make to the aircraft. It must really annoy you guys when you witness drivers go over the speed limit by 1km or who park in that car park for 1min longer than they should.... quick, get the pitchforks!

But for the record, I will not stop taking these videos and I will enjoy watching these videos. Reading other threads on this topic on other boards I can say that you guys have been extremely hard on me in comparison - not very nice IMO.

I suggest a new thread be created if you want to discuss this at length, as my thread was not intended as a lynching ground.

As I posted to you via PM this is not about flouting the regulations as far as I am concerned. Some people will do that no matter what! This is about risk management that the aviation industry sees as an issue. To use your words again, the likelyhood of your $150 Sony video camera bringing down a 767 is extremely remote. The consequences of the situation, should it actually occur are much too great to contemplate:!:

I will fax you the info that I promised as soon as I have the opportunity to dig it out.

 

[apophis21]

Love the vids, and agree with skeeo this is a thread for those that have "broken the rules" if the OP is to be vilified move it to another forum. I would like to see more takeoffs and landings, if anyone has them landing at SXM would love to see

 

[NM]

I cannot see how a camera, MP3 player or iPod would interfere with electronics though...

MP3 player or iPod are a different safety issue. Many people use them with in-ear listening devices that block out ambient sounds (like I do). So using such a device during an emergency situation may mean you do not hear important announcements or directions from the crew. Hence wearing any ear phones or head phones that are not connected to the aircraft PA system during times when important announcements may be made is a potential safety problem.

Obviously such an issue does not relate to a camera, but is a sound (pun intended) reason to not use such listening devices during critical flight times such as take-off and landing.

 

[Schebesta]

What makes a particularly good or bad landing and takeoff?

Has anyone got a vid of peeps landing in Hong Kong? I have seen a couple that are out of control.

 

[coolumbla]

having flown the QF a380 and watched the tail cam while we took off and landed and the cathay nose cam , it's surprised me that neither airline has posted footage landing into and taking off from their major ports on their website
Its not like there aren't any aviation nerds out there who would watch them!


Coolumbla

 

[haydensydney]

What makes a particularly good or bad landing and takeoff?

Has anyone got a vid of peeps landing in Hong Kong? I have seen a couple that are out of control.

I like checking out vid's from unusual aircraft or airports - variety is the spice of life I guess.

I too love the dodgy old school Kai Tak crosswind landings from HK - such a bummer that never got to experience it!

 

[Cocitus23]

Er ... I don't get this. Why would one even want to take such video, unless it was a particularly exciting approach, such as at the old Kai Tak airport. I just watched your clip of a landing at SYD, and I'm sorry, but IMHO it was totally boring. I've seen the real thing a thousand times, and it takes more than all those Sydney rooftops to give me a buzz.
Regarding the rights and wrongs of doing it, I have just read and agree with Dave Noble's response. I have come to expect that Dave will always come down on the conservative end of the spectrum, but here he is dead right. When it comes to something as important as air safety, it is not for every individual to be deciding what rules he/she will care to observe and what rules only apply to other people. And for such a dumb purpose, why?

 

[haydensydney]

I just watched your clip of a landing at SYD, and I'm sorry, but IMHO it was totally boring.

You win some / you lose some.

I must agree however re: landing at SYD - its not the most interesting material (which is why you don't find 100's of these in my collection).

 

[haydensydney]

YouTube - Taking off Brisbane to Queenstown Air New Zealand A320

YouTube - Air NZ 777 - Wine in glass during turbulence

YouTube - Landing Auckland Air NZ 777 from Sydney

YouTube - Landing Auckland Air New Zealand Beechcraft 1900D

YouTube - Taking off from Wellington Airport - A320 to Sydney

 

[thegurio]

MP3 player or iPod are a different safety issue. Many people use them with in-ear listening devices that block out ambient sounds (like I do). So using such a device during an emergency situation may mean you do not hear important announcements or directions from the crew. Hence wearing any ear phones or head phones that are not connected to the aircraft PA system during times when important announcements may be made is a potential safety problem.

There was one flight a while back that made a big noise about this but since then i havent heard anything.. Wierd.

 

[straitman]

I have just sent a fax on this subject about this to haydensydney and offer the information to anyone else who may wish to look at it.

The information is from The Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air Force Safety. Specifically it is from the Australian Military Aviation Spotlight #01/2009. As an adjunct to this there is a wealth of information available via the ATSB and NTSB on where/when aircraft have had serious flight control problems from electronic equipment.

Unfortunately I do not have it in electronic format and feel it inappropriate to publish it full on a public forum though I will look into it further.

In addition to this there is the issue of loose articles in the cabin during takeoff and landing. This of course only becomes an issue if/when there is an incident but as I said earlier is the risk scenario worth the outcome. I do not believe so.

The article starts out:

The easing of the restrictions on the use of mobile phones and other portable electronic devices on planes may well cause annoyance to other passengers. But a more serious concern is the threat of interference to aviation safety. Is it possible that a laptop computer or mobile phone caused QF72 to plunge?

The answer is YES.

 

[haydensydney]

Thanks straitman for putting your personal time into this - it's something that you feel passionate about, so I will do you the courtesy of reading this material when I get home this evening.

The easing of the restrictions on the use of mobile phones and other portable electronic devices on planes may well cause annoyance to other passengers. But a more serious concern is the threat of interference to aviation safety. Is it possible that a laptop computer or mobile phone caused QF72 to plunge?

The answer is YES.

I understand that there is a difference between intentionally transmitting PED's (i.e. laptops / mobiles) and unintentionally transmitting PED's (i.e. cameras / electronic games), however the above excerpt specifically notes mobile phone/laptop devices - not quite the same playing field IMNSHO. Furthermore, the above is speculation as the jury is still out on QF72.

From the documentation I have read online thus far, there is little proven instances where PED's have interferred with aircraft (notable exception being a LH 747 due to a rogue laptop, very few others!).

Furthermore, if the massive A380 allows digital cameras to be used at all times, my assumption is that the impact to other types of aircraft would be negligible. This is an assumption of course, but really - a sense of perspective should be used in this debate.

 

[russ]

My understanding is that you are deliberately and repeatedly disobeying a safety direction of the crew.

What other perspective is there?

 

[NM]

Furthermore, if the massive A380 allows digital cameras to be used at all times, my assumption is that the impact to other types of aircraft would be negligible. This is an assumption of course, but really - a sense of perspective should be used in this debate.

Indeed a sense of perspective should be considered. Perhaps consideration of the perspective of the other 100+, 200+, 300+ passengers' views of potential risk to their safety, no matter how slight the risk may be, is worth due consideration .

My personal views, founded through my formal training and qualifications in a related technical field, and reinforced by the extreme risk-averse nature of my line of business and roll in change preparation and planning, leads me to believe that any risk that can be removed from a process should be removed whenever practical to do so. Risk management is about understanding the likelihood of a failure in context with the consequences of the failure eventuating. When the consequences are so significant that it involves many people's lives, the remoteness of the probability is inconsequential to the decision process.

On Sunday, I spent 9 hours working through a change process that could have been achieved in 15 mins. But in order to remove as much risk as possible from the process, 20+ people spent 9 hours eliminating all identified potential issues, no matter how trivial or improbably some people thought they would be. The end result was a successful change process that resulted in no loss of life, no loss of business and not a single issues logged by anyone involved. When it comes to flying and me getting on board an aircraft, I take comfort in the knowledge that the aviation industry is even more risk-averse and cautious than the IT industry.

 

[anat0l]

I agree with the mentality of risk reduction, i.e. although the likelihood is low the consequences are very high, hence that would probably demand (on a standard hierarchy of risk treatment) a fairly serious method of risk treatment; in this case, elimination seems to be the most "appropriate" measure.

However, I was unaware that "all electronic devices must be switched off" included cameras! I have read the QF safety card countless times (yes, I tell the truth there), and I'm sure that there is a section at the back which tells you which kinds of equipment can be on or off at whatever times, viz. the categories are:

• must remain off at all times
• must remain off during take-off and landing
• may be used at any time

I think there was another category; I cannot remember what it is.

An example of a device that falls in category C is pacemakers. IIRC cameras and even video cameras fell into this category too (with a * stating that any use for public purposes must be approved by QF). Of course, we can be difficult and state why not devices such as iPhones/PDAs/Smartphones/almost any mobile these days but with the radio components (Bluetooth, phone signals etc.) turned off - these are essentially cameras........also, what about the difference between a film camera and a digital camera? Does anyone know what the ruling is/should be for noise cancelling headphones?

I have a bad feeling that as cameras become more....sophisticated....they may transmit more than today's hardware and may eventually make it on the limited (B) or prohibited (A) lists.

Presumably, I'd assume the airline has followed relevant standards or done its own risk assessment of all devices and classed them accordingly to their permitted use. Hence, perhaps airlines should be more clear and clarify exactly what is meant when they say "all electronic devices must be switched off". After all, we don't want to kill Joe Bloggs with the pacemaker even before the plane has taken off.

Bottom line is: looks like I'm guilty of putting planes-full of people's lives at risk ..... Your Witness, L&Gs of the jury:

• YouTube - Tailcam of QF31 (QF A380) taking off from SYD (Australia)
• YouTube - ZK-JNB operating QF2772 takes off from ZQN (New Zealand)
• YouTube - Landing in ASP (Alice Springs)

 

[Nat the cat]

I was coming back from Byron flying out of Ballina and a regular flyer was talking about aborted take offs and that apparently Ballina is now the only visual approach in Australia (commercial I guess) and that it's really small. His exact words were "it's like landing on an aircraft carrier" which I found kinda scary and cool at the same time

 

[simongr]

I agree with the mentality of risk reduction, i.e. although the likelihood is low the consequences are very high, hence that would probably demand (on a standard hierarchy of risk treatment) a fairly serious method of risk treatment; in this case, elimination seems to be the most "appropriate" measure.

There is a move in the risk management world to reassess the preparation for "catastrophic" events. In the past management;'s view was serious but incredibly rare events didnt require action due to the low likelihood but the recent GEC has led risk practitioners to reconsider their advice in this regard.

If we can mitigate a risk without adverse impacts and costs - then why not?

 

[serfty]

...
However, I was unaware that "all electronic devices must be switched off" included cameras! I have read the QF safety card countless times (yes, I tell the truth there), and I'm sure that there is a section at the back which tells you which kinds of equipment can be on or off at whatever times ...

see this link from the thread I linked to in post 18.
Flickr Photo Download: QANTAS Airbus A380-800 Safety Card front and back cover