Very Recent JFK Incident at T6 Parking Lot

Couple more things I wanted to mention, and I apologize for the somewhat disjointed writing. It's tough to organize this clearly.

Regarding my earlier post about the blurb on the PA website about photography, I realize that it is likely posted with respect to commercial photography and the media, but my point was that it is the only place I've seen the PA publish anything about photography and video anywhere, and I'm sure they'll try to leverage it somehow given the chance.

But let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

The issue with being on public property for any reason other than having official business has come up before in several court cases, including one going back to 1992 involving the PA. The issue is that even though a government-owned (city, state, federal) or operated airport is public property, there may be limitations depending to what extent the property has been deemed a public forum. In other words, not all public property is freely accessible at all times.

For example, public schools are public property, but generally forbid anyone from being there unless they are a student, parent, guardian, faculty, or otherwise authorized to be there. Courthouses are public buildings, but have restrictions on photography in certain areas. Military installations are on public land, but generally forbid photography at all times.

I made mention in my earlier post of the distinction between land-side airport property (i.e. streets, parking lots, sidewalks, etc.) and the actual terminals. As soon as you step foot inside a terminal, your rights change. Your rights are definitely strongest while you are land-side (parking lot, street, sidewalk, etc) because those areas are generally unrestricted to the public. But while you may have a strong defense if you get hassled in the parking lot, terminals are more restrictive in the sense of no longer being a completely open public forum. Although the terminal buildings at PA airports are technically owned by the PA and considered public buildings, they are operated by individual airlines and/or private companies, so your rights inside them are no longer as free as being completely public. In that case, you can be asked to leave if you aren't there for a legitimate travel or business reason. I don't want to mention the TSA here, because when TSA incidents are mentioned, generally they involve passengers who are in the terminal presumably to travel anyway.

There's another issue at play here, in that while the property might be managed by the PA, once you step or point your camera air-side (and someone correct me on this if I'm wrong) but you are then also under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The FAA has clearly stated that it has no rules banning photography.

So to confuse legal matters more, you are standing on public city property managed by a local government agency while you are taking photographs of aircraft under jurisdiction of the FAA. So while you are free to photograph aircraft to your heart's content from land-side, the PA still discourages it, yet you are standing on land that is generally considered a public forum.

My guess is that if the PA ever goes on record to ban non-traveling or non-essential public (i.e. persons who have no business being at an airport other than travel, employment or legitimate business) on its property entirely (photography or not) or tries to enforce all airport property as having limited public access, it may face First Amendment civil action. That may be why there is no "official" stance, even though it might be strongly discouraged.

Hate to say it, but I think one of the best ways to clear up the issue of photographing (or just watching planes) on airport property is to get an attorney to contact the PA's legal department and get something official. Unfortunately, failing that, the only other way this will happen, as someone mentioned earlier, is when a civil suit is brought on the PA and/or NYC.

References:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...ublic-property

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-155.ZS.html

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ad.main/40870/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

Nick, I remember you had said a lot of this in the past and I understand your reasoning. Problem is, you can't lose what you don't got. We never 'had' the parking garages, it has always been a toss-up, with most of the interactions going better than what was recounted in this thread. And even if the PA were to see Phil's letter and decide to 'respond' with 'photography will no longer be tolerated on airport property', that's already in their rulebook anyway(see the earlier post referencing it), it's just that it's being selectively enforced.

---

All I saw was some innuendo from some email. Does an environment exist in which they would rather try to run us off than deal with tons of phone calls? Probably but I am sure NCPD had the same and they have handled it differently haven't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

It's upsetting that you see Phil's actions as foolish, because the way I see it, the PA has no right to treat people with disrespect like that. I don't give a good damn who they think they are, that is UNACCEPTABLE, whether you're spotting or not

---

No law enforcement agency does. Unfortunately they are human beings like us. Take a hundred of them and you will have one who will cross lines. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

It's offensive to even consider not taking a stance against what happened. We have an obligation to say to the PA, 'hey your people stepped WAY over the line here, and they need to be retrained'. I will not take kindly to any more of a police state being foisted upon me than already has been. And I'm not supporting Phil just to win points with him because he runs this site; I agree because it's what's right, putting basic human decency above our need to photograph aircraft.

---

Where was the outrage when Sergio and a group of local spotters got a much worse encounter at EWR and even had their CF cards confiscated? If I remember correctly I advised filing a complaint against the officer which was rebuffed by Phil if I am not mistaken. If you are going to come on with this macho bravado threatening action then do it. If not, spare us. If you want to go down that road be prepared for pushback. Big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

Maybe the letter will result in a more restrictive atmosphere for us. Maybe someone will end up getting arrested and have to bring this thing into court, like the train situation did. That seemed to end with a positive outcome: a memo by NYPD top brass advising(reminding, really) all staff that PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

---

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read here. So you would risk a prime location and even arrest? Pretty brave but incredibly shortsighted.

The best approach is for contacts to be made and kept. A good relationship with someone higher up will go much further. To write some half cocked letter on a website daring them to do one or the other makes no sense to me. Just more divisive and counterproductive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McG

Nik, it sounds like your looking for something similar to the scheme that is run down in Houston, where to spot from certain locations, the individual has to contact the airport security on a given number and provide them with the following details:

Who you are
Where you will be spotting
What kind / color of car you are driving
What time you will be out there
How long you plan to stay
What you will be doing (taking pictures, just spotting, etc)

At IAH, this is predominantly for the parking garages and a few other locations, like the cargo centre. Security log your details, and then you are normally free to go about your business. Security and the PD also do regular patrols of the parking lots at IAH, and as long as you have provided details to security over the phone previously then they don't normally bother you.

---

Not really what I meant but you lay out some good points. That isn't the worst end game for this situation. If it means hassle free spotting so be it. What I am saying is that you first have to talk to the PA to get anywhere. We have figureheads here, plenty of people with contacts. Has anyone ever ever tried to get a hold of anyone at PA with some weight that can have some sort of understanding? Again what Phil has done with his article only seems to set us back. Not lean us forward.

I can't type a lot right now, but...

- I don't recall ever telling anyone to NOT file a complaint against police in that incident. That might have been because something else was already in motion in place of that, but I don't recall specifics.

- I HAVE spoken to several Port officials that are high up on the ladder from multiple departments at multiple airports. Only one of them was ever pro-spotter. The others, in summary, would rather we didn't exist. Re-read the quote from the article...that was from a member of Port management.

- To add, I have had meetings and discussions, all to no avail, examining all kinds of different ideas. And as friendly as those relationships are, it means nothing if people still get treated the way bonanzabucks.

- Port, from those I have spoken with, have no interest in Airport Watch. They feel it can't be practically applied and offers no real purpose. I know that and mentioned that it may not work here...the goal of my article was not to push that.

- It's not a pissing contest. It's standing up for people getting abused. Nothing else.

- Airports are not actually considered public property. Port owns them and they can create and enforce their own rules, unfortunately.

...and I'll add that the spotting location where this happened is the only one we'd lose if they banned photography. Looking at incidents like that...I'd rather lose the spot than see people get treated like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

- Airports are not actually considered public property. Port owns them and they can create and enforce their own rules, unfortunately.

---

Phil I'd be curious to know where that legislation is written. As far as I know, JFK and LGA property are owned by the City of New York and EWR property is owned by the City of Newark, and the PA leases the property from each city to develop, manage and operate it. While I respect that the PA is a government agency, and thus has some latitude with regard to certain regulations, common sense tells me that they would not be able to override local City, State and Federal laws, including First Amendment rights. While I agree most airport locations would not be considered public fora (i.e. inside the terminals), I suspect there has to be some kind of demarcation where the public is allowed to gather within reason. The question is, are the popular spotting locations within airport property considered public or nonpublic fora.

Quote:

---

Where was the outrage when Sergio and a group of local spotters got a much worse encounter at EWR and even had their CF cards confiscated? If I remember correctly I advised filing a complaint against the officer which was rebuffed by Phil if I am not mistaken. If you are going to come on with this macho bravado threatening action then do it. If not, spare us. If you want to go down that road be prepared for pushback. Big time.

---

OK man I tried being empathetic with you so you could see I wasn't attacking what you said, but that pretty much ends with you calling me out and describing what I said as ridiculous.

The ball's in their court as far as I'm concerned, all they have to do is play that hand with me and what you read will happen. Your taunts sure as hell won't get me to do it. And it's not like this is new. I dealt with the PA about this before '9/11' was a buzzword, and they were treating spotters like sh*t back then too. Only reason I haven't raised hell yet is because I haven't had to- unlike you I know how to talk to people without being insulting, so all of my encounters with authorities have been smoother than a baby's ass. Once someone pulls a power play for no reason, it all changes and you'll get to read all about it. I agree that this situation was an anomaly and that people don't need to be going off every time the cops roll up. But it's a mistake to think we just need to 'make and keep contacts', if that were something that worked then it would have worked by now. Somebody here by now would have said "You know what, I know a guy, let me talk to him about this and see what we can do..." Phil has made a lot of effort to bridge this gap and as he says it hasn't really materialized in something that could benefit us.

You think that complaining about your rights being trampled on and demanding some sort of accountability for that behavior should be avoided because it risks a prime spotting location? WTF? I'll say it again: the parking garages were never 'ours' to do what we wished with. They are airport property and if you're asked to leave you do so with no bs.

I don't have to 'spare' anybody jack. If you don't like hearing an opinion different than yours that's fine by me, but not everyone wants to live their lives like you do, keeping your head in the sand while your rights slowly disappear. This is only a free country because of the rivers of blood that have been spilled to make it that way. That won't be for nothing. I'll be damned if I'm just going to roll over and allow myself to be treated like a terrorist when I'm trying to live my life. I don't get what's so hard to understand about it. You can feel free to establish your contacts and see how that works. This has nothing to do with 'macho bravado'; bravado is putting your life on the line to protect the US, its citizens, and their rights. All I'm talking about is enjoying the rights granted to me as a US citizen. I'm not brave, I'm just not stupid and I don't suffer fools easily.

As far as Sergio's situation was concerned, I'm sorry if I didn't formally say it before, but here goes: "The police do not have the right to take your memory card if you have not committed a crime, and they were clearly abusive towards this group of spotters, and a complaint should be filed". There, does that make you happy?

Quote:

---

It's not a pissing contest. It's standing up for people getting abused. Nothing else.

---

Then why the ultimatum? Why not follow up officially? Why make a statement like they either love us or ban us? It makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Airports are not actually considered public property. Port owns them and they can create and enforce their own rules, unfortunately.

---

It's amazing how this has transcended over the years from being bullied by police on public land to this. Why is it unfortunate that they own the place and set the rules? That is part of life Phil. More reason to be diplomatic as opposed as standoffish.

Quote:

---

I'd rather lose the spot than see people get treated like that.

---

There you have it. Someone who rarely shoots and hasn't uploaded in over two years not caring if a prime popular spot that locals have been enjoying gets lost. Nice Phil. Think of the big picture.

Quote:

---

The ball's in their court as far as I'm concerned, all they have to do is play that hand with me and what you read will happen

---

I can only imagine.

Quote:

---

but not everyone wants to live their lives like you do, keeping your head in the sand while your rights slowly disappear

---

What rights are those? To do whatever we want on private property? Your thinking is very clouded here. We don't have right to shoot there. It's a privilege and should be treated as such.

Quote:

---

As far as Sergio's situation was concerned, I'm sorry if I didn't formally say it before, but here goes: "The police do not have the right to take your memory card if you have not committed a crime, and they were clearly abusive towards this group of spotters, and a complaint should be filed". There, does that make you happy?

---

Few years late but nice job. As I said. All this bravado is amusing. If you are going to go down that road then do it and stop talking about it. Just get ready for the spotters who will a little mad at you once the garages get lost like the cargo area did.

Before I go back to eating my popcorn, I do have to say Nick that lots was done after the EWR incident to clarify the harassment etc and ultimately got our memory cards back...I can't/won't provide details because either I wasn't informed of all of them (nor do I need to know), or I won't post anything in the forum on it that hasn't already been clarified. Otherwise, great points on all sides!

Ready........GO!

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx...1xxfo1_400.gif

First, to EVERYONE, if people disagree or do not like that I wrote this article...if you feel that what I am saying in public is instead creating a threat to the hobby, or if that spotting location in question is more important than the topic at hand...please feel free to let me know, in public or private. I need and want to know people's opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Then why the ultimatum?

---

There was no ultimatum. It was a request. An ultimatum requires a threat of "if you don't do this, we will do 'this', but there was none of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Why not follow up officially?

---

Again, you're assuming that I'm not. I am following up. I will advise when and as it progresses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Why make a statement like they either love us or ban us? It makes no sense.

---

I never said "love or hate us" or anything of the sort. I want official stance of what is allowed and not allowed.

This is because I feel (my opinion) that they shouldn't ride the fence and then tolerate having their police force treat people like bonanzabucks. And also...there WAS just as much upset over Sergio's incident. It happened that the officials involved were already working the issue closely and working on doing the right thing within hours anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Why is it unfortunate that they own the place and set the rules? That is part of life Phil. More reason to be diplomatic as opposed as standoffish.

---

I have no problem with them making the rules...but they haven't ever MADE the rule! Just because I am told in private by officials that they don't allow photography on airport proper doesn't mean that it is really a rule because so many people will violate that unofficial rule because they won't know about it, and police will respond as they please because there is therefore no guidance for them to follow. I have no problem being a soundboard for stuff, but if they don't want photography on airport property then they should make it a rule.

Keep in mind bonanzabucks didn't even have a camera. So that is why I ask for Port to offer a stance on the hobby in general. If photography is ok, then non-camera spotting must be ok too. I just want people to be able to KNOW what is and is not allowed.

I don't feel it is standoffish, and I think my article IS diplomatic...since when does diplomacy not include writing opinion articles and letters that contain passion? All I did was reference some spotting examples and say that Port should do something to change the situation.

It is something that upsets me and I voiced my opinion in an opinion article. Keep in mind I've spent years shaking hands with these people from all airports and working with them on projects (NYCA and other) and discussing the hobby with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

There you have it. Someone who rarely shoots and hasn't uploaded in over two years not caring if a prime popular spot that locals have been enjoying gets lost. Nice Phil. Think of the big picture.

---

I find this ironic and ignorant. I do not spot at JFK often, which we all know. But I do spot. I visit LGA often. I take photos often.

Yeah, I haven't uploaded to JP or Anet in two years...but does that make me any less of a spotter? I didn't know that being at JFK weekly with a DSLR and uploading to JP or Anet was the only way that I can speak out about anything. And I've been to the location in question over a dozen times, so it's not like I've never enjoyed it and am referring to "other" people's locations.

Just as I know I can't define the hobby for others, you don't get to define it for me either. For someone who doesn't spot much yourself...you're being quite vocal, no? ;)

Spotting at that location has been FINE for a while now with very few problems. Others may disagree, which is fine, but to me, but even ONE incident makes it not worth it. I think about the future...what will happen the next time there is an incident? Someone may get arrested or worse. That is why a simple rule is important... a little official guidance for cops and security to go by instead of having free reign to abuse people. If we lose that spot as a result of a new rule, that would suck but at least we don't have to look over our shoulders and worry about whether or not cops are going to verbally abuse us or take us to the precinct again.

Again, I don't care how great a location is or has been...1 person out of 1,000 getting that treatment isn't worth it in my eyes. I'm going to speak out. Others are welcome to disagree.

We have no one else to look out for us...except for our fellow spotters. If bonanzabucks can't look to us for support, then who else? With Sergio's situation...before we even had a chance to do much, it was already being handled behind the scenes (which I only a middleman of, mind you...I just knew it was happening, thankfully).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

All this bravado is amusing. If you are going to go down that road then do it and stop talking about it. Just get ready for the spotters who will a little mad at you once the garages get lost like the cargo area did.

---

Do WHAT exactly? You keep saying "do it" but I am wondering what actual act you're referring to that no one is supposedly doing. Please enlighten me.

Phil....thank you for the article! We as a spotting community (whether locally or elsewhere) need to stick together (in numbers there is power), and standup for our civil rights and resolve issues like this (or at least get clarification). Especially with the Port, a gray area to say the least.

The poster from Manchester Airport in England is fantastic and really shows how spotters can help as opposed to TSA poster. What a difference! Maybe the Port Authority should send an assembly over to Manchester to gain insight.

Something to think about: Why is it okay to photograph the One World Trade Center (as it is being build), but not okay with PANYNJ to photographing planes? What's the difference?

I am optimistic and think things in the end will work out for our hobby.

Whether or not you agree with Phil's actions or exact phrasing, I think we can all agree that from what info we have, what occurred here was not exactly keeping with standard law enforcement procedures. Having found myself in a situation not to dissimilar from what was described here, it is the intervention of people like Phil who helped me out. In my case, the clarified an incident which could have cost the Washbalt spotters group a hugely frequented location, and also helped Law Enforcement know how to handle us. It was a win-win.

As for how it will play out, from a neutral observer's standpoint, all it seems that you have to lose is a semi-official rule (that was shared with me as though it were law) may become officially codified. On the positive side, maybe, just maybe, you will launch a dialogue that could lead somewhere productive.

You never know!

N

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

There was no ultimatum. It was a request. An ultimatum requires a threat of "if you don't do this, we will do 'this', but there was none of that.

---

Where one of the requests included banning photography altogether. Good move. Again why such a heavy handed move? Especially when you holding no cards. It's not public property Phil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

Again, you're assuming that I'm not. I am following up. I will advise when and as it progresses.

---

So you write a rant filled antagonistic article and also contact them? Again, makes little sense. I still fail to see why you would write this and what it could possibly accomplish but to alienate the PA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

I never said "love or hate us" or anything of the sort. I want official stance of what is allowed and not allowed.

---

Which included banning photography. Phil you missed the mark badly in your article. PA doesn't dislike photographers. They dislike the huge amount of phone calls they receive when the general public sees us and has no idea what we are doing. Remember we live in the number 1 target for terrorism. Now to be honest PA could have taken the path of just totally banning any sort of our behavior a long time ago, but as you say they don't have an official rule saying so. Why encourage them to do it? Was Bonanza's treatment totally out of bounds? Of course it was. If we are to survive spotting in NY in areas that are not public then there is a trade off. Do I like it? No, I know what it is to enjoy garage spotting without any care in the world of badge heavy law enforcement. Unfortunately in a post 9/11 world this may never be the case in NY.

So I would rather try to save these spots than encourage or give someone an excuse to ban them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

I find this ironic and ignorant. I do not spot at JFK often, which we all know. But I do spot. I visit LGA often. I take photos often.

---

Great, just don't forget the guys who chose to shoot at JFK. They stand to lose a spot they probably really like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

Yeah, I haven't uploaded to JP or Anet in two years...but does that make me any less of a spotter? I didn't know that being at JFK weekly with a DSLR and uploading to JP or Anet was the only way that I can speak out about anything. And I've been to the location in question over a dozen times, so it's not like I've never enjoyed it and am referring to "other" people's locations.

---

You can speak about JFK all you want. Just remember the guys who use a location u have been to over a dozen times probably use it 4 to 5 times a week. They have a dog in the hunt too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

Just as I know I can't define the hobby for others, you don't get to define it for me either. For someone who doesn't spot much yourself...you're being quite vocal, no? ;)

---

You follow me around Phil? I spot plenty. Just because I don't use my time editing shots to post on your site doesn't mean I don't spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

but to me, but even ONE incident makes it not worth it

---

There you go again. Phil you may think you speak for the spotters in the NY area but trust me, you don't. You really should have spoken to people and got opinions before you published an article like that. I can't for the life of me think that just because a bad cop lost his mind in an encounter that it's not worth trying to preserve a prime shooting location, and to force the people that own the property to make a decision. One of which being to end photography there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

Again, I don't care how great a location is or has been...1 person out of 1,000 getting that treatment isn't worth it in my eyes. I'm going to speak out. Others are welcome to disagree.

---

Yea we can all just head over to LGA. Right Phil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

We have no one else to look out for us...except for our fellow spotters. If bonanzabucks can't look to us for support, then who else? With Sergio's situation...before we even had a chance to do much, it was already being handled behind the scenes (which I only a middleman of, mind you...I just knew it was happening, thankfully).

---

Yea what happened was someone who knew someone took a diplomatic approach and got everyone's property back. Without someone writing an article asking PA at EWR to publicly state what their stance is on photographers. End result even though EWR is tough to shoot at we can still at times get over there and shoot. It's a win some lose some proposition. Is it a sacrifice? Sure but the alternative of zero tolerance towards us isn't very appealing to the future of spotting IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

Do WHAT exactly? You keep saying "do it" but I am wondering what actual act you're referring to that no one is supposedly doing. Please enlighten me.

---

Read the thread Phil. It's all right there.

Funny that my name was mention on the EWR incident, i never forget what happened that day, yes i was with 5 other planespotters when PAPD get a call about our presence at the north parking lot. We were blocked in by 3 PAPD Crown Victorias, and asked for our IDs and requested our CF cards. The last thing on my mind was that they were gonna delete our photos which they dont have a right to do. That was the day that we spotted that a UA A319 had a landing gear collapse on 4L which we took pictures of. I thought we were gonna lose the pics, if we did, i would have made a lawsuit bigtime, deleting pictures is the same as ripping up your 35mm film.. I really had a fit. Thats why i rarely spot at EWR. And I believe Nick V about losing the spotting locations. We dont need that

Quote:

---

Do WHAT exactly? You keep saying "do it" but I am wondering what actual act you're referring to that no one is supposedly doing. Please enlighten me.

---

Phil, Nick is referring to what I said I'd do if someone on a power trip tried to confiscate any of my equipment or tell me that photography is 'illegal'. Which is to say that yes, I would risk arrest by refusing to hand over memory cards or a camera(remember, I already said that I would leave 'private property' if I was told to). Not to make trouble for you or anyone else. And I wouldn't be a d*ck about it at all.

Those who know me know that I'm pretty much the least confrontational person there is. I don't look for trouble and just want to have a good time like everyone else. But I see no reason to just go along with any little thing that infringes on MY right as a citizen of this country. Too many people have died for our way of life. That way of life is a free society, free from tyranny. Photography(of any kind) is an art, not a terrorist activity, and I'll tell people that until I'm blue in the face. The suggestion that me practicing my art is in any way connected to the sickness that was 9/11 is repulsive. I refuse to be a part of the fear machine created over the past ten years, and it looks like I'll go to my grave refusing to accept the whole 'we live in a new world now' crapola.

And Nick, I have done this, I did it at Philly 3 years ago when some terminal worker tried to tell me that photography of the planes was illegal. The first thing I said was "No it isn't. There are no signs, and I'm a ticketed passenger so I have a right to be here. I'm an aviation photographer and this is what I do." I then handed her my card and told her she could feel free to go get her boss. She walked away, and nothing further happened. Would the same thing happen @ JFK? I don't know and could care less. Whatever man, I'm done explaining myself, go take some pictures

Nick ..... a little humor to break the tension. I'm sure you'll remember these words.

"Show me your policy!", and what happened? Nothing! :cool:

William ..... I couldn't agree with you more. Plenty of men and women died for our freedom, and when someone say's 9/11, it irk's me as well (especially knowing a high school buddy who lost his life that morning).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

But I see no reason to just go along with any little thing that infringes on MY right as a citizen of this country. Too many people have died for our way of life.

---

You don't have that right on private property. Don't lose sight of where you are. On public property yes but once you are in a parking lot or parking garage it's not your right. It's a privilege. This fact gets lost with many here every time we have a bad cop encounter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

free from tyranny

---

Oh my, the drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

The suggestion that me practicing my art is in any way connected to the sickness that was 9/11 is repulsive. I refuse to be a part of the fear machine created over the past ten years, and it looks like I'll go to my grave refusing to accept the whole 'we live in a new world now' crapola.

---

It's not crapola. It's fact. NY is the prime target of terrorists. Time Square bomber? Fed building bombing? Thankfully these were thwarted but this isn't happening in Las Vegas or Phoenix. Which is why I can spend all day on the parking garages there without incident.

We live in a world and an area where people will be suspicious of any activity around an airport forever. On public land we have right to practice our hobby. On private land it's different. PA is in a position where they have to police, they have to field the calls. More times than not the encounters are civil and we can continue to use spots that we like but sometimes we get a bad seed.

That is all it is. It isn't tyranny, it isn't the eroding of our rights. This is all smoke and mirrors. If it was happening on public land like it did the couple of years after 9/11 I would agree but we have moved on from that for the most part. We need to play the game and coexist with PA or as Phil stated they can just turn around and have zero tolerance anywhere on airport land. This would truly be a loss for the people that are lucky to call themselves JFK spotters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megatop412

And Nick, I have done this, I did it at Philly 3 years ago when some terminal worker tried to tell me that photography of the planes was illegal. The first thing I said was "No it isn't. There are no signs, and I'm a ticketed passenger so I have a right to be here. I'm an aviation photographer and this is what I do." I then handed her my card and told her she could feel free to go get her boss. She walked away, and nothing further happened. Would the same thing happen @ JFK? I don't know and could care less. Whatever man, I'm done explaining myself, go take some pictures

---

It does happen. Mark had an encounter where a security officer got all in his face and Mark used tact and the guy didn't have a leg to stand on. PA didn't even come. It will happen more times than not but every once in a blue we will get what happened to Bonanza when a bad cop went too far. Doesn't mean we need to write articles calling out the PA and demanding decisions be made. It's a poor move and doesn't do anybody any good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zee71

Nick ..... a little humor to break the tension. I'm sure you'll remember these words.

"Show me your policy!", and what happened? Nothing! :cool:

---

Epic words that will go down in history! Great job Mark it was a pleasure to witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Y Doesn't mean we need to write articles calling out the PA and demanding decisions be made. It's a poor move and doesn't do anybody any good.

---

Nick, You're the only one on here who thinks its a poor move.

The parking garage is not considered an official spot, it never was. If we lost it so be it. Find another spot. I don't consider it a lose as you say.

And by the way I am a JFK spotter.

Quote:

---

Nick, You're the only one on here who thinks its a poor move.

The parking garage is not considered an official spot, it never was. If we lost it so be it. Find another spot. I don't consider it a lose as you say.

And by the way I am a JFK spotter.

---

So am I and others that like the garage Eric. If you choose to shoot at the mounds and other spots great but others like the garage and they are JFK spotters too.

BTW I am far from the only person who feels it was a bad move. Remember not everyone that shoots at JFK posts here.

Big shock... this is going in circles.

I can only represent me, as I've said and never implied otherwise. I shared my opinion, which no one has to agree with. People are welcome to voice their own opinion and action their own as they feel as well. I will even support them in the process and their actions.

My total point is:

- Not having a rule opens us up to being on the receiving end of these incidents.

- Requesting such action may not end up in an official banning of photography.

- Such a rule would ONLY affect one spot IF it came to that. I am aware of that risk and I feel that not being mistreated by police and security is worth that risk.

Glad everyone is able to share their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D

My total point is:

- Not having a rule opens us up to being on the receiving end of these incidents.

- Requesting such action may not end up in an official banning of photography.

- Such a rule would ONLY affect one spot IF it came to that. I am aware of that risk and I feel that not being mistreated by police and security is worth that risk.

---

No, it will probably effect all spots on airport property and could also effect our treatment at EWR where we really can't afford a more restrictive climate as it's a bitch to shoot there as it is. I hope requesting such an action wouldn't end up in any ban. I thought you supported working with law enforcement in developing a relationship by diplomatic ways to preserve our hobby. I just feel that is better achieved being proactive and not reactive. If it has become clear to you that PA will never play ball I just feel the climate of tolerating one idiot officer once in a while and being able to shoot on the garages and other spots on the grounds in better to losing it altogether. It's a crappy tradeoff but I feel it's worth it. In addition to buying us time in the event we catch a break and a sympathetic person on the inside coming around and helping us one day.

You never know.

What other spots on airport property are there? There's the one in question here.

Nick, I respect your opinion truly. It is a valid stance and a valid concern. I do have a relationship with various Port officials and I don't feel this will tarnish that, nor our chances in having a safe, useful and abuse-free environment for our hobby that actually contributes to airport safety.

I will keep everyone posted as I am able as things progress with my communication with them. Details to come shortly as I arrange.

There are some excellent arguments being made here. I have just a few observations that I have made as a relatively new member of the spotting community.

First, in a perfect world there should be no question as to whether or not spotting and photography is allowed if there is no rule specifically banning it. However the post-9/11 world is far from perfect and we are dealing with authorities and a general public who believe that the only people with a deep interest in airplanes are those bent on doing horrific things. The best thing that we can do about this is to go out and be seen! Wear a smile and act like you belong there (you do!). With time, people will become more accustomed to seeing us out there, and so will the authorities.

Second, as a newcomer I was always under the impression that spotting at NYC area airports was pretty much a strictly off-property proposition, and that at least photography on-property was frowned upon, though as the saying goes, "its only illegal if you get caught." Since there is no official rule and yet it is known to be frowned upon, I think that common sense would be that you don't advertise what you are doing for an extended period. Take your shot and then stash the camera. Don't make it obvious that you're camping out there. Now this has little bearing on what occurred to Bonanzabucks, but since photography has become a part of this conversation, it needs to be said. As for just spotting without a camera, I really don't think that you could possibly make a rule against it that would be enforceable.

Third, I think my biggest concern with a rule banning photography would be at EWR and especially SWF (I don't think many people are trying to spot at TEB) where there are very few places to spot from off-property. I have spotted at SWF a few times with a camera and have never had a problem, whereas it seems at EWR no matter where you go you will have a problem. However if there is a rule specifically prohibiting the practice, then things get more difficult. That being said, it is my opinion that clarity is always preferable over gray areas and having a rule for or against will serve to prevent encounters where misinformed individuals blow things out of proportion.

Hey all,

Today I had a nice phone discussion with a PANYNJ official who clearly stated that planespotting is legal and allowed on airport property! He assures me that there are NO rules against this, and he is very interested in hearing of cases where other Port officials, airport employees, or PAPD tell enthusiasts otherwise.

All they want is for no photography at or of security checkpoints, and to have no people in the photos (which would include ramp workers).

Don't use this post as a claim to show to cops at the airports tomorrow, but I will obtain something clear and official for everyone to see. I will be meeting with them later this week. Just wanted to give you a heads up as I promised.

Thanks for the update, Phil, and for all your work on this!

awesome Phil!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Hey all,

Today I had a nice phone discussion with a PANYNJ official who clearly stated that planespotting is legal and allowed on airport property! He assures me that there are NO rules against this, and he is very interested in hearing of cases where other Port officials, airport employees, or PAPD tell enthusiasts otherwise.

All they want is for no photography at or of security checkpoints, and to have no people in the photos (which would include ramp workers).

Don't use this post as a claim to show to cops at the airports tomorrow, but I will obtain something clear and official for everyone to see. I will be meeting with them later this week. Just wanted to give you a heads up as I promised.

---

This is great Phil but we have known that photography is allowed as long as it's not of security checkpoints. Nothing new. The problem is PA officers behavior toward us and how it is handled like when they lie to us when they tell us what we do is illegal. Or when a bad seed is encountered like in Bonanza's encounter. I spoke to a friend of my father who was a PA officer who just retired. His opinion is some sort of system is needed where any spotter should touch base with PA ops before they spot so shift officers are aware, etc. Then maybe when the calls come in they can handled better and a officer just doesn't try to run us off.

Like you alluded to before, if indeed a climate does exist among officers or whomever that they would rather discourage spotting then deal with it professionally then that should be your priority in your meeting. If that is addressed and all officers are made aware then we can move forward.

Thanks, Phil! I think this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Thank you Phil for all your hard work and effort to make things happen. This is great !

Phil, what Nick meant to say was "Thank you Phil" and no more :tongue:

Geesh...

Wow Phil, That is great news! Thank you for the work you put into it! I hope to get down to JFK soon!
Gene

Thanks for your tireless efforts Phil. This has been a long debate, and although what Nick may say is true, sometimes diplomacy is the better way to handle things.

I definitely agree that diplomacy is always best, which is why I feel I have been sticking to it.

Your thanks are welcome, but it's early yet. I'm hoping to get something in-hand that I can show and maybe even distribute to you all.

I will let you folks know how it goes tomorrow. I will be speaking at a board meeting which is open to the public, and also speaking separately with the people that I've been speaking to on the phone lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I definitely agree that diplomacy is always best, which is why I feel I have been sticking to it.

Your thanks are welcome, but it's early yet. I'm hoping to get something in-hand that I can show and maybe even distribute to you all.

I will let you folks know how it goes tomorrow. I will be speaking at a board meeting which is open to the public, and also speaking separately with the people that I've been speaking to on the phone lately.

---

Where is the board meeting? I would like to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric8669

Where is the board meeting? I would like to go.

---

I only have info on speakers, but since it is "public" I do assume anyone can attend, and it'd be nice to have you.

Thursday November 15 at 1pm.
225 Park Avenue South, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10003

They told me that times MIGHT change, and to check their site...but I can't find it. If you do plan on going, I'll text you if I learn of changes.

I understand video will be made of the whole thing as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzalu

Phil, what Nick meant to say was "Thank you Phil" and no more :tongue:

Geesh...

---

I will reserve my 'thanks' when some progress is gained. Phil simply called someone who basically told us what we already know. Shooting is fine as long as it isn't of checkpoints.

I hope the meetings go well and some process can be created where we can shoot without the negative encounters. If Phil can get the job done I will then convey my gratitude. I don't mean to break up the love fest, just being honest.

Though I've already spoken with them, the public speech is a way of putting us on public record. I have 3 minutes to speak, during which I intend to introduce NYCA, show our relevancy and influence in the media, introduce planespotting, explain the incident mentioned in this thread, introduce the airport watch program and its benefits, and ultimately ask Port to work with spotters or to help us practice our hobby in a safe manner. Yes...in three minutes.

Separately, the news of spotting being legal on airport grounds is not actually new, or at least just not confirmed....airport management from multiple PANYNJ airports have clearly stated that it was AGAINST rules, even though it was not official. This goes back to what the official rules are. Again, I hope to take the info that I was given by the higher-ranking PANYNJ official and give us somethign tangible that we can use in enjoying our hobby legally, safely, and void of law enforcement mistreatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric8669

Where is the board meeting? I would like to go.

---

Eric, don't go creeping or scaring anybody out now. We've come a long way for that ..

:tongue::tongue::tongue:

Strange, when I posted about my problems with the PA harrassing me at airport properties, the response was that I should get-over the "they're out to get us" attitude of mine. Years ago, after 9-11, I was waiting for a Concorde arrival on 13L and was waiting atop one of the garage roofs. I saw a car driving around and after about 10 minutes the driver told me that I was on private property and must leave immediately. Luckily, I was never searched or humiliated. I responded that I was waiting for the Concorde but he didn't care. I left and moved to a different location where I finally saw my Concorde. These guys like to harrass spotters but many just report us and let us stay. I know they watch us in all the terminals and since 9-11, who can blame them? Hopefully, a way could be worked out where we could even get special photo ID cards from the PA if we are willing to undergo a background check which is no problem. If worked-out, spotters would be welcomed at the area airports and allowed to spot without suspicion and fear of harrassment.

Phil, excellent job at the Board of Directors public session. I was watching it live via the PA web site. A lot of information to cram into three minutes, but glad you were able to speak before the directors and commissioners. There were also a lot of top-ranking PAPD officials and officers there who heard you as well.

I doubt the issue will go away overnight despite your conversation with that top-ranking official and your appearance before the board, but hopefully they will finally publicly concede that photography at PA airports is allowed and make it official (in writing.)

It was also very cool that you spoke back-to-back with Kal, my partner in crime in the Save the Worldport campaign. :)

The board meeting video has already been published and is located at http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-info...ng-videos.html

Click "Board Meeting 11/15/12." Phil's talk starts at 53:32 into the video, which is towards the end so you need to fast forward once the video fully buffers.

-Anthony

Well done Phil... looks like you had 5 seconds to deliver a thesis :-) I think you did a terrific job given the circumstances.