Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2011, 12:08 PM   #16
PEG Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 57,760
Here they get more excited about smoking, probably get shot on the spot.

10-29-2011, 05:25 PM   #17
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,130
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote

I personally have taken photos out on the tarmac here in savannah, in Houston, Atlanta, Washington Dulles, Narita (Tokyo), Seoul, Manila, and more inter-island philippine flights than I can count and have never been stopped or even ‘hurried along’.

I think most people ignore the warnings given, as I see most people turn on and start using their phones before they even get off the plane, actually pretty much as soon as we touch down, and I have never seen anyone in trouble for it.

im not a weekly traveler but I do my fair share, so I see it a lot.

I've even had the airport guards at Cagayan de Oro (Mindanao, Philippines) pose for me with their mirrored sunglasses & shotguns. I had a p&s camera not an SLR. I wasnt game to take their picture without asking if it was OK first, but then they felt they had to pose for me which was not really what I was after. Filipinos are generally very friendly.
10-29-2011, 06:30 PM - 1 Like   #18
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by steve1307 Quote
I've even had the airport guards at Cagayan de Oro (Mindanao, Philippines) pose for me with their mirrored sunglasses & shotguns. I had a p&s camera not an SLR. I wasnt game to take their picture without asking if it was OK first, but then they felt they had to pose for me which was not really what I was after. Filipinos are generally very friendly.
When I'm wandering in Mexico and Central America and I wave a camera around, all sorts of people want to mug for the lens. But somehow I get a little nervous aiming it at guys carrying assault weapons, especially the airport guys with snarling dogs and M16s. The dogs aren't really into posing. Neither are the guys with machetes manning the Zapatista roadblocks. Legal or not, there are times when discretion is the better part of survival.
10-29-2011, 06:33 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
I'll not comment on the "Security Theater of absurd rules" we've saddled ourselves with other than to say the on-site security personnel didn't invent the rules.

I will say however, that the alternative to being individually escorted from the gate to the aircraft is to follow the rules whether they make sense to you or not. Unless you're experienced in working in an aircraft movement area you are truly ignorant* of the hazards and risks encountered there. You definitely don't want to be present when we pick up the pieces of someone that slipped through the safety nets of protective equipment, training and procedures.

You will not be allowed the freedom to make a meaningful image in an airport environment you don't understand. And the snapshots you might take there, which may go to the Delete key or the 'shoe box in the closet' within the week, aren't worth the risk to yourself or the distraction and hazard you present to those who do work there and are responsible for your safety. No one on that ramp is interested in harassing you just to "bump chests and show you who's boss". Certainly not any of us that've seen someone sliced, diced or squashed owing to a moments inattention; and it happens to trained ramp workers all too frequently. That person may only have one nerve to spare at the moment an' you're standin' on it.

You (probably) wouldn't wander across a busy commuter-hour freeway wearing a hoodie and headphones and distracted by texting or taking pictures on your cell phone because you (presumably) aren't ignorant of the risks. It may not seem like it to you, but that ramp is equally hazardous. More so when it's an unfamiliar environment.

Or maybe it was just a hat that got blown off your head by an unexpected gust of jet blast while you dallied on the ramp. It got ingested into a 5-million dollar engine causing a cancelled flight, lots of pissed passengers who blamed the airline and some very expensive maintenance which ended up in your ticket costs.

Please, accept the idea that there just may be a very good reason for an aviation rule you don't see a reason for. And it's probably written in blood. The freedom do do anything carries with it the responsibility to do so with prudence and consideration for its effect on others.

H2

*Def: ignorant = not aware of

However, properly prepared, with due regard for the actual hazards and a well planned exposure . . .




Nevertheless, this was an "ego shot". It didn't NEED to be taken, and probably shouldn't even have been made because it was a distraction from the norm in a hazardous environment and an inconvenience to those that had to accommodate the distraction.

10-29-2011, 11:16 PM   #20
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by steve1307 Quote
I've even had the airport guards at Cagayan de Oro (Mindanao, Philippines) pose for me with their mirrored sunglasses & shotguns. I had a p&s camera not an SLR. I wasnt game to take their picture without asking if it was OK first, but then they felt they had to pose for me which was not really what I was after. Filipinos are generally very friendly.
Indeed they are. I would tend to call 'friendly' an understatement though. At least in all of my experiences they are some of the most friendly and outgoing people I've ever met. A lot more so than the typical American. I'll never understand how the Philippines often gets a bed rep among foreign travellers. I have a few of my own funny security guard stories from my tin spent there and I'm sure I'll have more in the future. But then they are everywhere there so I'm sure it's common.
10-30-2011, 08:49 AM   #21
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
I'll not comment on the "Security Theater of absurd rules" we've saddled ourselves with other than to say the on-site security personnel didn't invent the rules.
The problem is that quite often, the security people are making up the rules as they go along. Possibly not in the instance that has affected the OP, but perhaps you know better?
Which federal law did he break?
Be specific please.
10-30-2011, 09:38 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The problem is that quite often, the security people are making up the rules as they go along. Possibly not in the instance that has affected the OP, but perhaps you know better?
Which federal law did he break?
Be specific please.
Unless he violated specific laws regarding photographing security detalis, as I said at the onset, he probably did not break any laws.

What he may have broken are the rules of either the airlines or airport authority, because to be clear, he is not on public property and as such as to abide by the operator's rules, one of which is not to use personal electronic devices until inside the terminal. He may also have broken posted or expressed rules on restricted access, safety etc, but again these are airport rules not laws.

10-30-2011, 12:05 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The problem is that quite often, the security people are making up the rules as they go along. Possibly not in the instance that has affected the OP, but perhaps you know better? Which federal law did he break? Be specific please.
We've gone off-topic for this thread and nothing I say is directed specifically at the OP. And I'll not defend some of the silly rules about what may, or may not, be photographed with what sort of equipment -- I'm as frustrated as anyone else. My point is the failure to pragmatically appreciate the consequences of ignoring the "rules" can lead to more than personal inconvenience.

As far as I know, No LAW was broken. But that doesn't necessarily mean prudence and common sense were the order of the day or that situational restrictions on inappropriate or dangerous behavior weren't ignored. Again, I'll state that security people don't "make the rules up as they go" and our laws are ultimately enacted by the people WE allow to represents us.

It's possible that what is perceived as enforcing a silly restriction on photography had an entirely different cause; one that you're either ignorant of or choose to ignore. But the public today seems spring-loaded to consider any action of security and law enforcement personnel a personal affront to their dignity and freedom to act as they please.

There isn't time to explain the WHY for each restriction one may encounter in hazardous situations. Unfortunately, the person who transgresses is often not the person who pays the price of their ignorance.

If you're wandering around my restricted area with your head in the up and locked position waving a camera I don't care how innocuous it may seem to you. If I tell you to put the camera away and move out, it's not because I care about the priceless pictures you were about to take. If you later choose to complain that I unnecessarily prevented you from expressing yourself through photography you simply don't GET IT.

Granted, this isn't always the case, but please discriminate between silly rules which you can change if you care enough to fight 'em, and restrictions put in place for reasons you aren't aware of.

H2
10-30-2011, 04:06 PM   #24
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
We've gone off-topic for this thread and nothing I say is directed specifically at the OP. And I'll not defend some of the silly rules about what may, or may not, be photographed with what sort of equipment -- I'm as frustrated as anyone else. My point is the failure to pragmatically appreciate the consequences of ignoring the "rules" can lead to more than personal inconvenience.

As far as I know, No LAW was broken. But that doesn't necessarily mean prudence and common sense were the order of the day or that situational restrictions on inappropriate or dangerous behavior weren't ignored. Again, I'll state that security people don't "make the rules up as they go" and our laws are ultimately enacted by the people WE allow to represents us.

It's possible that what is perceived as enforcing a silly restriction on photography had an entirely different cause; one that you're either ignorant of or choose to ignore. But the public today seems spring-loaded to consider any action of security and law enforcement personnel a personal affront to their dignity and freedom to act as they please.

There isn't time to explain the WHY for each restriction one may encounter in hazardous situations. Unfortunately, the person who transgresses is often not the person who pays the price of their ignorance.

If you're wandering around my restricted area with your head in the up and locked position waving a camera I don't care how innocuous it may seem to you. If I tell you to put the camera away and move out, it's not because I care about the priceless pictures you were about to take. If you later choose to complain that I unnecessarily prevented you from expressing yourself through photography you simply don't GET IT.

Granted, this isn't always the case, but please discriminate between silly rules which you can change if you care enough to fight 'em, and restrictions put in place for reasons you aren't aware of.

H2
The OP was (apparently) told specifically "but one of the officers nearby started shouting that I couldn't take pictures and it was a federal offence" which implies more than some institutional policy in effect at the airport.
If walking across a tarmac is so dangerous that pausing for a moment to take a photograph is risking imperiling life and limb, then there is a functional problem with the airport operations.
If you think security people don't make up rules as they go along, you are woefully ignorant of the present reality.
10-30-2011, 04:23 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,960
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
I'll not comment on the "Security Theater of absurd rules" we've saddled ourselves with other than to say the on-site security personnel didn't invent the rules.

I will say however, that the alternative to being individually escorted from the gate to the aircraft is to follow the rules whether they make sense to you or not. Unless you're experienced in working in an aircraft movement area you are truly ignorant* of the hazards and risks encountered there. You definitely don't want to be present when we pick up the pieces of someone that slipped through the safety nets of protective equipment, training and procedures.

You will not be allowed the freedom to make a meaningful image in an airport environment you don't understand. And the snapshots you might take there, which may go to the Delete key or the 'shoe box in the closet' within the week, aren't worth the risk to yourself or the distraction and hazard you present to those who do work there and are responsible for your safety. No one on that ramp is interested in harassing you just to "bump chests and show you who's boss". Certainly not any of us that've seen someone sliced, diced or squashed owing to a moments inattention; and it happens to trained ramp workers all too frequently. That person may only have one nerve to spare at the moment an' you're standin' on it.

You (probably) wouldn't wander across a busy commuter-hour freeway wearing a hoodie and headphones and distracted by texting or taking pictures on your cell phone because you (presumably) aren't ignorant of the risks. It may not seem like it to you, but that ramp is equally hazardous. More so when it's an unfamiliar environment.

Or maybe it was just a hat that got blown off your head by an unexpected gust of jet blast while you dallied on the ramp. It got ingested into a 5-million dollar engine causing a cancelled flight, lots of pissed passengers who blamed the airline and some very expensive maintenance which ended up in your ticket costs.

Please, accept the idea that there just may be a very good reason for an aviation rule you don't see a reason for. And it's probably written in blood. The freedom do do anything carries with it the responsibility to do so with prudence and consideration for its effect on others.

H2

*Def: ignorant = not aware of

However, properly prepared, with due regard for the actual hazards and a well planned exposure . . .




Nevertheless, this was an "ego shot". It didn't NEED to be taken, and probably shouldn't even have been made because it was a distraction from the norm in a hazardous environment and an inconvenience to those that had to accommodate the distraction.
Fully agree. That is a cool shot of the EA BTW. Approved for public release no doubt.
10-30-2011, 10:11 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The OP was (apparently) told specifically "but one of the officers nearby started shouting that I couldn't take pictures and it was a federal offence" which implies more than some institutional policy in effect at the airport.
Are we to unquestionably accept that that was a true and accurate statement of what transpired? No self-serving or embarrassed spin that's unlikely to be challenged? No chance that it was colored by personal interpretation? If an SO/LEO observed someone breaking a “Federal Law” I’d expect them to handle the matter somewhat differently than just shouting. And normally you won't find a pair of LEO/SOs hangin' around a secure, active ramp embarkation area -- the noise melts their donut icing and they have more useful employment elsewhere anyway.

It isn’t that hard to access the security restrictions at any airport and they’re generally pretty consistent today. If TSA’s involved it isn’t much of a stretch to presume that Federal codes are involved. If that was implied in an imprecise manner to cause someone to cease restricted behavior without taking more drastic action I’d find it not only forgivable, but commendable restraint. Note that state LEO’s are specifically given the authority here to enforce TSA (Federal) codes. (Not always the case: ref immigration laws.)

Media Guidelines

Security
Filming and photographing in the security checkpoint areas is prohibited by the Transportation Security Administration. For security reasons, filming in areas beyond security checkpoints – even if a media representative is a ticketed passenger – must be approved in advance by Massport and the journalist must be escorted by a Massport representative. Massachusetts State Police may arrest any media representative filming security checkpoints area or filming in the secure area without a Massport escort.

Access to areas not available to the general public – such as the airfield, Massport communications operations in the Logan Tower, the Conley Terminal, the Black Falcon Cruise Terminal or dockside when a ship is in port – is granted at the discretion of Massport. Members of the media who are given such access will undergo a criminal background check.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
If walking across a tarmac is so dangerous that pausing for a moment to take a photograph is risking imperiling life and limb, . . .
Who's limbs? Well, 99.99% of the time it might be quite harmless for the photographer. It's that other .01% that makes 'em bleed. But then there's the 100% distraction of those around ya as they anxiously await the lions entry into the arena and the games to begin. Trust me here, I've written the mishap reports.

H2
10-30-2011, 10:45 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dallas / Yucatan
Posts: 1,829
I think a bit of that is over the top.
OP clearly indicated they existed the rear of the aircraft, not the front, and the straggling lines from the aircraft into the terminal buildings are not exactly formed into military precision. In other words, there are all sorts of people struggling along with their roll-aboards, their too large purses, whatnot.

So the guy took a couple photos. So what? I find the finger-wagging, "Obey the man in the uniform" stuff to be far too ready deferral to the massive infringement upon all our rights since the arrival of the full-blown security state.

I understand you want us to be concerned about the fellow's safety, but he didn't state he was running to and fro outside the path to the terminal, yet you seem to assume something along the lines of "He didn't tell the whole story." Frankly, if the penalties were not so severe, I'd be the type to tell the jackboots to shove off. The US Constitution has been shredded in the name of "safety" (from terrorists, I'm saying, not prop wash, not jet intake) and it is most distressing that a dark uniform provides permission for ready abuse at government hands.

How's that for a controversial response? ;-)
10-31-2011, 04:25 AM   #28
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
Are we to unquestionably accept that that was a true and accurate statement of what transpired?
I'm not calling the OP a liar, you apparently are.
QuoteQuote:

It isn’t that hard to access the security restrictions at any airport and they’re generally pretty consistent today. If TSA’s involved it isn’t much of a stretch to presume that Federal codes are involved. If that was implied in an imprecise manner to cause someone to cease restricted behavior without taking more drastic action I’d find it not only forgivable, but commendable restraint. Note that state LEO’s are specifically given the authority here to enforce TSA (Federal) codes. (Not always the case: ref immigration laws.)

Media Guidelines

Security
Filming and photographing in the security checkpoint areas is prohibited by the Transportation Security Administration. For security reasons, filming in areas beyond security checkpoints – even if a media representative is a ticketed passenger – must be approved in advance by Massport and the journalist must be escorted by a Massport representative. Massachusetts State Police may arrest any media representative filming security checkpoints area or filming in the secure area without a Massport escort.

Access to areas not available to the general public – such as the airfield, Massport communications operations in the Logan Tower, the Conley Terminal, the Black Falcon Cruise Terminal or dockside when a ship is in port – is granted at the discretion of Massport. Members of the media who are given such access will undergo a criminal background check.

H2
So on the one hand, you are calling the OP a liar, then on the other, appear to be quoting law (which is all I was asking for a few posts back) that would back up what he was told (except you think he was lying).
10-31-2011, 07:06 AM   #29
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
Chill out folks. There is no reason to start getting personal. Any more insulting posts and thread bans will be issued or the thread will be closed!!!

Mike
PF Moderation Team

Last edited by MRRiley; 10-31-2011 at 07:44 AM.
11-01-2011, 04:32 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,382
Somebody runs/owns the airport. It is not a public place. No mater if you cause a security problem, they can say no.
Some cities today charge money if you want to take professional images of sight seeing spots. Although public, nothing is really opne space...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
photo industry, photography, pictures, plane, tarmac
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal to print images which are not yours? pete_pf Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 55 08-07-2011 06:26 AM
Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist admits to being an Illegal Immigrant MRRiley General Talk 68 07-13-2011 09:07 AM
For Sale - Sold: k100d w/18-55mm, 50-200mm, af 360gz flash, tarmac velocity 7 buckethead Sold Items 3 01-19-2011 06:11 AM
Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal deadwolfbones General Talk 18 09-19-2010 10:51 AM
Selling your pictures to the Media - Plane Crash Hudson and other events ?? vievetrick General Talk 6 01-16-2009 07:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top