> Mr. Snoep,
>
> In reference to the photographs taken by you of N145RD we are
> asking that these pictures be withdrawn. Our permission was not
> given and these photographs are in violation of our certificate of
> operation. The FAA contacted us and requested we remove the
> pictures. In addition to printing the pictures without our
> permission you have erroneous information as to ownership and
> operation.
> If you have questions you can contact me at.... We
> appreciate your prompt coopeation and attention to this matter.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
Hi Miguel,
Why would the FAA ask them to remove it and not contact you or airliners.net? Also, why would the FAA want it removing in the first place?
You don't need their permission to take the plane's photo, but I would be interested as to why it is in violation of their certificate of operation.
I would email the editors asking them to correect any wrong information, but I would seriously question the accuracy of what else they've told you. Just seems a bit far fetched for my imagination, but I'd definately check it out.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3730 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 1): Why would the FAA ask them to remove it and not contact you or airliners.net? Also, why would the FAA want it removing in the first place?
Exactly my thoughts. I would ask them a few questions first but like Tim says it sounds a little fishy.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3704 times:
I wouldn't pull it yet, because to me this sounds like absolute rubbish. Having a photo of your aircraft in the public domain a violation of certificate of operation? I don't think so. Why don't you try and contact the FAA on the matter as well? I'm pretty sure they would have contacted you directly in the first place, what business is it of theirs to be on Airliners.net looking for photos of aircraft and reporting it to airlines anyway? To me it's all a bit fishy. Ask questions and get answers!
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3696 times:
Did the other 6 photographers of this a/c have permission to shoot it and put it on A.net?
-Matt
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Quoting EGGD (Reply 5): I wouldn't pull it yet, because to me this sounds like absolute rubbish.
Rubbish or not is probably not the point.
The one speaking "rubbish" is probably the same you need to get access another time, I can guess his answer already.
Especially when published on a bulletin board, we are not the only ones reading this.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Visityyj From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 519 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
The FAA register is probably not up-to-date, as this DC3TP has been in and around California City for a year or so. It does appear that Airway Transport may own or at least lease it, which may have caused the sender of the email to have a hissy-fit.
As for the FAA request, it's total nonsense, he's just making it up to try to intimidate you. Since the photo was taken at Mojave not California City, he also has no say in giving or denying access there.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
Sounds like there's a bit more to this than meets the eye. As was said its not illegal to take pictures of aircraft but it sounds dodgy that it has been asked to remove the picture. Maybe there is something in the comments that was mentioned that shouldn't have been...
Dacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3547 times:
I got the same request today. I shoot on the ramp at MHV a number of times every year, in fact I was told I could take photos of the aircraft.
The info on the aircraft that I posted was taken from the FAA website, so I don't understand how it can be wrong either, very fishy to say the least.
It is highly unlikely the FAA to contacted the company, telling them the photos are in violation of their operating certificate, no such animal exists to my knowledge. I think it is just someone throwing their uninformed weight around.
I deleted the e-mail with no reply of course, matter over as far as I am concerned.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3512 times:
Unless you took the picture while you were on the man's property, he has nothing. My guess is that he doesn't want people to know that either he or the plane were there at that time.
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 2): If you don't want to trash your own windows I would have it removed Miguel.
You want to be welcome another time somewhere don't you ?
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 8): Rubbish or not is probably not the point.
The one speaking "rubbish" is probably the same you need to get access another time, I can guess his answer already.
Especially when published on a bulletin board, we are not the only ones reading this.
What in the world are you talking about? How do you know that the e-mail writer is the one who let him there in the first place?
Visityyj From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 519 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3508 times:
Quoting Dacman (Reply 12): It is highly unlikely the FAA to contacted the company, telling them the photos are in violation of their operating certificate,
Highly unlikely is putting it mildly. Ask him to forward you a copy of the FAA directive
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3497 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
a classic case of win the battle but lose the war.
Perhaps they have a valid reason for asking, perhaps they don't. But why risk it? Are you better off for having the photo online? Perhaps they raise a big stink to the airport, or whoevers 'property' you were on, and next time you go back you are not welcomed.
For some reason they don't want pictures of the aircraft online, so why fight it? You will only make things worse for yourself, and your fellow spotters, in the long run. There is nothing to gain by leaving it up, but there sure is a lot to lose!
F9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15): Perhaps they have a valid reason for asking, perhaps they don't. But why risk it? Are you better off for having the photo online? Perhaps they raise a big stink to the airport, or whoevers 'property' you were on, and next time you go back you are not welcomed.
For some reason they don't want pictures of the aircraft online, so why fight it? You will only make things worse for yourself, and your fellow spotters, in the long run. There is nothing to gain by leaving it up, but there sure is a lot to lose!
Dacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
Royal,
They are e-mailing everyone that has a photo of the aircraft with the same request, it is rubbish to be sure.
I was given permission by the airport staff and the folks in the hanger where the aircraft was parked to photograph her, so in my book it stays.
I don't cave to these kind of folks with baseless requests. Next AA, UA, WN, and F9 will want all the photos of their aircraft removed from A.Net for some idiotic reason and if we did there would be no A.Net or any other airliner photo site.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3468 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 13): What in the world are you talking about? How do you know that the e-mail writer is the one who let him there in the first place?
Take it easy mate, it's just a matter of common sense.
Who cares about a DC3 without radial engines anyway ?
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15): a classic case of win the battle but lose the war.
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15): Perhaps they have a valid reason for asking, perhaps they don't. But why risk it? Are you better off for having the photo online? Perhaps they raise a big stink to the airport, or whoevers 'property' you were on, and next time you go back you are not welcomed.
It's just how I get access to places where others don't.
It's a well meant advice, nothing more.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
DutchAir From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 105 posts, RR: 23 Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
Okay, I've sent him a stupid message that I didn't understand him and here's the reply:
>Mr. Snoep: The pictures were shown on airliners.com and had your name as
>photographer. Our plane is a DC3-TP. If you keep the picture on line
>please just remove any information other basic such as register owner, tail,
>etc. Thank you......
So no FAA, CIA or any other government agency involved
Just an owner who probably didn't like it to see his plane linked to the South African Air Force (or something like that).
Maybe I'll send in a correction... maybe not!
Thanks all for the replies; case closed
Lurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
This is from the FAA N Number site
FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results
N145RD is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 20175 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name DOUGLAS Certificate Issue Date 11/05/2002
Model DC3 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine Turbo-Prop
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50133276
MFR Year 1942 Fractional Owner NO
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3425 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 13): My guess is that he doesn't want people to know that either he or the plane were there at that time.
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15): Perhaps they have a valid reason for asking, perhaps they don't. But why risk it? Are you better off for having the photo online? Perhaps they raise a big stink to the airport, or whoevers 'property' you were on, and next time you go back you are not welcomed.
It turns out it was a load of bull after all, as I suspected. My response to both points raised would be that wouldn't it have been better (and perhaps a more successful outcome for the owners) to just have emailed Miguel and said basically "look, you have a photo of our plane on a.net, but we don't wish to be publicized in such a way, can you remove it?" It would have saved all the hassle.
Regards,
Tim.
Obviously missing something....
25 Skywatch: Yep, they are really concerned about their privacy! They haven't even blocked it from flight tracking sites! Information as of 11/21/2005 6:14:43 AM G
27 Maiznblu_757: Here is a list of the 1000 most recent IFR flights for this aircraft/FlightID: Ident Type Dept Dest Departure Time (GMT) N145RD DC3 SDM LVK 10/24/200
28 Eadster: Come on guys, Why is it so hard? The guy has asked a simple question. It can be done, why take things this far? They've stated that its fine to keep t
29 Skywatch: Yep. It's a good picture, and if a little info has to go, then so be it. It still seems like a stupid request, but hey, they own the plane! Of course
30 Invader: In general, I recommend to never remove pictures by order of owners of aircraft as long as you haven't been trespassing. There have been other cases w
32 Visityyj: I think you've hit the nail on the head. If he's happy about the basics, including ownership, being reported then it must be the plane's history that
33 JetAv8r: Maybe one of the pilot's took the plane on a joy ride that the boss didn't know about
34 Clickhappy: This thread highlights the two groups that dominate out hobby; Those who think taking pictures of airplanes is a privelege, and those that think it is
35 DC10Tim: Would you have removed the photo Royal, had you received that email? Seriously, if so then why? Tim.
36 Eadster: Why not? So you'd rather have people think of A.Net users as a bunch of uncooprative holes? In my eyes, change the info as requested, pic stays, owne
37 Clickhappy: Yes, I would have removed it. In fact I have been in this EXACT position before, and I typed up a really nasty email, but never sent it. I did send an
38 Newark777: And those who know the owner of the aircraft has no right to have the photo removed. Period. Harry
39 Clickhappy: Harry, I see that you are "16-20" years old. When you grow up you will learn that life is a lot more complicated than being "right." Like I said, win
40 JeffM: Hardly Harry, you have a lot to learn if you think that scenario is cut and dried. There are plenty of situations where the owner is well within thei
41 ChrisH: I think you should e-mail him back with a friendly tone, ask what's up basically. Perhaps if you're lucky you'll get a ride like Clickhappy did. You'r
42 JeffM: Absolutely. You got a problem with that?
43 DC10Tim: That's fair enough, and as I say, it was a serious question, not a leading one. I haven't been in exactly the same position, but have been asked by a
44 JumboJim747: I think remove it . For the simple reason to not put this sort of chance in the future in jeopardy. If i was asked to delete one of my pics i would do
45 AeroWeanie: Clickhappy, I am 48 years old and agree with Harry. The owners of the airplane are totally out of bounds claiming that the photographers need their p
46 Fsgay: Just saw this thread, and went back and checked my email, and, sure enough, I got the same request. Interestingly, if the information on the aircraft'
47 DutchAir: Frederick, I didn't reply to his last message. I've sent in a correction yesterday and for me this case is closed now. I don't see any reason why thi
48 Key: Obviously true. But standing up for a right, even at cost to yourself, is a high value in life and found more with youth than others. While your over
49 JeffM: What kind of BS is that? You are stretching things a bit here, I did not say or imply Harry did not have common sense. I'm not sure why you say this,
50 Key: Jeff, the part you left out in quoting me is the part that relayed to you. Why I say this is I think Royal and you are too harsh on Harry. That's all.
51 Devil505x: Give em an inch they'll take a mile! Stand up for your rights! No one is being an @$$hole here. If you say no its no if they take it further they are
55 Airway2: To all of you who responded to our request for the removal of the pictures of our DC-3 TP N145RD. What was a simple request based on a request from th
56 Aviopic: That's a clear answer Airway2 I hope it will open they eyes of the "it's my right", "period" and "case closed" people around here and they will answe
57 Visityyj: Original 'request': Modified (or mollified) request: Had the second request been sent in the first instance, I doubt there would have been any discuss
58 StealthZ: Not sure either, So it appears that others are getting a rather bizarre PM from "Airways2" Mine read.. "A basic request was sent to anyone posting pi
60 Clickhappy: So why not take the picture(s) down? Seems like a ton of time being spent on a silly subject, just remove them and be done with it.
61 StealthZ: Royal, I thought this matter was dead & buried but this Airways2 woman has a bee in her butt and needed to involve folks in her bunfight with the FAA.
62 F4wso: Maybe this thread will last until Dec 17, 2005. Then we can celebrate the 70th anniversary of the DC-3 series. Gary Cottage Grove, MN, USA
63 ShyFlyer: Exactly. The info attached to that photo is freely available from the FAA. All you need to do is use the N number and Google and you've got it. In fa
64 Visityyj: Beacuse of the manner of the request. Had the operator simply said "please remove your photo of N145RD as we do not wish our airplane to be shown on
65 Flybhx: Sounds like the FAA chap needs training in the definition of plying for hire. A large storm in a very small teacup over this. The rights and wrongs of
66 TACAA320: Leave it where it belongs... Airliners.net Simply delete such email.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 105 posts, 
Thanks, Miguel
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5430 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 505 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
