EWRvirgin
Topic Author
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 11:38 am

The FAA And Aviation Photography

Wed Feb 13, 2002 2:51 pm

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?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Wed Feb 13, 2002 2:53 pm

Can he provide a directive number?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
EWRvirgin
Topic Author
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 11:38 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:08 pm

Not really as this is second hand info. coming out of the airport's mangement/administrative team.
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3713
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:18 pm

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"
 
Guest

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 4:54 am

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

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/40870/
 
CcrlR
Posts: 2185
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 9:24 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:30 am

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)
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:55 am

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 avatar
apuneger
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 2:43 pm

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 7:11 am

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
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 7:59 am

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
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 1:36 pm

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)

 
EWRvirgin
Topic Author
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 11:38 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 1:38 pm

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 avatar
apuneger
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 2:43 pm

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 9:58 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Thu Feb 14, 2002 10:04 pm

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 avatar
apuneger
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 2:43 pm

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Sun Feb 17, 2002 2:01 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Sun Feb 17, 2002 3:45 am

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
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:30 am

My 2 Cents

Sun Feb 17, 2002 1:06 pm

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
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Sun Feb 17, 2002 8:22 pm

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

 
User avatar
apuneger
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 2:43 pm

RE: The FAA And Aviation Photography

Sun Feb 17, 2002 8:49 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest