Is it your flight, as in you the PIC?
I second this. I have seen such situations where although legal, the CP had a bird such things were posted on line. Quite possibly due to my reasoning above.
I can't figure out why the ERC would reject the ASAP. It was an inadvertent mistake if they didn't know the rule. I know ignorance is not a defense in most situations, but it generally is in an ASAP.
Please share what they wrote about the iPad. We use iPads and I have received no guidance recently.I know declarative statments are not handled well on this forum..
The rejected ASAP report resulted in a violation for 2 blokes...
So know you can see why I say against the FAR " for sure" ...those rejects from the ERC go straight to the POI for a lynching (but they were idiots to asap it anyway after they were busted)
Any GOM/SOP/CHECKLIST in a certified operation is an FAR. There was a document circulated not long ago from the FAA warning line pilots that vids and pics taken in flight are fair game to hang your A$$...you should see the restrictions that they wrote just for the IPAD.
Its a whole lot easier to stay out of trouble than to get out of trouble....at work....protect your certificates for the precious documents that they are...
I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder, but I don't consider it careless and reckless. Heck, I would probably forget the camera was even rolling. I would probably pack up and leave the airplane with the thing still going.
So, it's up to the company, not the pilot.
For Part 91 operations, I think that's true, but not for Part 135, which was the OP's question. Under Part 135, any use of a PED not specifically allowed in 135.144 must be approved by the company, and there are no video recording devices listed in that reg. As noted, the FAA has loosened some of the rules on PED use on board commercial operators' aircraft, but the certificate holder (i.e., the company) still must explicitly approve any such use.
135.144 refers to electronic devices used onboard the airplane in general. It is not specific to the pilots.
Agreed -- but because it does not specify PED location, it applies as much in the cockpit as in the cabin. For example, if you 135 pilots want to use an iPad/ForeFlight in the cockpit, your company must approve that PED's inflight use.
They do not need to approve iPad use by pilots unless the pilots are using it as an approved EFB. You can certainly have your own iPad and use it "for reference only".
Agreed, as it applies to 135.83 on operating information including charts. But per 135.144, you cannot use it in flight unless your company permits the use of such devices in the aircraft in flight IAW 135.144(c). Same is true for video recording devices -- can't be used by anyone (crew or passenger) anywhere in the plane (cockpit or cabin) without specific company approval of that sort of device IAW 135.144(c).
Do you really think they specifically approve every electronic device carried on the airplane? Even 121 doesn't do that.
Yes, they do, and so does 121. The approval may be more generic than "Apple iPad" or "GoPro camera", but the company must approve the use whatever sort of device will be used on board. So, if a 135 operator hasn't approved video recording devices for onboard use, a pilot using one in the cockpit would be in violation of 135.144.
I have never seen specific approval for either tablets or video devices but that's a moot point since they are clearly approved to be used on board. That reg does not only apply to pilots. If passengers can use a video device then pilots can too, at least according to that reg. You would need to look further, at the operator's manual for instance, and we don't know what David's employer's manual says. The pilot would also need to comply with the sterile cockpit rules. But if the camera was set up and started before and stopped afterwards I'm not sure how that applies.
