If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message k.net... This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be respected in that context. My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport security or you're not..period! Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or passengers - even transients. Lucky. Back before the mandatory photo ID days, I'd routinely fly without photo ID. Most because I'd forget and leave it in the car. Point is, it wasn't required, and I'll ALWAYS get crap for not having ID as a transient. I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United States. Still makes me angry. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message . .. "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message k.net... This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be respected in that context. My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport security or you're not..period! Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid taking pictures? What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash. Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good. That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years. KB Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has been, is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-) I would agree wholeheartedly that the level of security stinks generally in aviation, as is the way it's being implemented. Perhaps this specific instance is a prime example of that, perhaps not. The main point, and the point that you don't want to lose when you start dealing in these specific cases, is that airport security is something you need very much in the United States right now. I couldn't agree with you more that the entire issue needs complete overhaul. Dudley Henriques |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
Hi Andrew;
I totally agree with you on this. Airport security is a mess and needs reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary. Dudley "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message ups.com... Dudley The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare etc.. Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist. Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of an airplane? Come on. I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned off from this whole aviation thing. Dudley Henriques wrote: This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be respected in that context. My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport security or you're not..period! 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. 9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have security or you don't. Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line, or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of everything. Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-)) Dudley Henriques |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
working on a "lax security at the airport story." -- Gene Seibel KB0NNN http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html Because I fly, I envy no one. Kyle Boatright wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message k.net... This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be respected in that context. My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport security or you're not..period! Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid taking pictures? What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash. Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good. That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years. KB |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
Jim Macklin wrote: Years ago I was talking with Bill Sweet [Air Show America] and he told me a story about something that happened to him. He was flying to an air show and stopped for the night and put his plane in a hanger and the operator, a friend of his let him stay over-night in the hanger with his airplane. During the night he said he heard a DC3 taxiing on the airport and looked to see what was going on. He then went back to sleep. The next morning there were more than a dozen airplanes sitting on the ramp, firewall forward missing and the avionics were all taken. Later the DC3 was caught and they had rigged a canvas and chain hoist on a rail out the door. They'd taxi near a Bonanza or C210 and if the couldn't steal the airplane, they'd use power saws or cutting torches to remove the parts they wanted. Drug smugglers, plain thieves, and terrorists all want your airplane. But we need to still be able to have airport kids, lookers, and future students feel welcome.The major airports have bigger budgets and more threats. Should we all carry a dozen official government ID cards? I hope not. But a digital camera [or Polaroid] can take a picture of the people who are allowed on the ramp. It is just security, everybody on the ramp needs to be escorted or instructed in safety around airplanes, prop/jet blast, danger zones for props and rotors, nothing will get your airport closed faster than a headline, Toddler Killed by Private Plane's Propeller. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P I visited a friend (in New England) at a large county (but uncontroled) airport, with a small regular commuter airline, and parked my plane on the ramp. During the visit he gave me one of his old high powered deer rifles as a present. When I went back to the plane I walked right through the terminal with it and out to my plane. Started up and left. No one gave me a second look. I laughed about it most of the way home. Jim |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
In article ,
Emily wrote: I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United States. Still makes me angry. Cannot remember where I have seen it, but, as of sometime ago, post 9/11... if you are flying, you are required by regulation to carry your pilot's certificate and a government issued photo id. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
Emily wrote:
I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United States. Well - if a police officer has "reasonable suspicion"[1] that you committed a crime and the jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" statute[2] then you must present identification or face arrest. That providing identification is rarely relevant to establishing whether a person has in fact committed a crime appears itself to be irrelevant as judged by the Supreme Court of the U.S.[3] Go figure. There are "stop and identify" statutes in many states, and the reference in [2] below has a section titled "How to satisfy the minimum required duties" that provides some suggestions on how one might maximize ones rights if faced with such a situation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_...ourt_of_Nevada |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why GA is Dying
My two cents on the issue. There's one problem with taking pictures of
airplanes that I've heard of: I came across this account about a year ago, a guy would go to a local airport, take pictures of some GA aircraft sitting on the ramp, and then try and sell some parts from them on e-bay. I haven't followed up on the case, and on what happened to the guy in the end, but I've heard from someone who was just taking pictures at one of these airports, and was approached by the FBO guys who were pretty ****ed, and it turned out that they've got some FBI investigation going on etc. Andrey Andrew Sarangan wrote: Dudley The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare etc.. Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist. Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of an airplane? Come on. I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned off from this whole aviation thing. Dudley Henriques wrote: This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be respected in that context. My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport security or you're not..period! 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. 9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have security or you don't. Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line, or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of everything. Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-)) Dudley Henriques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |