SonicFlyer

Serious question, can you explain how you know this? In every video he disclaims that all cockpit footage is Pt 91.

rickair7777

He would need company approval, to not get in hot water with the company.

It would also need to be a non-revenue leg, ie repo, to avoid having the FAA revoke his certs or worse. You 100% cannot get permission from the company, the CMO, or FAA HQ to violate this reg since it has a matching federal law with criminal penalties. Only congress can grant a waiver to a law, by passing a new law.

I'm sure this is all carefully coordinated with his employer, to the extent of specifically assigning him to non-revenue flights where this would be legal. They obviously fully support him as part of their DEI outreach.

ThumbsUp

Not sure what you mean as they are videos on the internet. International transatlantic would be an extremely rare NRFO and is basically all done under 121. There's always something (people/cargo) paying it's way.

ThumbsUp

Only if your interpretation of the law is the same as the company's. Somehow I think a legacy's lawyers are better than APC attorneys. The vids on UAL are not NRFO. Same with "my layover life" guy who they also actively support. Note that the issue is whether these guys are using cameras with a wifi function (likely), not using cameras during critical phases of flight, which I have not seen.

rickair7777

The easiest way around it would be to get a camera which doesn't have wifi. Or take your chances with the FAA and maybe the courts.

Also possible that the company granted them cockpit access to do videography when they were not an on-duty crewmember... that would be legal I think. Also possible that it's legal for relief crew to use PEDs in the cockpit (jumpseaters can and do).

I wouldn't use the "Swain did it" excuse without knowing how he addressed the legality (you could always just ask him).

JohnBurke

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/trave..._blogfooterold

Forget cockpit photography. The Administrator has found new levels of stupidity when it comes to enforcement action.

rickair7777

Flight attendants are cheering. Phone compliance is a huge PITA for them.

SonicFlyer

"The Administrator" is one hair above retarded.

JohnBurke

Phone compliance is one thing. Enforcement action with an administrative warning letter against a passenger is idiotic, but for taking a picture?

FA announcements frequently stipulate that small electronic devices may be held in the hand and must be put in airplane mode, leading most reasonable passengers to believe they should have no problem taking a picture. The NTSB has used video taken by passengers, and it’s been useful for other issues, such as cabin disturbances, etc. The perception of this stupidity is tha5 a passenger has been castigated for getting a picture of something going wrong. If anything, the passenger should be given a thanks, and the video retained for reference for safety.

The issue here wasn’t a phone not in airplane mode, but taking a picture. I have yet to see a flight attendant object to viewing a video on a phone, listening to music on the phone, or even taking a picture.

There’s a reason that the FAA’s criteria for qualification in inspectors is that the applicant can’t have had more than two aircraft accidents in the last five years, for which the applicant was at fault. High quality expectations there, and perhaps the reason that one can always spot the inspector on the ramp, because his socks don’t match. People take these positions when they can’t make it in the private sector, and these are the bright sparks initiating enforcement action over such stupidity as this.

TiredSoul

Not to mention the exact same IPad is approved as an EFB for the crew that flew that plane.