Helicopter Buzzes Wal-Mart

"He felt that he found a creative way to thumb his nose
at their 'No photos' policy."

How nefarious!

I took a photo inside a Fry's Electronics store, back when I did not
know they had a policy against it. I soon found out, as someone walked
up to me and told me it wasn't allowed. No one tried to get the single
photo I had taken, though, and I still have it.

But, see, Fry's lets people take cameras inside their store. I have to
get a yellow slip with the serial number filled out before I go into
the main part of the store, but they have never given me any trouble
about carrying a camera around inside the store. Most merchants don't
give me any trouble for it.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I was shopping at a Wal-Mart on December 17, 2004, when I noticed
outside a helicopter flying just over the tops of the parked vehicles
in front of the store. It was flying towards me, about 20 feet above
the ground and climbing. I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
the building.

I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.

Why? It is always flying towards somebody. Anyway, if that helicopter is
only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you were
there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How the heck
do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?

This one, measuring by the height of the fuselage, is at least 150 feet up.
If it is smaller, then it is even higher. Even so, helicopters fly into all
kinds of places, including Wal-Mart parking lots, schools, homes, or
practically any open field, and they do a lot of aerial photography work at
very low level.

There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
allowing photography in their stores. Apparently the chain is concerned
about competitors who have been sending corporate spies into the stores to
study inventory control. Just as a guess, analysis of a series of pictures
could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking practices,
which would be very valuable information. Given enough study, one could
re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole computerized inventory control system.
Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt that they
would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.

That said, one would think that Wal-Mart would post signs informing
customers of this policy. As usual, the anti-Wal-Mart crowd has attributed
the whole thing to Wal-Mart's sinister plot to take over the world.

C J Campbell wrote:


There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
allowing photography in their stores. Apparently the chain is
concerned
about competitors who have been sending corporate spies into the
stores to
study inventory control. Just as a guess, analysis of a series of
pictures
could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking
practices,
which would be very valuable information. Given enough study, one
could
re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole computerized inventory control system.
Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
that they
would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.



One of my little sisters works for a Wal-Mart vendor. To try and
decipher the stocking programs from a couple of visits would be totally
impossible. The process is store and sales dependant. What you see at
one store for product turnover does not translate to the same for any
other store. She is constantly having to go in and tweak the system for
the items she is responsible for in their system. The system is so tied
together with sales and distrubution that making an incorrect change in
one wrong place in the software can trigger a major operational
castorophe. The software is so complicated that she has had several
weeks of training on how to correctly add, update and interpret data
from the software. Even though it's now considered stable software,
their IT people are constantly working on upgrading it to match closer
and closer to actual overall performance.

Craig C.

I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.

Why? It is always flying towards somebody.

But not at eye level, which it almost was just a few seconds before
that photo was taken. It was climbing rapidly when I took that shot.

Anyway, if that helicopter is
only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you
were
there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How
the heck
do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?

I know it wasn't 1000 feet up, as someone suggested. I might accept 200
feet feet, as an outside stretch. 100 feet does not look like an
unreasonable estimate. But, my impression at the time of the photo was
that it was about 50 feet above the ground when I took the picture.
But, then, as I say, it was in a rapid climb, from just high enough to
clear the parked cars, to high enough to clear the roof of the
building. Keep in mind, too, that I was running towards the windows of
the store, as I tried to get a shot before the helicopter got out of my
field of view. It takes my camera 5 seconds to boot up, then another
few seconds to lock onto a target and snap the photo. I jogged from the
cash registers in the front of the store over to the windows at the
front while my camera was booting. I did not have time to get a second
photo, which I would have done if I could have.

The helicopter didn't start climbing very fast until I had almost
reached the windows, and I was trying to decide whether to get the shot
from inside the store, or risk another few seconds going outside the
store. When I saw the helicopter begin to rise quickly, I quickly took
the shot from inside the store. Within another 3 seconds, it was over
the top of the building.

This one, measuring by the height of the fuselage, is at least 150
feet up.

I'm pretty certain it was under 150 feet, and over 50 feet.

There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
allowing photography in their stores.

Photography, I understand banning. But, they aren't just banning
photography. They are banning cameras completely.

Apparently the chain is concerned about competitors who have been
sending corporate spies into the stores to study inventory control.

Several years ago, I worked for a marketing company. I carried around a
portable computer, called a Telxon, which I used to scan the bar codes
of products I was paid to monitor. I had to perform my job in several
different stores, including Albertsons, Krogers, Winn-Dixie, Target,
K-Mart and various other stores, in addition to Wal-Mart. Sometimes,
when I would finish, I would go grocery shopping. Several times, a
Wal-Mart manager (obviously on the verge of hysteria) would demand to
know what I was doing as I pushed my grocery cart with my Telxon in the
cart. After I explained that I was buying groceries for myself, the
manager would give me a lecture about not scanning any of their prices,
and then go away.

Just as a guess, analysis of a series of pictures
could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking
practices, which would be very valuable information.

Oh, I can tell you what Wal-Mart's restocking practice is. There
practice is to fill up all the aisles with pallets of goods, while
removing the products that I had become accustomed to buying. Even
though there are pallets of goods in all the aisles every night, they
are always out of stock of something that I want.

OK, I hope I didn't give away too many company secrets with that.

Given enough study, one could re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole
computerized inventory control system.
Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
that they
would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.

If I wanted to spy on Wal-Mart, I would find a better way of doing it
than by hanging an Olympus around my neck.

Right now, I could buy cameras that fit inside the frames of my glasses
and the buttons of my shirts. If I wanted to do so, I could record
every inch and every product code in their entire store, and they would
never even see it. Indeed, the true value of security would not be in
keeping someone out; it would be in making it too expensive for them to
use the information they obtained.

Places like MIT are prototyping personal video systems that are
intended to record all the events of a person's day, for their entire
life. I have seen several of these prototype systems. I expect they
will become fairly common within 15 years, much like cell phones are
now. Wal-Mart is not going to stop progress.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Given enough study, one could re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole
computerized inventory control system.
Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
that they
would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.

If I wanted to spy on Wal-Mart, I would find a better way of doing it
than by hanging an Olympus around my neck.


Oh, I did not say that Wal-Mart's security is effective. The bigger the
organization, the less effective and the more offensive security is. If
Wal-Mart grows much bigger they will be wanding all their customers with
metal detectors before allowing them to buy guns.

Hay P....,
The real issue is not determining the altitude of the chopper from your
photo, it is your assumption that the chopper pilot is doing something
wrong. (not)
Did you discuss this with the FSDO? (nope)...
Have that discussion and you will add to your knowledge of the FAR's...

Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the
airport in the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e. going
directly at them on base leg? (nope, etc.)
Did you know that choppers are allowed to fly vfr in ifr conditions?
(nope)

As far as Wally World banning cameras, I have one in my jacket 24/7, I
just don't flash it in people's faces, so it has never been
questioned...
Cheers ... Denny

"Denny" writes:

Did you discuss this with the FSDO? (nope)...
Have that discussion and you will add to your knowledge of the FAR's...

Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the airport in
the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e. going directly at them
on base leg? (nope, etc.)

I don't think this is true. It is the case at my home base (Princeton, NJ)
and maybe at yours too, but how could the FARs require this? It would
generally defeat the purpose of any airpot having a right pattern for a given
runway if that just meant rotorcraft were going to fly on the other side.

d.

Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
them


Have a good un...

Denny

Dan Girellini wrote :

"Denny" writes:
Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the
airport in the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e.
going directly at them on base leg? (nope, etc.)

I don't think this is true. It is the case at my home base
(Princeton, NJ) and maybe at yours too, but how could the FARs require
this? It would generally defeat the purpose of any airpot having a
right pattern for a given runway if that just meant rotorcraft were
going to fly on the other side.

Oh! Denny is just making-up regulations again. :-) I thought that
he stopped making them up about a year ago, but he is back at it again.

Here is the regulation that he thinks that he remembers.

Section 91.126: Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow
of fixed-wing aircraft.

An FAA Advisory Circular on the subject states that helicopter pilots
*MAY* fly right-hand patterns if local rules permit.

Bob Moore

wrote in news:1107229443.666426.49330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

snip

field of view. It takes my camera 5 seconds to boot up, then another
few seconds to lock onto a target and snap the photo. I jogged from the
cash registers in the front of the store over to the windows at the
front while my camera was booting. I did not have time to get a second
photo, which I would have done if I could have.

snip

You paid $600 for a camera that takes longer to boot up than Windows and
even longer to process a picture?

You could have gotten one like that for about $150 from... Walmart!