Comments on: Should video chat be banned from inflight wi-fi?

By: I think I want an iPad

I think I want an iPad — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:43:33 +0000

[...] 4) It’s not a phone, but it does have Wi-Fi, a headphone jack and a microphone, so I can use it to communicate via Skype and even participate in VOIP conferences on planes. (I know I know, you are not supposed to be able to do this, but I’ve heard from several people who have found ways around blocks to VOIP inflight.) [...]

By: I Want an iPad. I Think. Should I?

I Want an iPad. I Think. Should I? — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:24:05 +0000

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:17:09 +0000

You clearly do not work for a government entity. This kind of thinking is standard operating procedure. If it rule, regulation, or policy isn’t on the books in black and white then you make one up to fit the circumstances. The UA purser wanted to put a stop on the passenger who may or may not have been disturbing a seatmate, but rather than be challenged by asking the seatmate, the purser just made up a rule that couldn’t be challenged. End of story–and conversation with a loved one.

By: abigail@ west bengal travel

abigail@ west bengal travel — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:03:32 +0000

That,s really awful. In the name of rules anyone can pressurize to do anything. By stopping doing voice chat can they stop terrorism. If yes then acceptable.

By: Ben Senise

Ben Senise — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:06:40 +0000

what about using the seat-back telephones for $10 a minute? oh, that’s okay!!!

By: D

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:41:27 +0000

Personally, I think this sentence says everything:

” (He stresses that he used headphones and the in-laptop microphone.) ”

Well, to be heard from an in-laptop microphone on an airplane requires you to speak at least twice as loud as normal. I’d ask him to shut it down as well. And frankly, I’m willing to bet that the attendents and purser took a page from our government and used “terrorism” as an excuse for ____, because nobody can really question it.

By: ASFalcon13

ASFalcon13 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:03:29 +0000

Ok, this hits on an issue that I’m not really clear on…what is the legality of using cameras at various places in the aviation world? I’m a big aviation buff – as well as an aerospace engineer and a private pilot – and I like to photograph airplanes as well, especially ones I’ve flown on, or particularly interesting airplanes (I got photos of Southwest’s Shamu, Maryland One, and Silver One all in one visit to DEN a few months back). I like airplanes, and the photos serve as a permanent record of some of the interesting ones I’ve seen.

However, I’ve run into my own share of opposition in the name of “security” on this. Never mind that there millions of photos of airplanes already available (airliners.net for instance), or that I’m taking photos from what are public viewpoints (I’m not sneaking around anywhere to do this).

So here are a few situations I’d like clearing up. What is the legality of taking photos in these various situations? If anyone out there has the legal knowledge on this subject, I’d definitely appreciate it!

Situation 1 – Photos near airports: At LAX, the In-N-Out near the end of 24R is a great place to take photos, and nobody seems to mind. However, I tried to take photos one time of the traffic landing on 25R from the sidewalk on Aviation Blvd, and a cop came and shooed me along. I understand restrictions on taking photos from private property (tresspassing and all), but what about public land?

Situation 2 – In the airport: As mentioned before, I like to get a shot or two of the airplane I ride on, as well as other interesting airplanes at the gates. However, I’ve had a ticket person stop me before, saying that taking photos violates airport security. What’s the status of taking photos at the airport?

Situation 3 – On the plane: I haven’t received any flak from taking photos on a plane before (especially out the windows), but it appears that John Battelle did. What’s the status here? Again, I’m talking still photography, not video over wi-fi.

Again, thanks for your help y’all!

By: James

James — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:49:41 +0000

I was on a near empty AA flight with wifi and managed to get iChat running through the system due to the lack of other users. One attendant came by and even waved at my kids before the “Against the rules” attendant shut me down. The arbitrary rules are just silly. The courtesy factor and bandwidth should win here.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:20:58 +0000

Oh, and to answer the question, yes, video chat should be banned. For the very reason UA has banned it.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:19:18 +0000

Yes, it’s frustrating when security is used to enforce unrelated rules. That said, there are lots of rules, and they are changing all the time. Is it hard to imagine that not every FA tries to understand/learn/memorize the rationale behind each rule? And if the passenger then demands to know the reason, security is one expected to cause the least resistance.