|
Ramp shots-airport staff stopping you
Had a couple of encounters over the years in the UK from Swissport rampies to despatchers rushing up and breathlessly announcing I am not permitted to take a photo of the plane I am getting on or off.
Is there a legal prohibition? I know staff can have a "no photos" clause as part of their contract which I suspect drives the confusion. If I refuse to delete an image taken, what happens next? This is the instagram generation after all. |
all depends on where you took the photos if you were on public ground then you are safe if you took the shot on the ramp (i.e airport property) then you must follow all instructions on what you can and can not. It's up to the land owner if you can or can not take photos, if they say, no then it's not permitted if you take the shot and then get told to delete the shot that's where it's a gray area. your best course of action is ask first and then if granted take the shot, if told not to then you will need to put the camera away.
This guidance relates to Uk only. Hope his helps. |
Do you have a link?
|
|
Photographers Rights: the ultimate guide | TechRadar
Scroll down to the public transport / planes section. Technically it's fairly clearcut in that you require permission to take photographs when on private property. If the airport owner, or an agent acting for them, asks you to stop, you're committing trespass. I assume most airports are owned privately, although interestingly if it were owned by a council / local authority, would that count as local taxpayer's land? And would a local taxpayer be a part-owner?! (shades of the classic David Gunson "self-employed civil servant" theory!!!) |
Speaking as a ground pleb myself, the issue is more about using personal electronic devices within the aircraft footprint (which is forbidden) rather than the actual photo itself.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP748.PDF 2 Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) 2.1 There are three primary risks associated with the use of PEDs in the vicinity of aircraft: Fire, Distraction, and Aircraft System Interference. 2.1.1 Fire: The risk of a PED creating or inducing a spark of sufficient intensity to ignite fuel vapour released during fuelling is extremely remote under normal circumstances. However, licensees should be aware of the proliferation of below-specification mobile telephone batteries that have the potential to fail dangerously. It is not known whether such a failure would be of sufficient magnitude to ignite a fuel/ air mixture, but licensees should be aware that such a possibility exists. It is recommended that they consider the circumstances under which such an event might occur on the apron, and mitigate the associated risks accordingly. 2.1.2 Distraction: The known potential for a PED user to be distracted presents three associated risks: a) physical contact with the aircraft by the distracted PED user could cause damage or injury; b) equipment being operated by a distracted PED user could cause damage to an aircraft; and c) PED users, distracted while performing essential safety related tasks, could leave those tasks incomplete or unattended. NOTE: Licensees should be aware that the hazards at 2.1.2b) and 2.1.2c) above are associated with actions or inactions by apron staff, and carry the potential for the effect to be concealed until a stage of flight where the safety of the aircraft could be compromised. 2.1.3 Aircraft System Interference: Reports have been received that the use of PEDs close to modern aircraft can interfere with fuel gauges, some navigation equipment, and can cause spurious fire warnings in cargo/baggage holds. Such interference could contribute to the risks associated with any of the following: a) an overweight take-off due to excessive fuel; b) a flight with insufficient fuel; c) navigational errors; and d) a degradation of confidence in the aircraft fire warning system. 2.2 Licensees should prohibit the use of PEDs on the apron area, or should restrict their use to clearly defined and promulgated circumstances that mitigate the risks associated with their use. These mitigations should be considered against the volatility of the fuel type involved, the proximity of vehicle and aircraft vents, the circumstances under which they may be operated, the category of the hazard, and the provision of an alternative non-interfering communication system. Passengers boarding or disembarking the aircraft should be discouraged from using PEDs when outside, but in the vicinity of, the aircraft If I refuse to delete an image taken, what happens next? |
Originally Posted by NudgingSteel
(Post 9762835)
If the airport owner, or an agent acting for them, asks you to stop, you're committing trespass.
Originally Posted by 750XL
(Post 9763014)
Speaking as a ground pleb myself, the issue is more about using personal electronic devices within the aircraft footprint
And even on board, it's arguable whether a camera (as opposed to a phone with a camera) counts as a PED. I can't find any trace of electronics in my Box Brownie. :O |
Surely, it's going to vary where you are in the world. Remember the British spotters in Dubai https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ecurity-claims and Greece https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ecurity-claims?
You might think some places are OK and others obviously "dodgy". At least you might think so. However, here's a thought for you. At the Reno Air Races and also Oshkosh photography is fine. Wander among all sorts of planes, including military, with few, if any, barriers and take as many photos as you want. Then I go and sit in a US airport lounge, take a picture of a Beech 1900 that pulls up in front of me and the co-pilot appears in due course to ask me what I was doing; he was friendly but it was a warning. |
Back in the good old days we as cabin crew would announce that "photography is strictly prohibited at......." But then there were no smart. Many civil airports double up as military bases as well, hence the ban.
I guess the answer is depends on where you are, whose around to say no or whose back is turned while you get a sneaky shot. |
DaveReidUK
Quote: Originally Posted by NudgingSteel View Post If the airport owner, or an agent acting for them, asks you to stop, you're committing trespass. You're trespassing if you don't stop, you mean. |
Well not the OP's issue, he was specifically talking about taking photos on the apron. Even if he was 20m or so away, using your camera there gives the impression it's OK to do so and leads to people using cameras elsewhere... Possibly within 3m of the fuel vents. |
OK thanks guys! UK view :
So airport well within their rights to ask you to stop, refusal can have you denied boarding or escorted off premises. No right to have data wiped in normal circumstances. btw I see people taking photos every day when I have to board via steps. Instagram is full of them and airlines love the PR and social media footprint this brings. Thus far no one has managed to make an aerplane explode by using an SLR within 3m of a fuel vent. |
Do most airports, even ones owned by councils/governments, not have specific by-laws applicable to them, meaning that even if they are "publically owned land" then there is still a right for them to be specifically singled out for different rules? I know at EDI the local by-laws applying to the airport are posted at the foot of most gate stairwells under the titled "welcome to Edinburgh Airport".
That said, I personally rarely take photos on the ramp. In Russia (VVO) and Belarus (MSQ) there were big signs in the terminal saying not to take photos out of the window overlooking the apron/ramp. I got told off in Minsk for taking a picture of a TU154 I saw taxiing past. Yet in other parts of Europe I've never had a problem. In HAV and FNJ I was practically forced TO take photos by the ground staff. |
edi local, the fact is there are no hard and fast rules. Some do and some don't. It can be because of local law or bye-laws, military or other security sensitive reasons. Sometimes it can be due to the ignorance of airport personnel and even police! You can happily photograph all day at an airport with multiple patrols passing by and waving at you one day, and being asked to stop and move on another day simply because of which watch is on duty on a particular day. It is quite evident to most that some countries will obviously be more sensitive than others and enthusiasts should factor this in. Unfortunately (for them) some don't.
On the subject of ramp photography, some years back, arriving on a remote stand at BHX with my young grandson, I took a quick shot of him as he came down the steps and got yelled at by a very officious female. I apologised and moved on. I had my photo anyway! |
Speaking from personal experience I'd say that as long as you're not causing any problems taking a photo and don't hang around for too 90% of airport staff wouldn't bat an eyelid, I know I wouldn't.
|
From past experience the issue was what else you might have in your photo in addition to any aeroplane. It used to be a concern that you might have Customs staff or security staff in the photos, and they for good reason do not wish to be photographed.
These days I imagine that there is a wish to deny those who are not well meaning from being able to photograph security sensitive parts of the operation under the guise of taking a photo of the aeroplane you have just flown on. It isn't a new issue. Back in the 1980's I worked airside and had to get a letter from the Airport Authorities to allow me to take photos airside. It was made very clear what I could and could not take photos of, and also that they could not be sold on for commercial gain. |
Though unlikely, you could find yourself offloaded from the flight if you fail to comply with reasonable safety requests. 9 times out of 10 the captain would dispatcher on the decision to offload. |
Colleagues working on the ground at LHR had to get a special permission letter to take photographs airside, for personal use. Commercial use requires some sort of licence/permit with HAL...
I'm sure there is something in the airport by laws covering this too. Particularly sensitive areas are baggage make-up and baggage reclaim. Not particularly sure why, but I'm sure we've all spotted the signs whilst waiting at baggage reclaim which have the 'no photos' image on them. :cool: |
Particularly sensitive areas are baggage make-up and baggage reclaim. Not particularly sure why, but I'm sure we've all spotted the signs whilst waiting at baggage reclaim which have the 'no photos' image on them I was challenged by security in the EKHQ MSCP a few years ago for taking a picture of DXB airport but should've known better. Heard a Cabin Manager on a Eurowings flight recently interrupt the safety brief to tell a woman in 10C to stop "making photographs of the crew" and noticed at LCY last week that there is an announcement accompanying the pre-boarding PA at the gate informing passengers that photography between the terminal and the aircraft is forbidden (or words to that effect). Hartington Then I go and sit in a US airport lounge, take a picture of a Beech 1900 that pulls up in front of me and the co-pilot appears in due course to ask me what I was doing; he was friendly but it was a warning. |
Photography and local/central government are not good bed fellows. They'll cite security, elf'n'safety, child protection "issues", invasion of privacy and anything else to provent members of the public collecting any information that could be used against them. All bollocks and truly pathetic. Of course, when "Jobsworths Johnny" tells you to delete the pictures, do so. Then lock your card and later use a programme like Card Raider to un-delete them.
PM |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.