Why the FAA NEEDS to allow electronics on during takeoff and descent.

If I recall correctly looking at the news about the LGA nose landing, a passenger had film footage of the landing from a passenger viewpoint inside the plane. Now of course, he may be in violation of FAA rules and subject to fines, etc. But in this case and in the case of Asiana, where there were immediate post accident tweeted pics, it stands to reason that the NTSB would probably love to have access to such information in their analysis of accidents. I STATE this after have just seen accident footage of the train crash in Spain this morning. However tragic it was to see it, it gives a lot of information to investigators. So all that being said, shouldn't electronic devices BE allowed to be used on takeoff and landing? In the unlikely event of accidents, these video witnesses are far more credible than human eye witnesses. Just a thought

I don't know how valuable a video shot by a passenger during an incident would be compared to full CVR and DFR data, coupled with testimony from flight crew members.

Isn't the no electronics rule primarily there to prevent passenger distractions in case a rapid evacuation is needed?

Not sure but I thought it was certainly worthy of discussion. That video inflgiht from the WN ger/nose incident painted a vastly different image from what I imagined of a gear up landing nose first. That plane seemed to faceplant.

Imagine if TWA800 had such footage. 200 plus other 'blackboxes' of possible info.

Jsut saying its another souce of valuable info since sometimes eyewitness info is not so credible

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/07/a...deo-recording/

I also noticed that a passenger by a window seat shot a video of a landing of the SWA 737 before its bumpy arrival on Rwy 4 at LGA. Technically, by todays' standards, he could get fined for using electronic recording devices during landing/take-offs. I understand that the FAA may one day change these rules as tests have shown that these devices (camcorders, tablets, etc.) do not interfere with avionic equipment in the cockpit. Furthermore, if photography was encouraged, perhaps somebody would have caught a high-quality look at the Asiana landing at SFO a few weeks back. The only video available seems to be a poor-quality version taken from the Oakland side of the Bay and is of poor resolution. Again, it makes no sense to chase spotters away from airports whose photographs could prove useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speedbird1

I also noticed that a passenger by a window seat shot a video of a landing of the SWA 737 before its bumpy arrival on Rwy 4 at LGA. Technically, by todays' standards, he could get fined for using electronic recording devices during landing/take-offs. I understand that the FAA may one day change these rules as tests have shown that these devices (camcorders, tablets, etc.) do not interfere with avionic equipment in the cockpit. Furthermore, if photography was encouraged, perhaps somebody would have caught a high-quality look at the Asiana landing at SFO a few weeks back. The only video available seems to be a poor-quality version taken from the Oakland side of the Bay and is of poor resolution. Again, it makes no sense to chase spotters away from airports whose photographs could prove useful.

---

About a year ago, the FAA did take action for a siimilar infraction. The guy who got footage of a bird strike just after his flight took off (out of JFK?) posted his video on YouTube. The FAA was not amused. But he just got a slap on the wrist as they sent him a strongly worded letter that they do not condone his violation of the FAA rules.

http://youtu.be/FEVVe3QlNyE