Photographing aircraft

[ATIS31]

Hi All
Just wondered what peoples thoughts were on taking Pictures of Aircraft whilst waiting in Departure lounge ? I was tackled while I was waiting for my Flight. I took a picture of a Flybe Plane on Stand. I know there are issues with security but I don't Think I look like a Terrorist !:eek: I have seen Pictures on net of Aircraft and also videos on Youtube. I felt embarrased in front of everyone after I was approached which later turned to annoyance there was not any signs saying no photos to be taken
Any thoughts ?:*

[Intruder]

I can't think of a place where picture-taking is prohibited in the departure lounge.

If there were no signs, I would ask the person who "tackled" you to provide documentation of the prohibition.

[Mike Tee]

If you want to travel I would be very careful about confronting "any" airport staff regarding their interpretations of security rules or when they should be applied. A couple of years ago after an argument at the carry on baggage X-Ray station (due to extremely heavy handed and rough handling of my bag) I litterly had to back off and apologise as the scrote responsible called over his buddies who ganged up on us in a disgraceful manner, had everything out of our carry on bags, full body frisk, belts and shoes off etc, all very intimidating and clearly designed as a "show of force" to show just who is in charge. "Liverpool John Lennon"

[Exascot]

I can't think of a place where picture-taking is prohibited in the departure lounge

A combined civilian and military airfield in some countries. I wouldn't try it in Greece unless you like prison food :yuk: (so I understand)

[Hotel Tango]

You don't say where this was. Be aware that in some countries photography is not permitted at airports at all, particularly if they are a joint military and civil operation. It can also happen in the UK. I recently got bollocked in BHX by a member of the ground staff for taking a (quick) photo of my 6yr old grandson after deplaning the Dash-8 we had just arrived on. Having worked in aviation for 42 years or so I was quite surprised. Perhaps she was technically correct, I honestly don't know, but it was such an innocent act [grandfather takes photo of grandson]. No we were not impeding anyones movement and neither were we out of bounds. It was a 5 second snap shot.

[Piltdown Man]

The security system in the UK is one of the worst there is. Each and every airport has pages of worthless rules enforced by humourless, wretched "jobsworths." Their job is to pick up where Osama left off and make our our lives unpleasant. Your immediate response should be a "Yes sir, of course, how stupid of me!" and comply. The next step is to complain to your MP and the Minister for Transport - it's his bunch of morons who dream up this sh1te.

PM

[Capetonian]

I am pretty sure that there is a blanket restriction on taking photographs at airports and railways stations in many countries, Saudi Arabia for a start, in the old days most of Eastern/Central Europe and I believe it still applies in some.

I was very roughly handled at Mendoza (Argentina) when, from the baggage hall, I took a photo of the aircraft we had just flown in on, with the Cordillera in the background. A uniformed (and uninformed!) official came over to me and started yelling at me in Spanish to hand over my camera. When I calmly and politely asked, in Spanish, why, he grabbed it out of my hand, hurting me as the wrist-strap was round my wrist, and flung it to the ground. I made a formal complaint to the airline (just for record purposes) to the airport management and to the Administracion Nacional de Aviacion Civil in Argentina.

I was treated with compassion and within a week they settled for the value of a replacement camera and $1000 for 'suffering and loss of amenity' which I'd claimed. All I really wanted was for that nasty piece of work to be given a kicking and lose his job.

This was obviously not a problem!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7593647/SCL.JPG

[WHBM]

There have been millions of photographs of aircraft straightforwardly taken over time, and of course a good number of these end up in books and magazines which the W H Smith behind the gate will be more than happy to sell to you.

On the other hand I have never heard of any police raid of terrorist's houses where they found stocks of photographs of aircraft.

Therefore the security staff appear to have this the wrong way round. It should be those who are NOT taking photographs who should be challenged. "You are patently not aviation enthusiasts, Mr and Mrs Traveller, therefore you must be against aviation and all it stands for. An obvious terrorist. Hands Up !"

[akerosid]

I don't think anything is achieved by writing to a govt minister; however, I do think there is something to be said for identifying companies whose employees take a heavy handed approach to aircraft photography. Granted, if you take photos in a place where there are clear "no photography" signs (and the only place you'll see these is the security check area), you're asking for trouble, but if you're approached in the departure lounge, politely ask what the basis for their objection; is it rules, gut feeling or what? If it's rules or legislation, ask them to cite it and give you a copy (there's no legal basis in the UK anyway).

If they threaten to take your camera away, or make you delete the film, say that you'll have to hold on to it as evidence and destroying evidence IS a criminal offence. And take their names.

Personally, I believe that a hostile approach to aircraft photography is prima facie evidence of an airport not really being focused on the root causes of terrorism; it shows security people and airport authorities/security firms wanting to create an impression only. They are the biggest fellow travellers of terrorists. Show me a bullying thug who takes away your film and I'll show you someone who hasn't got a dog's chance of stopping a terrorist attack. Terrorists are evil, not stupid. Bullying thugs are just the type of people they need to help their plans to fruition.

[Capetonian]

akerosid : Excellent post. This should be included in training material for airport 'security' operators.

[Martin the Martian]

I'll second that.

[Skipness One Echo]

All staff are trained to be on the lookout for suspicious behaviour. Now in the UK aviation photography, aircraft spotting and trainspotting are known eccentricities if you like. Many of the airside staff at UK airports are from countries and cultures where this is unknown and consequently don't like it.

I was airside at Gatwick recently and had an unusual full frame shot of a Virgin B744 on Stand 13 from the empty bussing gate when someone from Menzies came over and asked to see my ID. I explained I wasn't about to do any such thing as we weren't quite living in a Police state and he ought to stop over reacting. His superior came over and asked what I was doing, I explained I just wanted a photo of the aircraft at which point she asked me to wait while she phoned security.

I waited fuming for a moment as she dialled Gatwick Security who are a little more switched on and decided not to send a squad down to investigate further.....bless them.

It will happen on occasion, just politely don't back down, remind them it's a free country we live in and to be a little more tolerant. That last word works wonders. Photography for commercial purposes is not allowed on site but for personal use, I am sure it's either permitted or never been enforced. Should a real belief arise you are up to mischief then perhaps the Police might take an interest. I seem to recall that photography on the ramp is strictly prohibited for staff and now and again my record random ramp shot of the aircraft involves someone screaming, an implication that I am a terrorist and me feigning ignorance and apologising.....

Smaller airports tend to me more friendly if you smile like a tourist as you take a shot of the aircraft. Usually works.

[AndoniP]

I tried to take a photo of one of the newer CY A320s in the departure lounge at Larnaca Airport a few weeks ago. The lady there told me it "was proheebeeteed" even though I'd been taking photos for a while. Instead of arguing I just walked off, there's no real point in trying to argue in foreign countries, the jobsworths might just stop you from boarding :suspect:

[Evanelpus]

I was airside at Gatwick recently and had an unusual full frame shot of a Virgin B744 on Stand 13 from the empty bussing gate when someone from Menzies came over and asked to see my ID. I explained I wasn't about to do any such thing as we weren't quite living in a Police state and he ought to stop over reacting. His superior came over and asked what I was doing, I explained I just wanted a photo of the aircraft at which point she asked me to wait while she phoned security

What a jobsworth!

I would have politely suggested an operation, whereby she could have had her eyelid surgically removed from her inner rectum to reduce the sh**ty outlook she had on life.

It's not so bad here but in places like Greece and Turkey, popular holiday destinations for us Brits, it can be a nightmare. Use common sense and comply with any signs would be my only advice.

[ATNotts]

I seem to recall there are signs all over East Midlands Airport making it clear that you are forbidden to take pictures in the terminal. Why I simply cannot imagine, but I would think that taking a picture through the window out onto the ramp would be construed at "taking a picture in the terminal" so the local gestapo could be expected to pounce on anyone doing so like a tonne of brick!.

As someone else said, there's no point in writing to your MP. They might be sympathetic, but the response you'll get from the goverment minister is to trot out the UK's mantra "security is paramount"!

Wonderful to live in such a free country (not)!

[MerchantVenturer]

I was pulled up for taking some video shots of an aircraft on the apron from inside the departure area (airside) of a UK regional airport two years before September 2001.

An airport security officer and a plain-clothed police officer (from the local Special Branch stationed at the airport) approached me and told me what I was doing was not permitted - there weren't any prohibition notices exhibited.

We had a civilised conversation and I played back to them what I had taken (at my suggestion, not theirs).

I also pointed out that I could have obtained the same shots from the public road alongside the apron, albeit from a different angle and from further away though I had a 20x optical zoom even in those days.

They agreed this was the case but said they were concerned that anyone filming inside that part of the departure area could also take shots of the security area.

There was no point in my pursuing the matter further - we parted on good terms.

I think that's an important point - never argue or lose your temper in such circumstances as there will be only one winner, at least on the day.

[lplsprog]

Myself and collegues have taken several parties on tours of LPL and the only restriction we impose on photography is in the security areas, were I might add there are notices to that effect. I used to be on security and have never been told there is a photographic restriction on any part of the airport but security. There is a general rule to always be observant towards unusual practices but unless you are really acting suspiciously I do not understand why these people have been approached. Could be someone too full of his/her own importance!

[JSCL]

I've wandered around Manchester T2 checking in hall and the sky bridges with a camera and including aircraft without being pulled up.

Managed to accumulate a great piece of video for the BBC - Manchester didn't say a word. This was a few months ago.

[Skipness One Echo]

Fliming in the security area is I assume barred so people can't wotk out how to get around the security. Worrying that they think we might be able to?

[JSCL]

Filming in security is allowed, but typically requires a personnel at the airport to escort you through.

[Hotel Tango]

Could be someone too full of his/her own importance!

Unfortunately that - and pure & simple ignorance - is more often than not the case.

[750XL]

I think common sense needs to be applied in situations like this :ooh:

As an aircraft photographer myself I can see why people would want to take pics airside at airports so I have very rarely ever said anything to people at work I've seen taking pics in the terminal or the apron.

I regularly deal with football charter flights which get parked on remote. Try telling 300+ German football fans on a day out to watch their team play arguably one of the best teams in the world and probably the highlight of their year, that they cannot take photos while de-boarding / boarding the aircraft :ooh:

On a few rare occasions I've had a few passengers who seem to think they are within their right to go wondering off the designed pax paths to get a 'nose on' shot of the aircraft, and even once try to sit their kid in the engine for a photo!

However, the airport I work at is very spotter friendly so I see little point in stopping someone taking a pic of a plane surrounded by service vehicles, while being surrounded by a few hundred other pax when 2 miles across the apron you can walk above fence height only a few hundred yards from planes landing and taking off.

[B314]

Several years ago I was at London City Airport’s car park which affords a perfect view of the runway. After a short while I was approached by a policeman who asked me politely if I was aware that I was in fact filming on private property? He also requested that I did not film inside the terminal as the owners would get upset as permission has to be sought for any filming. I was aware of that but presumed it related to inside the terminal building as such and not the car park, but as they own all of it.......

He took my details in the event that in that should an incident occur I may have caught something useful on camera and tactfully suggested that I could film across the dock at a public location where incidentally I wouldn’t have to pay the car parking fee. Unfortunately the sun was shining towards the camera at that location so I gave it up. I wondered afterwards if a politely written request to the airport might have granted me permission but somehow I guess either some form of payment might have been required or else I’d have been denied a “pass” lest the word got out and hordes of video cameras would be there within weeks!

[Danger Banglington]

Wouldnt anyone with terrorism intent dress like a westerner and use a family to take recon photos?
Easiest way to prevent this, just stop everyone taking photo's.

[Hotel Tango]

Wouldnt anyone with terrorism intent dress like a westerner and use a family to take recon photos? Easiest way to prevent this, just stop everyone taking photo's.

Love your sense of humour DB. You are joking aren't you? :hmm:

[Skipness One Echo]

London City airport suffers from being a small location so you get noticed easily and the Police get bored. VERY bored and a any spotter can get their undivided attention, guns and all. However the new ceiling in the Terminal does mean that your first view of the interior is no longer two men with machines guns parked at the top of the stairs though, I always found that menacing and in no way a detterent to Islamic terrorists who are willing to die....

There is a good photo option at the 27 threshold if a little under the aircraft or wait 'til the sun swings round and try the dock on the other side which is public but patrolled by a different set of plod who are equally excitable on occasion. Though as spotting becomes more common it's calmed down a bit

[B314]

Thanks SOE, the machine gun officers were the very first thing I noticed when I first visited the building. I suppose the other thing that aroused attention was the very small ulmost unrecognisable camcorder sitting on a rather large video tripod! Probably expected something much more professionally sized!