EWRvirgin From United States of America, joined May 2001, 358 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
I was advised from a very reliable source today that there is an FAA directive that essentially makes photography of aircraft a suspicious activity and that such activity shouldn't be tolerated on airport property (including side roads and those areas outside perimeter fences - with the exception of state roads, private property, etc.).
Now, I think this really sucks but will not challenge this rule by continuing to photograph on the airport proper.
Can anyone concur that this is accurate information?
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2212 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2856 times:
What we need to do is petition them in washington and tell them that this is NOT labeled as suspicious activity! And if you do go out to the airport then tell them that people do this all the time and they have thier stuff sometimes published in magazines and here on Airliners.net. This is a safe and happy hobby and it is not illegal in any form!!!!!
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
I agree with Luis, think about the situation from the authorities point of view:
You are chief of security, it's your responsibility to make sure nothing happens on the airport and around it. If someone throws stones at an aircraft taxiing by, you will be held responsible. If a terrorist decides to open fire at a landing aircraft (it has happened), you will be held responsible. Afterall you are chief of security, it's your job to make sure things like this don't happen. Would you jeopardize the security by letting people you don't know run around the airport anywhere they like, without checking them out? I wouldn't, I would have people checked out all the time, and I would make damn sure any suspicious person leaves the area. Why take any risks?
Officers on a power trip is a totally different issue, but as much as you want the autorities understand your situation, you have to understand theirs.
EWRvirgin From United States of America, joined May 2001, 358 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2798 times:
I did notice and read that thread. Obviously, some like to make up their own rules. This sort of thing peeves me but I think even though there is no FAA regulation against photography, airport management can go one step further and impose their own security measures.
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3030 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
There will always be a scurity risk. Did you guys read about this new gun that is made out of plastics? It is not detectable by airport scanners, and if you take a shot with this gun, within a range of 15 meters, you won't notice the difference with a real gun. And by the way, it can be bought in a European country (I won't mention which one, you never know ) without a licence. I mean, there will always be some sort of insecurity...Don't destroy some people's way of life because of some losers 'could' be dangerous..
I can understand the airport operators' point of view, but I think that it's useless. Like this will stop terrorists from planning terror acts. They'll just go to another sensitive place or so.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 2779 times:
The things with the plastic Glocks is a myth. They built a couple with ceramics a decade ago. That is where the "plastic gun" thing got started and exploited for as much political milage as those anal bitches Sarah Brady and Diane Fienstein could generate. They where never offered for sale and commercial Glocks use a lot of metal in them including this big piece called the barrel.
Sorry for my language but people like those two just get me irate.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3030 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Euh...I don't want to dwell on this, but this is a new type of gun (it was originally developed as a gun for firing those illuminating flares on ships), and a team of journalists bought the gun for €100 and tried it on a bunch of melons --> they were reduced to scrap...And the gun is made out of plastics alone.
But let's hope the producers stop to make this thing rightaway...
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
Are you talking about those plastic 12 guage flare guns....
They have been around for years. They are made out of plastic because that way they are light and won't weigh down a survival kit. Also some marine examples are designed to float. A very handy feature in a life raft.
The thing they don't mention in those articles is that there is a fair bit of metal in the shells and they would set off a metal detector.
Those things are not designed for standard 12 guage shells either 2 3/4 inch or 3 inch hulls. You stand a good chance of one of those things coming apart. I personally don't want a face full of shrapnel.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
IMO, terrorists would go as low profile as possible. I would think terrorists would come into an airport with a disposable camera as just to scope things out and go pretty much unnoticed. Big cameras attract alot of attention from security and that is NOT what terrorists want.
Think about it guys...doesn't that make sense?
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro