Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Newark Security: Taking Aviation Photos Is Illegal  
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4505 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

I wanted to share an experience I had yesterday at EWR and ask if anyone has more info about this.

I was waiting for my flight near Gate 33 in Terminal A, and while waiting I was doing my usual photography of planes taxiing, landing, and parked at the gate. Was not in any restricted area or anything like that.

After about 30 minutes of this, I was stopped by a man in a grey suit with a foreign accent asking me what I was doing and if I had the necessary security clearance and credentials to be taking photos of aircraft.

I told the man that I was an aviation photographer, and that I was merely taking photos of planes as a hobby. The man then informed me he was a supervisor with Newark Airport Security and that it is illegal to take pictures of aircraft taking off, landing, and on the ramp.

I said "it is legal...it even says on the TSA website that only photography of security checkpoints is illegal."

At that point he told me to show him and prove to him that the TSA website says that, as well as telling me that he knew the rules and "We don't allow pictures out the window of the terminal or of the ramp."

I began to navigate to the TSA website. As I did so, I said "Have you ever heard of airliners.net?"

He replied that he had.

"There is an entire community of people who take aviation photos as a hobby around the world, and I do the same. There are thousands of aviation photos online. If taking aviation photos is illegal, wouldn't our community know about it?"

At that point he threatened to get the director of airport security to "have a chat" with me, and potentially airport police.

I was very polite and said okay...that would be fine...as I've been taking aviation photographs since the 90s I am certain that I am not doing anything illegal.

He told me to stay where I was, and that he would be back with the director. He said a few words to the gate agent nearby while motioning in my direction....and then disappeared. I never saw him again...and when my flight's boarding was called, I boarded and took off without further incident...while wondering if police would be waiting for me when I landed.

I can't find anything to collaborate his statement that taking photos of planes is illegal..in New Jersey or elsewhere.

Can anyone confirm otherwise? After this I am unlikely to fly out of Newark again.


As an aside...on my later flight from DFW-SLC I had a flight attendant see me taking photos out the window of the plane, and informed me that cameras weren't allowed to be used inflight...and that this was an FAA regulation.

It isn't...I know it isn't, and I'm pretty annoyed that it's seemingly such an ordeal to take aviation photos anymore. I shouldn't have to be made to feel like I'm breaking the law when I'm not.

[Edited 2013-11-09 09:39:15]

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

It seems some people try to cite TSA and FAA regulations that clearly do not exist in order to prevent people from engaging in "suspicious activities". I know some airlines are not keen on passengers taking photos on the inside of their planes, as noted in the following threads:

Booted Off A UA Flight For Taking A Photo (by psa188 Feb 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Are Cabin Photos Prohibited? (by Spikecat Sep 25 2013 in Aviation Photography)

It seems to be a regular issue when taking photos in and around EWR based on some of the threads here in Av Photo:

Photography At NY Airports & BOS - Questions. (by BritishB747 Sep 23 2013 in Aviation Photography)
Spotting At Newark Question (by aerovtp Apr 21 2013 in Aviation Photography)


User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4475 times:

I was at EWR terminal A on June 28 and on July 21. The first was at the UA Express gates and the other time was at the B6/WN/AC gates. On both occasions I was NOT stopped or approached by anyone. There is no law that should prevent you from taking pictures.

I will say out of all the airports I have been through, the Port Authority of NY/NJ is the worst for allowing pictures.



Len90
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6448 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
As an aside...on my later flight from DFW-SLC I had a flight attendant see me taking photos out the window of the plane, and informed me that cameras weren't allowed to be used inflight...and that this was an FAA regulation.

I am assuming this is AA.....that F/A would have been better off saying that AA didn't allow photographs on it's aircraft....that would have been more plausible.

Quoting len90 (Reply 2):
I will say out of all the airports I have been through, the Port Authority of NY/NJ is the worst for allowing pictures.

.....and you could watch the towers fall from each airport......so perhaps they can be a little jumpy....semi understandable. But granted, security should not be making up stuff.

Now Orlando (MCO & SFB)....no excuse for their crap!



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting len90 (Reply 2):
the Port Authority of NY/NJ is the worst for allowing pictures



Have photographed once at EWR without a problem and have photographed at JFK numerous times without any problem.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 3):
Now Orlando (MCO & SFB)....no excuse for their crap!



Have spotted at MCO several times and never had a problem. Was approached by Orlando Police once while shooting on side of the road and officer was extremely polite. He didn't even want to see my ID. He said he only came out because someone called it in. He said people take photos of everything in Orlando - it's Orlando for crying out loud, one of the biggest tourist destinations in the world.


User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

That point about seeing the towers fall from the PA NY/NJ airports is understandable, but then there would have to be clear signs posted.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 3):
Now Orlando (MCO & SFB)....no excuse for their crap!

Been through MCO many times and never had an issue. In fact my last time at MCO I had a really nice AA gate agent talk to me about the changing scheme and had no issue with me taking some pictures of the planes there so I can always remember the planes the way they were and the way they should be.



Len90
User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've been through EWR before and I never had any problems. Just at the airtrain stop. There were some tourists that were taking photos of some of the aircraft from the hotel shuttle stop. Someone in a red jacket told them it was not allowed(Port Authority assistant). I just took some pictures when I was riding on the AirTrain itself without them riding in the same car. I mentioned the same thing in the "Photography at NY Airports and BOS" post above. It depends on who you see because some Port Authority personel may not want you to do it but airline employees may be ok with it.


"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4309 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
After about 30 minutes of this, I was stopped by a man in a grey suit with a foreign accent asking me what I was doing and if I had the necessary security clearance and credentials to be taking photos of aircraft.
Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter):
The man then informed me he was a supervisor with Newark Airport Security


May I ask if this man ever identified himself by way of an identification badge or ID card? If not he could have been anybody in a suit - just my most humble opinion...


Thanks and regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5703 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 7):
If not he could have been anybody in a suit

That thought crossed my mind as well, his actions reminded me very much of the person that tried to "arrest" me for "taking photos of the girls" on Bondi Beach here in Sydney. He even went so far as to call two patrolling police officers over to "investigate and confiscate" my camera and images. Didn't work so well for him, one of the officers took him aside and quite assertively advised him to "get a life" and walk away!!!

Back to aviation the only people that have ever tried to stop(or even had an issue with) me taking photos at many airports(and train stations) have been well meaning(is that euphemism for power tripping?) civilians!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6448 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4297 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 3):
Now Orlando (MCO & SFB)....no excuse for their crap!
Quoting len90 (Reply 5):
Been through MCO many times and never had an issue. In fact my last time at MCO I had a really nice AA gate agent talk to me about the changing scheme and had no issue with me taking some pictures of the planes there so I can always remember the planes the way they were and the way they should be.

To be clear, I was not talking about airside. I was referring to perimeter. While I have had success with shooting, especially since the south lot is open year round,


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr



....but I find, I always have that sense of looking over my shoulder.....that I don't have @ TPA, SRQ, FLL,MIA, PIE

Case in point, that Delta 738 above.....I would not sit there more than 2 or so minutes.


As far as EWR, I was there about 2 months ago & fortunately did not have any problems as far as secuity......sunlight....that's a different story!!! 
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr




Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4264 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 8):
his actions reminded me very much of the person that tried to "arrest" me for "taking photos of the girls" on Bondi Beach here in Sydney. He even went so far as to call two patrolling police officers over to "investigate and confiscate" my camera and images. Didn't work so well for him, one of the officers took him aside and quite assertively advised him to "get a life" and walk away!!!


That story is both funny and scary at the same time. It made me laugh because of the way the police officers handled that, bravo to them for sticking up for you (usually here in the US, it's the photographer versus the world)

I find it scary mainly because someone, just because they are bored or something, shows up and tells you that "Photography is not permitted here" or worse; they claim that it is "Illegal" Apparently, airport security and police aren't the only ones that we have to worry about.

Up at PVD Airport, I dealt with my share of security guards telling me to leave and I have stood my ground which payed off when their supervisor showed up and told me that I was well within my rights to take pictures. Thank God for police that actually know the law.

Unfortunately, ever since 9/11 in the United States, the only real #1 enemy has been anybody with a camera.


User currently offlinecaptainstefan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 10):
Unfortunately, ever since 9/11 in the United States, the only real #1 enemy has been anybody with a camera.

Which is even more unfortunate because cameras were not the ultimate weapon that day.



Long Live the Tulip!
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4505 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 7):
May I ask if this man ever identified himself by way of an identification badge or ID card? If not he could have been anybody in a suit - just my most humble opinion...

No, I'm afraid he didn't. I saw no badge. Just a claim of authority. That said, he did go speak to a gate agent, who seemed to recognize him, so I doubt he was just an ordinary passenger pretending to be security.

That said though, after reading the posts linked above, I am surprised that I had no issues at JFK but had such a hard time at EWR, as it seems people above had the opposite experiences when inside the terminal.

Had the man come back with the security director or police I was planning to stand my ground, as foolish as that may seem, as to be honest I'm growing weary of seeing this security theatre destroy everything enjoyable about being an aviation enthusiast...and if my arrest were to draw attention to the asinine policies and get them changed...well...so be it. In a court of law I would have come out on top anyway.

But it sure nearly ruined my day.

As an aside, taking photos is primarily the #1 thing I do most while flying...and seeing United's policy has inspired me to double check in the future to see if an airline has such an anti-photo policy before flying. Any airline with such a policy will not receive my business...as it would simply be pointless to fly them over their competitor.

[Edited 2013-11-10 21:44:29]

User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4087 times:

As far as JFK goes, that airport really depends on what terminal you are in. JetBlue at T5 are really nice about allowing pictures. I have on numerous occasions walked throughout that terminal taking pictures without incident. Over at T8, American, I was stopped and told no photos. In fact, that was the only time I was ever stopped in an airport.


Len90
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 11):
ameras were not the ultimate weapon that day

What an understatement... the attacks even had nothing to do with observing airports or aircraft.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 743 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

With regard to the legality of taking pics in flight - I've been wondering about this. Cameras are very much "electronic devices" and increasingly come equipped with wi-fi. I'm not aware of them having a "flight safe" mode, so I wonder do some cameras fall into the class of devices that shouldn't be used in flight?

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

I posted this in the other Newark photo thread going on right now - from the Port Authority's web site:

"The Port Authority reserves the right to restrict videotaping and photography at its airports. Videotaping in runway and taxiway areas at all airports is prohibited at all times. Videotaping and photographing at security checkpoint areas operated by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is prohibited without the consent of the TSA."

This statement is located in the press section of the site, and is probably meant more for commercial photography/news photography, but it appears they do have something on the books to prevent photography if they so choose. In other words, standing your ground at a Port Authority facility is probably not a good idea.

I've been asked to stop taking pictures at all three of the major PANYNJ airports - LGA, JFK and EWR. The LGA and JFK incidents were inside the terminal (at JFK, it was a Swissport employee who stopped me and in fact demanded I delete my photos). At EWR, it was a run-in with Elizabeth Police outside the airport.

That said, I have hundreds of JFK shots and some EWR shots. I haven't really spent any quality time at LGA but others seem to have good luck there. Seems it's a matter of bad timing more than anything else to have a run-in with authorities, but if you spend enough time taking pix at these airports you'll eventually run across someone who doesn't like photogs.


User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 16):
at JFK, it was a Swissport employee who stopped me and in fact demanded I delete my photos

I hope that you DID NOT delete those photos.

In the statement that you posted above, there is absolutely nothing that claims that they have the right to make such a demand.

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 16):
Seems it's a matter of bad timing more than anything else to have a run-in with authorities, but if you spend enough time taking pix at these airports you'll eventually run across someone who doesn't like photogs

I would certainly agree with this statement 100%. I have gone to PVD (I mentioned it in my previous post above) many times without any seeing any security or airport police. I have also gone on occasions when I see them, but they do not questions me and other occasions when they do.

At certain airports, it seems, all you can really do is hope for the best.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

No laws exist. I shoot airside @ EWR, TEB, JFK @ LGA. All are NYNJ Port authority properties. You can get the proper credentials if you go through the proper channels @ EWR. I shoot corporate there as well. Once I had to shoot a 727-100 at sunset on a taxiway...EWR told me I needed to have 350 million in liability insurance since the shoot was to take place on a potentially active taxiway, I digressed but achieved a day exterior on the ramp @ signature. Also spent a day @ EWR with the PrivatAir Fleet, 757, 737/3--, and BBJ's. Port authority all over the place. Full day of shooting with no hassles. Typically the individuals that legally have the least influence over a photographer are the ones that will sound off the most...Shoot on!

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4505 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3973 times:

I fail to understand what the Port Authority hopes to achieve with its restriction of photography. Can someone explain the logic behind this? Do they actually believe that we're documenting airport ops in the run-up to a terrorist activity?

User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

I have tried to probe into this when I was at Ikea last time. The security personnel there had no issue with me sitting and photographing a few planes. The person even said that it is a nice peaceful thing to do. The issue at that lot lies with the PA and Elizabeth PD. The reasoning is that supposedly the 9/11 terrorists did scout out planes from that lot. I never heard anything like that before, but that could be some reasoning as to why the PA NY/NJ is so tough on photography...

Even so, I personally would have no problem if a officer stopped me, and quickly ID'd me. I always carry two forms of picture ID on me when I photograph. So far I have never been stopped, but due to schooling, most of my adventures are now at PHL where they really are open to allowing photography. Just be respectful by pulling your vehicle fully off the road and polite if ever approached.



Len90
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6448 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

Quoting len90 (Reply 20):
The issue at that lot lies with the PA and Elizabeth PD

OK, I'm confused....isn't it IKEA'S lot?. If you spend $600 in IKEA, who is PA/Eliz PD to tell you to leave?



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 15):
With regard to the legality of taking pics in flight - I've been wondering about this. Cameras are very much "electronic devices" and increasingly come equipped with wi-fi. I'm not aware of them having a "flight safe" mode, so I wonder do some cameras fall into the class of devices that shouldn't be used in flight?

Colin,

Wouldn't that be up for the FAA to decide (atleast in America)? I didn't think that the airline would have the authority to tell you that "your camera isn't allowed in flight because it might interfere with the instruments in the aircraft.

Quoting len90 (Reply 20):
The issue at that lot lies with the PA and Elizabeth PD. The reasoning is that supposedly the 9/11 terrorists did scout out planes from that lot. I never heard anything like that before, but that could be some reasoning as to why the PA NY/NJ is so tough on photography

They can get as upset as they want, but it still shouldn't allow them to kick out someone because they have a camera. If parking your car in the parking lot isn't illegal, than why is getting out of it (with a camera) and spotting a few planes?

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 19):
Do they actually believe that we're documenting airport ops in the run-up to a terrorist activity?

Personally I think they are simply bored more than anything else. If there are no laws on the books, then they cannot arrest you for anything; they can't even write you a ticket if they don't like the answers that you give them to their questions but I think the key is in what len90 said:

Quoting len90 (Reply 20):
I always carry two forms of picture ID on me when I photograph.

Nobody can stop the police from questioning you, but you can certainly make it easier on yourself.

Until somebody makes some major police reform at all airports (although I do understand the sensitivity around the JFK, LGA, and EWR) it looks like we will just have to deal with their questionable implementation of "security measures."


User currently offlineaagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 546 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've shot from the Ikea lot a number of times and have been told on several occasions that photography is not allowed. The police are the ones that tell you, not Ikea security. Apparently Ikea security calls the police to tell you to leave. Since it is private property they can forbid photography from their property. Don't argue, leave and come back another day. I usually only go to Ikea if there is something special and no other place to shoot from.

That said ... JFK and LGA are easier for pictures.


User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 21):
OK, I'm confused....isn't it IKEA'S lot?. If you spend $600 in IKEA, who is PA/Eliz PD to tell you to leave?

As said before, the lot is technically private property. They can limit the photography and have the PD called for you to leave. I personally have not had that happen to me, but as others have shown it does happen.

I have heard that JFK mounds has gotten better over the years with security and people have not really had issues lately at Plane View Park next to LGA. It seems like EWR will always be a battle ground though. It really used to be a great place and I can recall always seeing spotters in that lot back in the day.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 22):
Nobody can stop the police from questioning you, but you can certainly make it easier on yourself.

With my school and planned career, I definitely don't want to have a run in with the law. Aviation photography is actually what I try to do to destress.



Len90
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 743 posts, RR: 16
Reply 25, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 22):
Wouldn't that be up for the FAA to decide (atleast in America)? I didn't think that the airline would have the authority to tell you that "your camera isn't allowed in flight because it might interfere with the instruments in the aircraft.

Dunno - in the UK the instruction is "turn off all electronic devices, and after take off, only those with a flight safe mode are allowed" - such a statement is hard to argue with the cabin crew ... I've been stopped from using my Kindle in the past. I think the airline have the authority to interpret the rules as they see fit, and to be honest, I really don't expect the crew to be experts on the capabilities of any given electronic device.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 17):
I hope that you DID NOT delete those photos.

Ashamed to say I did - but just one photo, actually. I was on an Aer Lingus flight out of T4 that departed within about 45 minutes of all this, and I didn't want to miss an international flight over some crap cloudy day pictures while I talked to the police. I'd taken probably 40-50 pix, and the Swissport employee was satisfied seeing me delete just one photo. Not the sharpest tool in the woodshed.

As for the IKEA lot, I've always thought it would be amusing to send my kids and wife into the Toys 'R' Us store and load up a shopping cart with several hundred dollars worth of merchandise while I stayed outside for photography. Then, when the inevitable run-in with police came, I'd go back into the store and explain to the manager why I was taking my family out of the store without buying anything. If I could coach my kids into bursting into tears as the toys were taken away it would be all the better.


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3674 times:

What a shame that you agreed to delete one of your photos when there is no way for them to force you to do so.

And len90, that business about the terrorists "scouting out planes" from the IKEA lot is nothing more than propaganda hogwash. They made that bit up to get people to conform to their ridiculous demands.

Its all about controlling people, which this thread appears to demonstrate is in full effect. PANYNJ cannot restrict photography from an airline terminal, even if they run security for the airport. It isn't someone's house or backyard, it is a major node of public transit. To impose a restriction like that upon public conveyance like that is absolutely ridiculous, and ignorant of the actual risks. It is unreasonable to expect that ordinary civilians would think to take the Port's photography rules into account when making travel plans, that is just plain dumb. I shoot at the area's airfields, but I do so in a way that does not attract unnecessary attention, both inside and outside terminals.

You all need to remember this: the more you go along with restrictions of lawful activity, by deleting pictures, being intimidated, and not pulling your camera out, the more you agree to the tyranny being imposed upon you in the name of 'safety'. It isn't about safety. You're being controlled.

I thought I didn't need to say it anymore but I guess I do: AVIATION PHOTOGRAPHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

I would have told the guy in the suit to go screw himself and told him to show me HIS credentials, the pompous bastard.


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4505 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

To be honest, after this incident, the one on AA, and reading about United's new "no photos" policy, I am starting to feel that the last bit of fun that remained in air travel is slowly fading away.

I hadn't flown since 2010 before this latest trip and never have I had so much hassle before. Documenting the flight and experience of travel is most of the fun for me. I have a hard time getting excited for a flight with no photography allowed.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 19):
Do they actually believe that we're documenting airport ops in the run-up to a terrorist activity?

No but this is what they are told to believe.

Quoting ckw (Reply 15):
With regard to the legality of taking pics in flight - I've been wondering about this. Cameras are very much "electronic devices" and increasingly come equipped with wi-fi. I'm not aware of them having a "flight safe" mode, so I wonder do some cameras fall into the class of devices that shouldn't be used in flight?

I fly as PIC all the time with my Nikons and a cell phone, none of which have any detrimental effect on my avionics, communications or GPS. My equipment is within 30" of these instruments. While flying as a passenger, you will be anywhere from 15'-100' from the cockpit and exterior antennas. In addition cockpit instruments are shielded from exterior interference. You should see all the electronics we stuff into the main cabins entertainment system in the private jets we work on. All the latest goodies, both entertainment & communication devices with high power supplies. We just have to be careful about wire runs creating noise in the internal communication system but nothing here that would be disabling.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 743 posts, RR: 16
Reply 30, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 29):
I fly as PIC all the time with my Nikons and a cell phone, none of which have any detrimental effect on my avionics, communications or GPS

Yes of course - if i believed for a moment that someone using a cell phone could bring down an aircraft, I wouldn't fly.

Yet these rules exist for whatever reason, all I'm wondering is exactly what is the difference in "risk" between, say a cell phone and a GPS equipped camera. My instinct is the whole thing is bogus anyway.

Cheers.

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 30):
I'm wondering is exactly what is the difference in "risk" between, say a cell phone and a GPS equipped camera.

I do not have such a camera, but wifi and GPS are both taxing to batteries, so I would be surprised (and disappointed) if either one works in an 'always on' mode. It seems like these features would be off unless you choose particular options to enable them.


User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 30):
Yes of course - if i believed for a moment that someone using a cell phone could bring down an aircraft, I wouldn't fly.

Yet these rules exist for whatever reason, all I'm wondering is exactly what is the difference in "risk" between, say a cell phone and a GPS equipped camera. My instinct is the whole thing is bogus anyway

A cell phone has a transmitter in it. GPS only receives. The risk from a cell phone is probably very small due to its relatively low transmit power levels, but the GPS would be probably a couple orders of magnitude lower risk.

The rules exist because in the past there definitely have been instances of electronic devices causing interference, so there's fairly strict rules for testing. Consumer devices generally are not interference tested to aviation standards so even if no one expects issues, they could not be allowed because "I don't think this will be a problem" is not an allowable criteria in a risk assessment.

Of course, the ubiquitous nature of portable electronics these days and the poor obedience of passengers means most of them have effectively been unofficially tested for the last decade or so. I presume this unintentional testing is a factor in the recent relaxing of the rules. Perhaps also enough different devices have been deliberately tested that most consumer electronics are now effectively considered generic (not different enough from what has been tested to be worth further testing).

Clearly the risk has always been perceived by officials as relatively low, however, or they would have been far more strict about enforcing the ban in the past.


User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 28):

To be honest, after this incident, the one on AA, and reading about United's new "no photos" policy, I am starting to feel that the last bit of fun that remained in air travel is slowly fading away.

I have to agree with you on some points, but in my recent travels I didn't have any issues. I traveled AA from JFK to SFO (763 and 762) last March. On the flight to SFO, I had crew jump seats next to me and they ok'ed me to take pictures after we exited the runway at SFO. At JFK it was well into the night so it didn't matter, but on both flights I was allowed pictures out the window and I had wing/engine views.

I have heard the horror stories on United, but have not flown them to have any personal experience.

Most of my flying has been with JetBlue lately. They are the easiest and one of the most lenient airlines. Never had an issue in one of their terminals taking pictures of the planes or on one of their planes with taking pictures.

In the end, it all comes down to where you are and who you are flying. Newark is just known to be a tough place for photographers, while PHL is one of the easier locations for photographers.



Len90
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Last time I flew out of JFK, on VS at T4, I spotted a while from the paved area outside the terminal towards T5. Was only there less than half an hour before being told by security this wasn't a good idea....and I had to leave  

User currently onlineBritishB747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (10 months 5 days ago) and read 2231 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 1):
It seems to be a regular issue when taking photos in and around EWR based on some of the threads here in Av Photo:

Photography At NY Airports & BOS - Questions. (by BritishB747 Sep 23 2013 in Aviation Photography)
Spotting At Newark Question (by aerovtp Apr 21 2013 in Aviation Photography)

I started the 'Photography at NY Airports & BOS - Questions' thread. I would like to thank everyone who contributed and seeing as this topic has come up again update you with my experiences.

LHR-EWR (BA): Arrived at EWR just before 2100. By this stage it was dark outside and I just wanted to get through security and on my way to NY so never got the camera out.

EWR-BOS (UA): Arrived at EWR a little early so that I had time to move around the terminal and take some photos. I took some photos from the AirTrain but made sure when I was stopped in one of the stations that my camera was not visible to the red coats. As a result I didn't have any problems. Once I cleared security in Terminal C I walked the entire terminal taking photos. I had one security man follow me from a distance for a while but once he realised I was not a threat he left me to take photographs. Once on board the plane I took no photographs while the crew were doing their duties but once we began to taxi I took a few quick pictures. Same scenario when I arrived at BOS (managed to snap the US Piedmont A319 while taxiing). Once off the plane I stayed in the terminal for 15 minutes or so photographing out the window and was not approached.

BOS-EWR (UA): Again arrived early, again walked the length of Terminal A, and again experienced no issues. Apart from a few funny looks from fellow travelers. Same drill when I was on the plane, we were held on the taxiway for about 20 mins. The pilot shut down the engines and electronic devices were allowed to be used so I got my big camera out and started shooting out the window. No issues from the F/As. Again when I arrived in EWR I stayed on to take some photographs from the terminal windows and it was not an issue.

LGA (By Subway): Got the Subway up to Mets/Willets Point and walked towards the airport. I eventually found a good (if slightly distant point) at the World Fair Marina. On that day it gave good departure shots from 13. This area was very quiet. Some people maintaining boats nearby and joggers going past. Nobody seemed concerned with my presence there and there was a nice bench to sit on.

JFK-LHR (BA): 2255 flight. Far too dark and windows far too dirty.

So overall I experienced no issues at any of the NY airports I visited. It must just be luck of the draw if you encounter reasonable people of if you just come across a jobsworth who feels that they are doing a good job by rubbing people up the wrong way.

Thanks again for the advice.

Mark



AB6 319 320 321 AR8 737/3/4/6/G/8 744 752 763 77W 788 D10 D38 DH4 E75 F70 M83
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2328 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Glad you had an enjoyable visit, Mark!

Quoting BritishB747 (Reply 35):
I eventually found a good (if slightly distant point) at the World Fair Marina.

Yes, the marina is one of our regular LGA spots. In addition to 13 departures, you can get some good shots of aircraft turning to final off the Expressway Visual to Rwy 31.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently onlineBritishB747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 36):

Yes I had an enjoyable visit. The weather the first week of October in NY was excellent. Not so good in BOS. However it made a change from standing on a mound at a wind swept and rain battered EDI. Good to see some MD-80s. A rare sight this side of the pond these days.

The marina was an excellent spot. Took me a while to find the bridge over the expressway but I got there in the end. Managed to enjoy the sun between departures. I had been looking on FR24 to find a good day to go up to LGA. The combination of a spot easy to get to by public transport and the right wind direction was proving troublesome so never managed to get a day when arrivals were on 31. Maybe I will have better luck next time. JFK proved problematic when trying to find a spot near a subway or LIRR station and the right runways being in use. As a result I never got to take any photos at JFK.

Thanks again,

Mark



AB6 319 320 321 AR8 737/3/4/6/G/8 744 752 763 77W 788 D10 D38 DH4 E75 F70 M83
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Selling Aviation Photos Illegal? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 12:57:47 by Administrator
How To Sell Aviation Photos posted Wed Mar 6 2013 17:23:40 by evall95
Making A Personal Site For My Aviation Photos-help posted Thu Jun 28 2007 16:31:45 by Deaphen
Some Various Aviation Photos posted Wed Oct 25 2006 02:05:02 by Mohavewolfpup
Aviation Photography Is Not A Crime... posted Wed Jan 18 2006 19:51:16 by Beechcraft
Still Having Trouble Taking 'sunny' Photos posted Fri Dec 9 2005 02:15:51 by DC10Tim
Fuji S5000 Any Good For Aviation Photos posted Mon Mar 15 2004 16:48:54 by LHRSIMON
Spotting Is Illegal In ROC. posted Sat Jan 12 2002 18:35:32 by United_Fan
Security Screeners And Photos posted Thu Nov 8 2001 09:09:34 by Bruce
Stole My Photos - Is Yours There As Well? posted Mon Apr 2 2001 00:46:20 by Andyhunt