Why GA is Dying

Dudley Henriques wrote:

You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.

But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me
leave, but knowing I was right, he walked off.

My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:

You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you
can complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but
the bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.

But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under any
obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me leave,
but knowing I was right, he walked off.

My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways.

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
issue. This doesn't mean the security people have a right to "hassle" you or
push you around, but it does mean that if you are questioned politely in a
non threatening manner you either will respond to this "intrusion" by
recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate that its not, or you
will stand there and shout like hell that your personal space and rights are
being violated and that taking pictures isn't illegal.
No one says the system is perfect. Actually, it stinks. But complaining
about your right to take pictures in an atmosphere where security is an
issue is not necessarily the best approach.
Hell...you think your case was bad? I have a friend who Captain's a 747. He
and his entire crew were stopped and body searched at a major US hub while
an entire line of civilians went through the gates unhampered. After 20
minutes or so of this, they took his nail clippers. The flight was late
getting off, but those civilians went through just fine.
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation unless there is an actual incident involving your innocent
activity and security people hassling you, and I mean REALLY hassling you!.
Just my opinion mind you :-)))

Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation

The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
cooperation.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation

The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
cooperation.

That's true, but this doesn't seem to be what I'm seeing from your posts.
What I'm getting from reading you is that you have a problem on the front
side with authority. Your first example about the cop "hassling you" states
this without question for me anyway.
You state up front the following;
"I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him."
This in my opinion was an unnecessary and overly agressive response to this
situation. By your own word, he simply asked you why you were taking
pictures. He had every right to do that, and your response, instead of being
cooperative and simply telling him what you were doing, was to "educate him"
and tell him you weren't obligated in any way to explain anything to him".
Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Personally, I think you have a problem understanding that there are security
issues existing in aviation at all, and that even if there are, you don't
want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
its requested in the proper manner.
All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
move on.
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Right. That was a quick trip to Indy Metro to drop off something for a
friend. This was before the pilot ID requirement and I wasn't planning
on driving anywhere once I got to the airport. I simply had NO photo ID
with me and my airman certs were in the plane. So what was I supposed
to do? The FBO wasn't letting me back on the ramp (even though they'd
seen me walk inside) and since it was a rental, I couldn't just leave
the plane there. Do YOU not see the problem with that?

and that even if there are, you don't
want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Basically, yes. And I don't let myself be bothered by it.

Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
its requested in the proper manner.
I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I
had any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.


All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
move on.
Who says I'm taking shots at you? I don't reply to PEOPLE on a
newsgroup, I reply to posts. Yes, I have problems with authority that
shouldn't be authority in the first place. Rolling over and taking it
is what gets people in trouble and I think a lot of people need to start
learning from history.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I had
any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.

No, I think I understood you perfectly. In fact, you are confirming it with
this post. What you are saying is absolutely clear. You have every right of
course to approach these issues as you see fit, but what I'm seeing is that
because you were approached by a "cop" in a public observation area instead
of a restricted area and asked why you were taking pictures, your immediate
response to this instead of answering the question was to instantly revert
to your conception of your "rights" instead of simply cooperating with the
request.
Even here, in this post, you feel the need to CAPITALIZE the word "NO" in
the sentence stating "I am under NO requirement to explain myself" which is
a clear indication to me at least,that your prime concern during this
incident and indeed even before the incident occurred, wasn't airport
security at all but the fact that you felt you were being "hassled" by this
security person because of your "understanding" concerning an imagined
difference between a public and a restricted area on an airport and how that
difference affects security issues.
Let me advise you right here and now that when it comes to a duly appointed
security officer acting in that capacity anywhere on airport property,
asking you why you are taking pictures on the airport, it doesn't matter
where you are on that airport. That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing. At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
Aside from the legalities involved, doing this, rather than doing what you
did, is not only the right response for a person concerned with airport
security, but the prudent response as well.
As I said, from what I have read of your posting here, you and I are natural
adversaries, at least from my point of view anyway :-)). I simply think your
attitude is totally out of line on this issue.
This is of course no big deal at all . Happens all the time on Usenet. Some
people are just better off avoiding each other :-))
Hey......all the very best to you.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
Let me advise you right here and now that when it
comes to a duly appointed security officer acting in that capacity
anywhere on airport property, asking you why you are taking pictures
on the airport, it doesn't matter where you are on that airport. That
security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing. At the point you are
approached in this reasonable manner, it is incumbent on you to supply
a reasonable answer to that security officer.

I'm not sure what your meaning of "incumbent" is - but there are so many
variables involved (private or public airport? rent-a-cop or real cop?
etc.) that I'd have to argue that your advise covers too broad an area to
be correct. In fact in some cases it is clearly incorrect.

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain areas,
and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask you what
you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you. The cops question
was silly and if it had been anyone else, an impolite don't-suffer-fools-
gladly reply would be "What the hell does it look like I'm doing!?"

Furthermore, even with regard to private property, if something is clearly
in public view, the public has a right to take photos of it. Barbra
Streisand lost a suit over this very issue:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html

Ignorance of the law is a great excuse - for cops it seems. But the law
doesn't seem to back up what Emily's cop did or you think they can do; see
for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...era-laws_x.htm
http://www.photopermit.org/

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:52:11 GMT, Dudley Henriques wrote:

At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.

Emily, next time you should answer "I am taking pictures." (this ansewr
should be reasonable enough). And smile! He has the power and you're only a
citizen. And never speak up.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!

I don't know what this means. There is no such thing as security - only
illusion - if we wish to preserve our basic freedoms. If you are
willing to give up your basic freedoms, then the security you end up
with will prevent you from flying in the first place. There are in fact
gradations in the effectiveness of security, and of the illusions it
presents to the public.

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
issue.

In what way are they a "security issue"?

In what way does showing an ID make the "security issue" go away?

...recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate that its not...

Proving your innocence? That's not the way it works in a free society.

By [the OP's] own word, he simply asked you why you were taking
pictures.

No, he was doing so in uniform. That makes all the difference.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.