2 Questions for PMDG

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

On a side note, that big Mexican in the reflective vest was NOT happy that I took a picture of the plane.

I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.

[RickButler 0]

I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.

I would think there would be more of a chance of static from clothes, than from a camera. But least now I have an explanation, thanks!

[ExNusquam 11]

I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.

According to Wiki, it's possible, althougth it's ^{[Citation Needed]} . I would think you'd have a higher risk from someone's keys hitting something. Also, I highly doubt that any airline would board an airliner if there was a risk of the passengers accidentally starting a fire.

[WestAir 2,522]

How would a camera's flash ignite fuel vapors or jet fuel? I mean, realistically, isn't there a compression-chamber connected to a fuel line that shoots FIRE into said fuel? At 500+ Celsius?Let me know, I'm curious in learning the reason those whom are "in-the-know" say this.

[Kagan Ozgul 0]

It was 210 celsius for JetA if my memory is not completely darkened by Age.

[RickButler 0]

A camera isn't intrinsically safe, in other words it's not sealed, so if some loose vapor got into the camera, and you turned it on, and when you turned it on there was a tiny spark between capacitor A and annode B (yes I am making those up), it COULD theoretically cause a spark. It's the same reason you aren't allowed to use your cell phone while fueling your car at the gas pump. The chances of either of those scenarios is about a billion to 1, but the problem is that there IS a chance, so they have to make a rule so that it doesn't happen. You can get intrinsically safe equipment, they do exist, they just cost more.

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

A camera isn't intrinsically safe, in other words it's not sealed, so if some loose vapor got into the camera, and you turned it on, and when you turned it on there was a tiny spark between capacitor A and annode B (yes I am making those up), it COULD theoretically cause a spark. It's the same reason you aren't allowed to use your cell phone while fueling your car at the gas pump. The chances of either of those scenarios is about a billion to 1, but the problem is that there IS a chance, so they have to make a rule so that it doesn't happen. You can get intrinsically safe equipment, they do exist, they just cost more.

Sealing an electrical device isn't what makes it intrinsically safe.At any rate, there are all kinds of equipment and vehicles moving around on the apron which aren't going to be explosives rated, so quite frankly getting worked up about a camera is nonsense.

[kamaz74 81]

I work at an FBO and fuel both 100LL and JetA and can tell you I would not be here today if both of those compounds were more volatile. Electronics will not ignite either of those fuels. We use GPUs on the same aircraft we are fueling with no problems. We have people that take pictures of their private jets on the ramps. We also have (not surprisingly) running engines and APUs that I'm sure take in lots of airborne fuel given the relatively low flashpoints for the two major types (AvGas (100LL) has a flashpoint of about -30F and JetA has a flashpoint of about 100F). So this idea that electronics can somehow ignite aviation fuel is a complete myth. I'm sure if you started lighting things on fire around the ramp, things would get a bit "explosive". But short of that, I have never had any issues. In regards to the cones, at my company, TACAir, when we get a 737 charter we place cones on the nose/tail, left/right wing, and in front of both engines. Our neighbor FBO, Landmark, does things a bit differently, but I cannot remember at the moment. We also use different cones. We use the ones that look like straws, where as Landmark uses the more stereotypical cone... shaped like a cone.Just some info.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.

The whole thing with cameras and aircraft is a giant myth, perpetuated by things like this (I'm not accusing you, or trying to be offensive, you just didn't know, and I'm just making a point).Some say it's a fire risk, some say it's a security risk, and many private operators mostly say "sure, just don't get the tail number."In all cases, it's false. Even the military's excuse of "you could take time-stamped images that can record how long it took us to get to the end of the runway." I could do the same with a watch, and I'm wearing one, but you don't take objection to that?-The fire risk is absurd.-Security is debatable (taking pictures of the fences, or security infrastructure could mean you were planning something), but if you were obviously getting shots of the plane, you're fine.-The Private N-number issue is also absurd. Why? The FAA dictates that the N-number must be placed a in conspicuous location, or in other words, a location intended to be seen. They're not meant to be private in the least. I could very easily look the number up with or without a camera. The only argument they have is that some operators don't want a record they were in a particular location in the case someone is trying to attack their VIPs.I took 1000+ pictures on the ramp between ACA, IDE, and while working with UAX. I'm still alive, and some of those pictures were right next to, on, in, around the aircraft.People always get in a friz about cameras, and there's nothing wrong with their use in the public environment:

As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.

Source

[RickButler 0]

I agree. In the big guy's defence (the Mexican), there WAS a sign inside the airport over the walkway out from the gate that said no picture taking. If the issue was pressed, I was gonna act dumb (ask my wife and she says it's not an act). But I got one shot, he told me no, and I put it away, didn't feel like going to Mexican jail because rent a cop wanted to make a name for himself.But anyway, back to the OP, there were cones in the picture, and that's why I posted it.

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

The whole thing with cameras and aircraft is a giant myth, perpetuated by things like this (I'm not accusing you, or trying to be offensive, you just didn't know, and I'm just making a point).

I also didn't say I believed it, I just passed on their excuse why they got annoyed at me. I'm hardly going to stand there on the tarmac arguing with them about it.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I'm hardly going to stand there on the tarmac arguing with them about it.

Yeah, no sense in causing a scene. When I worked at the airport and had my own badge, they had to give me a little more room, and I also wasn't trying to board a flight, so I wasn't risking getting my boarding denied.

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

I was getting off the plane from the rear stairs so it was too late for them to deny my flight. :( Actually I have taken shots (camera) from the tarmac many many times while boarding or getting off and this was the first time they got annoyed, however I think it was the first time they noticed me. Since then I often take a quick pic and put it away as I always like to get the tail number and I can't always get it from the terminal.