No photos on the Tarmac

[teresa green]

Lump em in with those nazis that control the pickup and drop outside the airport. I have photos taken around the world that would make the average security guard go white. What a load of tosh.

[beebo]

I used to fly scenics from AYQ a few years back.
You'd think the security team there was protecting a gold mine. The funny thing was, the fence was set on one side only...walk a few hundred metres into the desert, and bob's your uncle, un-restricted access back in!!
Shame about the QF ground-staff, I always found them pleasant enough.

[Ultradragorippe]

Australian Regulations

I know this is a VERY late reply but in Australia it is in fact illegal and goes against government regulations to use phones and other personal devices on the tarmac.

[Icarus2001]

Have you got a reference for that “regulation”?

[tail wheel]

Interesting requirement at Sydney. https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/cor...nd-photography

They do not quote any legislation or regulation regarding photography. I would suggest that if Sydney Airport have the discretionary power to authorise photography, there is no Government legislation of regulation prohibiting photography.

The case may be different at military airports.

[Lead Balloon]

I thought the ‘rule’ was no electronic devices on the tarmac near aircraft being refuelled. Maybe that’s morphed into folklore about no photography. (As you say, there are different laws about photographing military facilities.)

[43Inches]

My take on the rules now is to stop the walking zombies who talk, text and cant put their phone down for 5 minutes. There is the refueling aspect, but also the distraction part where they walk blindly into danger. I've no problem with pictures being taken, but some go charging out of line to take the pic away from the marked walkways. Eventually somebody will get hit by ground equipment ingested or chopped up by an engine if its allowed without control.

[Lapon]

I too have wondered this for years after seeing the militant enforcement by ground staff at some Australian ports.

I've never found a proper reference and it sounds like an internal policy spreading and becoming 'law'.
I've worked overseas where the no devices on the apron thingy was to stop people mindlessly wandering into something big and hurty while distracted but thats the extent of it.

[compressor stall]

For Oz Military airports (DN, LM, etc)

Defence Act 1903
Section 82 (1) If:

(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part of one; and

(b) the person has no lawful authority to do so;

then:
(c) the person commits an offence; and
(d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings, and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(1A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is imprisonment for 6 months or a fine of 2 penalty units, or both.

For Civvy Airports
I have never seen a law in the CASRs or Transport Security Regs re photography at civvy airports. That will be up to the airport operator to determine and, as postulated above, is likely to ensure pundits stay on the straight line to the aircraft.

For those referring to Cabin Crew/ airline ground staff having no authority outside of the aircraft, may I remind you of the OPERATOR'S obligations under CASR 121.215 and 135.200.

​​​​​​​Procedures for safety at aerodromes
An aeroplane operator's exposition must include procedures to ensure the safety of persons in the vicinity of an aeroplane when any of the following circumstances apply: (a) a person is embarking or disembarking the aeroplane;

(b) a passenger is embarking or disembarking, or on board, the aeroplane while an engine of the aeroplane is operating but the aeroplane is not being flown or fuelled;

(c) the aeroplane is being loaded or unloaded;

(d) the aeroplane is being operated at an aerodrome.

---------
An airline employee absolutely has the authority to tell you not to stray off the line and if their manual determines that the taking of photographs cannot ensure the safety of passengers, then the airline rep has the right to tell you to stop.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by tail wheel

Interesting requirement at Sydney. https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/cor...nd-photography

They do not quote any legislation or regulation regarding photography. I would suggest that if Sydney Airport have the discretionary power to authorise photography, there is no Government legislation of regulation prohibiting photography.

The case may be different at military airports.

I can't quote the rules by chapter, but there are rules governing places at Sydney airport, like customs, border control and other sensitive areas. I would say photography of things that would be including security check points, access points, and so on would be a big no-no.

PAs have now changed as well to say that no PED is to be used while on the tarmac, which suggests its more about distraction now than explosive risks. I guess if it's an old mechanical Camera/SLR taking the pictures you are absolutely fine.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by tail wheel

Interesting requirement at Sydney. https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/cor...nd-photography

They do not quote any legislation or regulation regarding photography. I would suggest that if Sydney Airport have the discretionary power to authorise photography, there is no Government legislation of regulation prohibiting photography.

The case may be different at military airports.

At least part of this would turn on whether an airport is deemed to be a public space or private property. I suspect that there's a view that, like a shopping centre, it is private property that is open to the public pursuant to terms and conditions of entry. If so, said Ts&Cs should be posted at the entrance.

[43Inches]

For those referring to Cabin Crew/ airline ground staff having no authority outside of the aircraft, may I remind you of the OPERATOR'S obligations under CASR 121.215 and 135.200.

The difference being that the powers of the PIC to authorize crew to physically stop a person from doing something wrong are no longer applicable outside the aircraft. That is airline staff can tell someone to stop, actually physically interfering with them is another thing that needs to be explored further. It starts getting into the realm of shops where as staff you will usually be fired if you physically remove somebody from the store, even if they are being a threat to the store and it's customers. It may come down to all you can do is verbally warn them, if non compliant you can report them to CASA/Feds/Police. Then the legal professionals will make an assessment of whether they should be fined/charged or such. I assume use of force to stop somebody would come down to the nature of threat they posed to others or themselves.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by compressor stall

...

For those referring to Cabin Crew/ airline ground staff having no authority outside of the aircraft, may I remind you of the OPERATOR'S obligations under CASR 121.215 and 135.200.

---------
An airline employee absolutely has the authority to tell you not to stray off the line and if their manual determines that the taking of photographs cannot ensure the safety of passengers, then the airline rep has the right to tell you to stop.

The imposition of an obligation on operators to have procedures is not the same as conferral of power on the operator's personnel to enforce those procedures.

I can tell anyone I like, anywhere I like, to stop doing something. Whether anyone is obliged to comply with what I tell them to do, and the basis of that obligation, are different questions.

I suspect Mick is closer to the mark. A condition of entry onto (leased) premises - like the tarmac of 'privatised' airports - is compliance with reasonable conditions and directions for the safety of people and operations.

[43Inches]

I suspect Mick is closer to the mark. A condition of entry onto (leased) premises - like the tarmac of 'privatised' airports - is compliance with reasonable conditions and directions for the safety of people and operations.

I agree with it, however it still does not allow anyone other than authorized persons to remove somebody from the premises, or physically force them to comply, unless the law provides for that. Which I doubt staff would have the powers to remove somebody that's just taking pictures. They can ask them to stop, leave the area or block passage, entry, but apart from that they would have to probably call the police/Feds/PSOs to remove them if they refused to budge.

I suppose the difference in the air vs the ground is that if somebody is refusing to comply in the air the PIC can authorize that the offending object be removed from the passenger and stowed safely if it posed a risk, even arresting and detaining the passenger if they refuse and become a threat. On the tarmac that would be difficult to authorize as there is no release saying you can do it.

[compressor stall]

LB and 43. I was careful in that I said for that reg the employee may have the company authority (likely linked to t&c on ticket) to tell you to stop as opposed to make you stop.

[43Inches]

I do know of at least one person who regretted not complying with instructions to stop taking photographs. From memory it resulted in a $2400 fine for not following crew instructions, it was on board an aircraft though.

LB and 43. I was careful in that I said for that reg the employee may have the company authority (likely linked to t&c on ticket) to tell you to stop as opposed to make you stop.

My comments were in general not aimed at you in particular. As some can read this and think authority gives you the right to remove people, not just tell them. A lot of Bouncers get caught up in these debates, usually ending up with criminal charges. I know two retail assistants that were sacked for manhandling an ice addict out of their store who was abusing customers. The shop owners said they should have called police and waited, it went to fairwork and they agreed with the owners.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Originally Posted by QF skywalker

The Anangu people request that you do not take pictures of Uluru or enter the area. When disembarking the first thing people do is take a picture from the airstairs or tarmac, the QF staff are simply being respectful by obliging the request of the locals, if they didn't then imagine the uproar.

It’s a rock, part of the landscape. I’ll happily not take pictures of people out of respect of their privacy, but will take pics of my country.

[Icarus2001]

[morno]

Farrr out, only in Australia could we complicate the situation of someone taking a photo so much!

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by morno

Farrr out, only in Australia could we complicate the situation of someone taking a photo so much!

Yep, overseas you simply get roughed up, thrown in jail for espionage, and forgotten about. I think the key wording was "out of respect", not banned from doing it, so were people being told not to take photos, or being asked nicely not to.

I can think of several overseas countries where you want to be very careful about what you take photos of.