Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The FAA And Aviation Photography  
User currently offlineEWRvirgin From United States of America, joined May 2001, 358 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3465 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?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3377 times:

Can he provide a directive number?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineEWRvirgin From United States of America, joined May 2001, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3377 times:

Not really as this is second hand info. coming out of the airport's mangement/administrative team.

User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3955 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

If this is true, then everyone here who loves photographing planes (which is 100%) needs to bombard the FAA with e-mails pleading our case, regardless of nationality.

As L-188 mentioned a directive # would be needed for us to study.

Let's hope that this is just a mis-understanding or mis-communication on the part of your contact.

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineMike_Steffen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Thats a big contrast to what was said in this post:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/40870/


User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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)
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

I don't want to be the pessimist or negative guy but put yourselfes in the authorities place:

Between all the photographers around an airport, how can you know who are the plane spotters and who are the "possible terrorists" with bad intentions?

Authorities doesn't know so they do what's easier...

I know I'll not make friends around here with this but I'm just pointing out the other side of the story, and to be honest I don't have a solution.

Luis


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Well, if they try to stop people from taking aviation pictures because 0.0001% might have some bad intentions, why don't they:

- ban all passengers, because some of them could be terrorists,

- ban all cars, because some drivers might be drunk,

- stop all internet activity right now, because their might be some hackers somewhere trying to break in some bank or so.

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3264 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.

Just my 0.02€

Staffan


User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

I don't want to be the pessimist or negative guy but...

Nooooo!!! not you Luis!! (j/k)

Actually "Apuneger" is right-on; you just can't go banning things because some people are a threat. There is risk in everything;

Okay, well i had thought of a great reply to this post and then some girl started talking to me online and now i cant think... maybe i'll post more later...


CHRIS (loser)



User currently offlineEWRvirgin From United States of America, joined May 2001, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Mike,

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.


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3213 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  Laugh out loud ) 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.

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3210 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. Pissed



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

L-188

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...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3162 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.
User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3152 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 @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Why stand out by using a small disposable camera when everyone else is using proper equipment?



User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

USAir_757:

You could be right...Criminals would indeed go 'low-profile'. On the other hand, I can imagine they need as much information as possible, hence the need for a big camera...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
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...
News Media And Aviation Photography posted Sat May 6 2006 13:59:12 by Eksath
The Phil Derner Aviation Photography Resort! posted Sat May 1 2004 19:32:57 by Bigphilnyc
Leica's And Aviation Photography, Any Good? posted Sat Apr 24 2004 11:57:43 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Racial Profiling And Aviation Photography posted Tue Apr 13 2004 03:23:24 by Tappan
FAA And Airport Photography posted Mon Apr 8 2002 23:55:14 by Mark2102
FAA And Photography posted Wed Oct 4 2006 21:29:41 by Mdundon
Your Local - The Pro's And Con's For Photography! posted Fri Oct 1 2004 11:33:38 by Airplanepics
New To Aviation Photography And Need A Tip posted Sun Jun 6 2004 14:48:28 by Thai744
The Real Aviation Photography I Am Searching For.. posted Thu Jun 3 2004 04:40:29 by Riley
Your Next Step In Aviation Photography posted Thu Nov 16 2006 16:55:50 by LIPH