AirlineMerc

While erring on the side of caution and just not using it in flight is what I would do, I’m not convinced that a digital camera that has wi-fi specifically to transfer image data to another device and has no means of wireless COMMUNICATION falls under the definition of a “Wireless Communication Device” like a phone, laptop, or tablet would.

121.542(d) During all flight time as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, no flight crewmember may use, nor may any pilot in command permit the use of, a personal wireless communications device (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 44732(d)) or laptop computer while at a flight crewmember duty station unless the purpose is directly related to operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, or employment-related communications, in accordance with air carrier procedures approved by the Administrator.

49 U.S.C 44732(d) PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DE- VICE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘per- sonal wireless communications device’’ means a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted.
(Added Pub. L. 1

332(c)(7)(C) Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term ‘‘personal wireless services’’
means commercial mobile services, unli- censed wireless services, and common car- rier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term ‘‘personal wireless service facilities’’ means facilities for the provi- sion of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term ‘‘unlicensed wireless service’’ means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as de- fined in section 303(v) of this title).

Now if your COMPANY has specific policies regarding the use of camera and such on the flight deck, that would be grounds for firing you if you violated that policy, but it would not seem to me that it would be something that would be subject to FAA violation or enforcement.

rickair7777

That's the grey area, since the FAA fell back on existing FCC regs for their definitions the whole thing is sloppy as to their intent.

But my read is that it could go either way, and would have to be argued in court to be certain. Couple problems...

1. The regulatory problem: FAR enforcement is admin law... FAA, typically backed by the NTSB, can usually interpret stuff any way they like. So unlike the actual law, FAA intent matters as much as the letter of the regs (maybe more so). With Pilot Bill of Rights Act you at least now have better access to appeal to the judicial system. But your certificate action would most likely be in force while appeals play out. And I'm not certain you'd win.

2. Criminal Problem: FARs are not actual federal law, and have limited penalties, mostly certificate action and fines. You can't go to prison for violating an FAR.

HOWEVER... in some cases congress has passed actual federal law, with associated criminal penalties, as companions to the FARs to emphasize compliance. Examples include falsification of FAA records (ex. medical application form) and the cockpit PED rule.

So this particular FAR would be a dangerous one to "Press to Test" in order to explore the boundaries. While I kind of doubt the language is tight enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, it still seems pretty sketchy to go there.

I would at the very least contact a top-tier aviation law firm before doing anything along these lines that's going to be in the public domain (SM posts, youtube, etc). You can probably gain some insight by watching some of the pilot youtubers and see what they post... I'm sure that community has done some homework. Off the top of my head of all the youtubers I've only seen them post video recorded on the ground, never in flight, probably for this reason. One exception is the ACMI dude, who sometimes records in flight in the galley, bunk, etc. But he seems to avoid doing that in the flight deck. Probably for this reason.

AirlineMerc

I see what you’re saying and don’t argue it in concept, they very clearly define what a PED is…very specifically…using very specific definitions. There doesn’t seem to be any wiggle room of interpretation of what defines a Wireless Communication Device.

Again, most company policies cover that kind of thing that would get you fired, like even using your EFB tablet for taking pictures or video. But I don’t see how the FAA could go after certificate enforcement for using an electronic device under those regulations when the electronic device doesn’t fit the definition of a device that is specifically regulated.

rickair7777

I don't think it's clear to us mushrooms. This paragraph might very well be legal-speak for "wifi". Or could be construed that way...

(i) the term ‘‘personal wireless services’’
means commercial mobile services, unli- censed wireless services, and common car- rier wireless exchange access services;

Specifically "unlicensed wireless services".

It's entirely possible that this has already been hashed out in FCC land, you could ask their legal office for clarification (check their website first, may have already been asked and answered).

ThumbsUp

To the OP, why not just ask your airline? The social media pilot influencers at the legacies are doing this with the full blessing of their companies, so YMMV.

rickair7777

But they're not filming in a 121 cockpit during flight.

ThumbsUp

Yes they are—see Swayne Martin on YouTube. He even discusses receiving approval.

JohnBurke

There's a lot of back and forth here about what constitutes this or that; what does this definition mean, and how about that?

There are three methods of understanding the regulation. In order, they are: Federal Register Preambles; FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation; and lastly, a rendering of the regulation itself. One may ask why the regulation isn't first, and doesn't this mean it's too hard to understand; the answer is simple: if you're looking for an understanding, and you didn't get it reading the regulation or if you have additional questions, then clearly the answer is to be found elsewhere. In this case, the preamble to the Federal Register provides a clear, easy to follow discussion about this regulation, as well as the reasons for its implementation, and further addresses and defines wireless communication in the cockpit, and the times and place of use; it also defines to whom the regulation applies, and to whom it doesn't, as well as ownership vs. use of the device.

Does it apply to pilots at the controls, or to a jumpseater in the same cockpit? It doesn't apply to the jumpseater. Does it matter if it's company-provided equipment, or is it just personal equipment? It doesn't matter about ownership; it's who is using it. It's a use issue.

What does this apply to, and did the FAA narrow the definitions or exclude certain devices? No, the FAA purposely left the definition broad to encompass a number of devices and technologies, despite an expressed mindfulness to expanding technology which might have a rightful use in the cockpit.

Specifically, the FAA pointed to texting, calls, and other wireless communication. The FAA said that generally, "wireless communication" in this context covers the "transfer of information by two or more points that are not physically connected." Important to this discussion, the preamble also explicitly states: "The provisions of the final rule do not prohibit the use of devices that do not meet the definition of personal wireless communications devices."

Regarding the devices and use of those devices, the preamble states: "In general, wireless telecommunications is the transfer of information between two or more points that are not physically connected. In the final rule, the FAA retains the same broad category of included devices because a list of specific devices would ignore the reality of evolving technology. This broad category includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cell phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, some (but not all) gaming systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well as netbooks and notebook computers."

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...he-flight-deck

SonicFlyer

All of Swayne's cockpit footage is from Pt 91 legs

ThumbsUp

Not all of them…. The 360, yes. One could argue his shots from the cockpit aren’t getting explicit approval as they did for the 360, but United is well aware of and supports his videos.