Firestone 9/22/08

We had about 10 guys out spotting today, and after lunch, with 31R active, we ended up at Firestone. After more than an hour, an NCPD car pulled up (it was the sector car for the area). He asked about us taking photos, and said they were on increased watch due to the UN General Assembly. I told him that was why we were there, due to all the unusual traffic the UN was generating. He said we weren't doing anything illegal, but needed to phone it in. After speaking with his sergeant, he said he would need to complete a "field report" and take our information, but we were welcome to continue photographing while he did so.

After reporting his location on the radio, two more patrol cars, with a total of 3 more officers, showed up. Two of the officers pretty much stayed in the background, but the third was a bit more "gung-ho" (as the first officer later described it) about checking us out, mentioning that it was a private parking lot and the stores could press trespassing charges if they wanted to. The first officer took info from most of us, and eventually the other three left. The first officer spent some time phoning in a report, and he and I spoke for several minutes before he left. He said that due to the UN activity, they have been instructed to be more vigilant, and are checking a number of locations in the area repeatedly during the day. Since we were a large group, and it was his post, he needed to be proactive and check us out rather than wait for someone to call it in. I told him I understood he had a job to do, and was glad to cooperate. He was certainly more "relaxed" about the encounter than the other officer.

In all, it wasn't a bad encounter, although it was the most scrutiny I have received at Firestone in ages. Given the UN activity, I can't blame them, but I hope this isn't a sign that things will escalate in the future. We all need to be mindful of the situation, that the officer on patrol has a job to do and orders to carry out, and remember to always act professionally when dealing with law enforcement.

John you forgot to mention the Brittney Spears fan!

Interesting afternoon. I think the underlying fact here is (as the gung ho officer alluded to) is no so much the trespassing but the down time for these officers in running all our info. I don't think it is a secret what we are doing and that we pose no threat but when they get flooded with calls and have to come out and run 10 peoples' info well I can understand their frustration. I don't think we will ever have the problem with that lot as we did with Costco because we are far from any action and don't interfere with any parking. I doubt Best Buy or anyone on property cares but we should be aware that it is a private lot and it isn't the best idea not to have these big groups there with the lawn chairs out too often. It attracts attention and we have what happened yesterday. I think the gung ho officer from yesterday said what he did to try to scare us a little but if we limit our big group exposure it's basically a non-issue.

I understand the need to be more vigilant during UN week, but maybe their time would be better spent patrolling the area for guys with shoulder-fired SAMs, not wasting hours taking down info from guys with cameras. :roll:

Quote:

---

but maybe their time would be better spent patrolling the area for guys with shoulder-fired SAMs, not wasting hours taking down info from guys with cameras

---

Matt do you think they have a choice? Remember not everyone out there understands why we do what we do. Hundreds if not thousands of cars drive by that spotting location every day. So you can expect many calls from people that drive by and see us will be placed to 911 and the 4th precinct. Now, after this an officer has to do what is routine and check things out. Can you imagine the backlash if an officer just did a drive by after receiving a call about suspicious activity, didn't run any persons info and it was a terrorist checking out for locations to fire a SAM? Pretty much will never happen but if it did the NCPD would be crucified and rightly so. The officer that Moose mentioned was a little annoyed because of the time consuming nature of what happened because remember that lot is not public property. A huge group is always going to attract this type of situation but we can't just assume that LO or anyone is going to make light of it because we carry cameras and not SAMs.

Not blaming the officers, blaming the guys in charge. Yeah, they should check us out if they get a call, but after a cursory glance around and seeing nobody has any weapons, they should do something more constructive. How many of these checks of photographers over the past seven years (or EVER, for that matter) have resulted in finding a bad guy? I would estimate zero.

Quote:

---

but after a cursory glance around and seeing nobody has any weapons, they should do something more constructive. How many of these checks of photographers over the past seven years (or EVER, for that matter) have resulted in finding a bad guy? I would estimate zero.

---

Cursory glance?

Kind of glad your not in law enforcement Matt. If this is the attitude the people protecting us took we would be in a world of trouble. Matt Al Qaida is smart, they will wait and if they ever get an opening like having officers just give a cursory glance if their are not apparent weapons they will seize it. See there is good reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 and that is because the people that are paid to protect us take the opposite approach you describe. Thankfully so.

Nick is that really you? It wasn't that long ago when you were the most anti-cop guy around, going as far as referring to them as "Gestapo." :)

I'm just calling for some common sense. First off, standing in a parking lot with a camera is not going to help anyone plan an attack against an aircraft, and there has never been any evidence presented in any of trials of the major Al Qaeda attacks indicating that they have ever used photographs to help plan an attack. Second, bad guys aren't going to stand around in a group of 10 people in broad daylight.

Matt, it can be summed up in four words:

Better safe than sorry.

I agree all the way with "better safe than sorry" when it comes to police officers visiting us enthusiasts while spotting. However, while I do find the slight "scare tactic" comments and threats, nothing actually comes of it, and I just let that roll off. When we get kicked out or someone gets arrested for it, then I'll take issue and a stronger stand.

Quote:

---

Nick is that really you? It wasn't that long ago when you were the most anti-cop guy around, going as far as referring to them as "Gestapo."

---

My God can we ever have a thread on this site without spin? Matt I made those comments about the police officers that would try to intimidate us and make up laws such as taking pictures of aircraft is illegal. In this situation the police officer was not only professional but very friendly and actually made comment that he knew what we were doing was not illegal and unless one of the businesses wanted us gone he couldn't ask us to leave so how does that have anything to with this thread. Now I believe we were dicussing your very laid back approach to how a police officer should act when called to suspicious activity in which your method of a "cursory glance" was not only scary but very careless. Let's continue.

Quote:

---

I'm just calling for some common sense. First off, standing in a parking lot with a camera is not going to help anyone plan an attack against an aircraft, and there has never been any evidence presented in any of trials of the major Al Qaeda attacks indicating that they have ever used photographs to help plan an attack. Second, bad guys aren't going to stand around in a group of 10 people in broad daylight.

---

Matt do you have a crystal ball? Where do you get all this information? The fact of the matter is we live in a post 9/11 world and anyone doing something around an airport like we do will never be treated the same. People will always give us weird looks and call authorities. Especially in NY. It is law enforcements job to do a thorough job in checking it out, anything less would be a breakdown in the process in protecting us.

Quote:

---

I agree all the way with "better safe than sorry" when it comes to police officers visiting us enthusiasts while spotting. However, while I do find the slight "scare tactic" comments and threats, nothing actually comes of it, and I just let that roll off. When we get kicked out or someone gets arrested for it, then I'll take issue and a stronger stand.

---

This probably won't be necessary, in the last few years the scare tactics have basically subsided. We are at a point where we are dealing with lots like Firestone and Costco which are private property and not our personal spotting locations. We should be careful in these areas because if we are not we risk losing them. Remember no matter what a cop says or how they treat us if they feel its becoming a hassle or the phone is ringing too much he can ask us to leave. If use our heads and limit the big group exposure and use other locations and mix it up we should be able to use these for the long term future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

... in the last few years the scare tactics have basically subsided. We are at a point where we are dealing with lots like Firestone and Costco which are private property and not our personal spotting locations. We should be careful in these areas because if we are not we risk losing them. Remember no matter what a cop says or how they treat us if they feel its becoming a hassle or the phone is ringing too much he can ask us to leave. If use our heads and limit the big group exposure and use other locations and mix it up we should be able to use these for the long term future.

---

I agree that most of those comments have subsided, and that ultimately, it's private property and we need to behave properly. That includes speaking with respect not only to police officers, but to inquisitive passerby.

But what do you mean "limit group exposure"? Are you saying that a group brings too much bad attention? I think it's the other way around. I think that a group shows that we are an organization that does something that is safe. It shows our diversity and that we are "normal" people. I think that the smalelr groups are much more suspicious. As long as we behave responsibly and respect the property, there should be no issues. I think it's our GROUPS that have created the much more calm and stable relationship with NCPD.

Quote:

---

As long as we behave responsibly and respect the property, there should be no issues. I think it's our GROUPS that have created the much more calm and stable relationship with NCPD.

---

It has nothing to do with that Phil. It has nothing to do with calm or any relationship with anyone. It isn't a public park it's private property. In addition this spot is highly visable. So people are going to make a ton of calls. It doesn't matter what we are doing. These people have no idea what we are do they deem it suspicious. You still think just because we are spotters that we have some sense of entitlement to these locations and that is not the case. What I meant by limiting our group stuff is not to do what we did for VIP on a regular basis because we run the risk of losing these locations on a permanent basis. I think we saw a prelude to this at the Air India lot and if we are not careful it can get worse. We have enough trouble with people at public spots where we can practice our hobby legally we don't need it where it's a different story. I am not saying we should not spot in these locations just use some common sense. No matter how you justify us being there we can still become a nuisance if people keep calling and then we may have a problem.

Nick where did Phil even hint at entitlement? What Phil is saying is, if we act with respect generally there will not be an issue, and generally there isn't...how is that entitlement?

One of the main reasons the Air India lot is now gone is because of the pictures below... Both Matt and Gordon had no right to be where they were and Port has seen these pics and have asked me about them. This is what Phil is talking about...acting responsible. The below shots are the opposite of what Phil means. It has nothing to do with entitlement.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6118840

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6307245

Sorry Matt, Matt and Gordan for using this as an example but this is spot on to what is being discussed here and does show irresponsible spotting. You guys really should not have been there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

It has nothing to do with that Phil. It has nothing to do with calm or any relationship with anyone. It isn't a public park it's private property.

---

Did you read my post? I specifically said it was private property. We all know it's private proeprty, and we know that we've been enjoying a PRIVILEDGE of being there. No one, including myself, implied otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

In addition this spot is highly visable. So people are going to make a ton of calls. It doesn't matter what we are doing. These people have no idea what we are do they deem it suspicious.

---

I think we all understand why people call the cops on us. We don't have a problem with that. I also completely understand why they find it to be suspicious. In fact, to an extent I encourage people to play it safe by calling the police on activities they feel is suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

You still think just because we are spotters that we have some sense of entitlement to these locations and that is not the case.

---

I certainly never even implied that, and I'm not sure where you get that from. If anything, I've always told people that we need to behave responsibly because we are in a public location such as Firestone, Burger King or Costco. Come on, Nick!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

I think we saw a prelude to this at the Air India lot and if we are not careful it can get worse.

---

The Air India is is a little different, because that is a completely private employee lot, while Firestone is a privately-owned lot that does let patrons visit publicly.

Air India is a much more sensitive area, and I think that no matter what might have happened, that the area would have gotten us completely banned at some point or another. Even when we wouldn't leave our cars and cops would kick us out FAST. So I don't think Air India fits into the comparison, as it's much more extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

We have enough trouble with people at public spots where we can practice our hobby legally we don't need it where it's a different story.

---

I personally don't think that we have any problems in our public spots at all, especially at Firestone. If anything, we've made great strides in improving relations with police, and actual incident are very few, and rarely ever at Firestone. There is actually no problem here, so I'm a little cloudy as to what we're even debating for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

I am not saying we should not spot in these locations just use some common sense.

---

I think that we have been exercising common sense, and have been doing a great job in respecting the privledge that we've had at Firestone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

No matter how you justify us being there we can still become a nuisance if people keep calling and then we may have a problem.

---

Never tried to justify it anything.

Again, the original post here mentions what is for the most part a POSITIVE encounter with police. The only problem that I, or alse seems ot have, is that the one officer tried to scare us off a little, and even that wasn't a big deal I don't think. As I said earleir, it was unnecessary of him, but oh well.

Quote:

---

Nick where did Phil even hint at entitlement? What Phil is saying is, if we act with respect generally there will not be an issue, and generally there isn't...how is that entitlement?

---

See, but there is an issue. Which is why we had 4 officers come up and two spend a long time with us taking down all of our info. Just because you feel a certain way about the issue doesn't mean there isn't one. If you look at this objectively and see that from the people that called and the second officer who was visably annoyed there is an issue. The entitlement comes from the fact that you feel as long we are not doing anything wrong we can camp out and shoot all afternoon. Where as if you look at it from all angles you may understand that constantly having a big group sitting on lawn chairs with cameras shooting planes that go by is not a good idea. Yesterday was a good indication that we shouldn't do that at that location on a regular basis. Would you do that at the IKEA lot at EWR? Of course not. Here we have a spot that has NCPD is a lot better than Elizabeth PD. Why push it?

Quote:

---

One of the main reasons the Air India lot is now gone is because of the pictures below... Both Matt and Gordon had no right to be where they were and Port has seen these pics and have asked me about them. This is what Phil is talking about...acting responsible. The below shots are the opposite of what Phil means. It has nothing to do with entitlement.

---

Actually Tom it has everything to do with entitlement. Gordon and Matt treated that area as their personal spotting location. Not private property. They used absolutely no common sense and thought only about themselves. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well usually is. When we start to realize that some of these spots are not our personal spotting locations and start to treat them as places where with some common sense we can get some shots and not bring attention to ourselves we will be much better off.

Quote:

---

Sorry Matt, Matt and Gordan for using this as an example but this is spot on to what is being discussed here and does show irresponsible spotting. You guys really should not have been there.

---

Hmmm, I wonder why you have the change of heart Tommy. I kind of remember the first time I brought this up Gordon and Matt where supported in their actions by everyone here. Now we have a complete 180. Why?

cargo-plaza-10-1-t8548s0.html

Quote:

---

Did you read my post? I specifically said it was private property. We all know it's private proeprty, and we know that we've been enjoying a PRIVILEDGE of being there. No one, including myself, implied otherwise.

---

Yes I read your post Phil, your basically saying as long as we are not doing anything wrong we can shoot there. This is not the case, we have to understand that other factors are in play here. NCPD is quite accomadating but if we continue to have episodes like yesterday and refuse to limit our big groups conregrating there we risk losing the location.

Quote:

---

I think we all understand why people call the cops on us. We don't have a problem with that. I also completely understand why they find it to be suspicious. In fact, to an extent I encourage people to play it safe by calling the police on activities they feel is suspicious.

---

That is great Phil but your refusing to see that if happens too much someone whether it's NCPD or the property owner is going to fix the problem by not allowing us to spot there. Nobody is arguing what the police are doing or what we are doing. It's the path of least resistence.

Quote:

---

The Air India is is a little different, because that is a completely private employee lot, while Firestone is a privately-owned lot that does let patrons visit publicly.

Air India is a much more sensitive area, and I think that no matter what might have happened, that the area would have gotten us completely banned at some point or another. Even when we wouldn't leave our cars and cops would kick us out FAST. So I don't think Air India fits into the comparison, as it's much more extreme.

---

It is statements like this that scare me. Phil it is exactly the same situation. People have shot in the cargo area for years with no problem. Reason was they didn't walk right out to the landing lights and park themselves under landing aircraft. Plus if we played it cool and layed low we can always return there. Which is what I am adovacting for spots like Firestone. Use some common sense and don't shoot in big groups a lot. Go to other spots like Costco and Boston Market so we don't have people seeing us in the same spot all the time. Think about other people besides ourselves and we will be able to use the spot for a long time to come.

Quote:

---

Again, the original post here mentions what is for the most part a POSITIVE encounter with police. The only problem that I, or alse seems ot have, is that the one officer tried to scare us off a little, and even that wasn't a big deal I don't think. As I said earleir, it was unnecessary of him, but oh well.

---

Actually from where I sat I saw that these officers have patience with us but if we push our luck and make what happened yesterday the rule and not the exception we risk having what happened at cargo plaza happen at Firestone. I have said my peace and hope most here will use good judgement though I think they will not. If we lose this spot we have nobody to blame but the ones who disregard good advice and do what we saw at cargo plaza. Remember what you do effects us all. Think about that a little more. It will do us all a bit of good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

The entitlement comes from the fact that you feel as long we are not doing anything wrong we can camp out and shoot all afternoon.

---

Not what I said and not what I think. I think that we can preserve the spot with a positive outcome if we behave properly. HOPEFULLY, if we do nothing wrong, we won't get kicked out by the property owners. However, if they ask us to leave, I know we don't have a RIGHT to be there, and would leave without protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Yes I read your post Phil, your basically saying as long as we are not doing anything wrong we can shoot there.

---

No, I am saying that I have no problem shooting there, being a patron of the stores and behaving properly in hopes that they will let us stay. We've been lucky thus far.

Quote:

---

Did you read my post? I specifically said it was private property. We all know it's private proeprty, and we know that we've been enjoying a PRIVILEDGE of being there. No one, including myself, implied otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

NCPD is quite accomadating but if we continue to have episodes like yesterday and refuse to limit our big groups conregrating there we risk losing the location.

---

What "episode"? We were stopped like we usually are, and with the exception of maybe slight attitude from one officer, everything turned out well. I hope for more encouters like that!

And how do you suggest limiting the size of the groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

People have shot in the cargo area for years with no problem.

---

Nothing could be more false. When I first got into the hobby, air India cargo was barely a "suicide spot", because people would have Port Police surrounding them with multiple cars within minutes. Nearly every time with rare exception. Only over the past few years did it start to become a little more accommodating, but it was still a sensitive location.

I personally do not blame Matt and Gordon, because I just think that something that like that bound to happen. This is because, like I said, this is a much more private lot than a store parking lot is. There's a huge difference there, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Actually from where I sat I saw that these officers have patience with us but if we push our luck and make what happened yesterday the rule and not the exception we risk having what happened at cargo plaza happen at Firestone. ....Remember what you do effects us all. Think about that a little more. It will do us all a bit of good.

---

How did we push our luck? Just by being out in a sizable group? I still don't understand what you're accusing the spotters of doing wrong at Firestone.

Although, I heard that there was one spotter at Firestone who asked "What are you folks doing?" who responded with "Taking pictures of airplanes. You have a problem?"

That was the first and only misstep of judgement that I know of at Firestone ever. That and Tommy wearing that ugly hat.

>That was the first and only misstep of judgement that I know of at Firestone ever. That and Tommy wearing that ugly hat.[/quote]<

Someone said you guys have lawn chairs set up also? That is a serious indicator of possible terrorist activity. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Although, I heard that there was one spotter at Firestone who asked "What are you folks doing?" who responded with "Taking pictures of airplanes. You have a problem?"

---

That person is well known as a "clown" and people like that give us a big black eye. But with certain folks, I'm surprised comments like that aren't spat out more often.

Nick, not everything is a conspiracy. Not everyone is out to get us. Perhaps taking off the foil hat, using less starch in your dockers and some really clear thinking is in order. Or if you really want to reduce the group size, even when a larger group was out the previous day with no bother at all, maybe you can find a new locale to shoot from. I think the majority of us will stay together. Spotting ain't all about JUST getting the shot. I've made some great friends spotting in large groups and I almost hate going it alone now.

The bottom line is the guy was just covering his ass and doing his job. That is all. I have comments about the "gung ho" mos, but I'll just keep them to myself.

Just adding this in, the Air India Lot was blocked off because the building that it used to serve purpose for has been cleared out. The Air India Parking just moved to the lot next to their cargo ops.

Quote:

---

That was the first and only misstep of judgement that I know of at Firestone ever. That and Tommy wearing that ugly hat.

---

My hat rocks thank you very much! :D :D

When I was at Firestone Saturday and Sunday, I noticed a "cop shop" (police station) outside the mall.

Is this manned, or is it just a phone link to the local precinct?

Maybe we could get an agreement similar to what the guys down in DC have, and call and let them know we are going to be there and what we are doing. That way it stops all the hassle, as when people call in and report us, the dispatcher can just say "Thanks for the call, we aware of these people and what they are doing"

It seems to work with the MWAA, why not try and get something set up with NCPD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markg

When I was at Firestone Saturday and Sunday, I noticed a "cop shop" (police station) outside the mall.

Is this manned, or is it just a phone link to the local precinct?

Maybe we could get an agreement similar to what the guys down in DC have, and call and let them know we are going to be there and what we are doing. That way it stops all the hassle, as when people call in and report us, the dispatcher can just say "Thanks for the call, we aware of these people and what they are doing"

It seems to work with the MWAA, why not try and get something set up with NCPD?

---

Impossible and logistically unrealistic. NCPD is much larger operation then MWAA, which is an airport authority with a smaller footprint then NCPD. Think about it...our call would have to be communicated to an entire dispatch call center and to the station house. The logistics, time and money so we don't get bothered is a waste of taxpayer resources.

I'm not bothered one bit by the police coming up asking questions. Most of them are respectful and aware of what we are doing. As long as you’re not running around the parking lot like a fool, trespassing like the links I posted above then it’s really a non issue. If some don't like spotting in groups then find another place to shoot from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markg

When I was at Firestone Saturday and Sunday, I noticed a "cop shop" (police station) outside the mall.

Is this manned, or is it just a phone link to the local precinct?

---

NCPD refers to them as "Booths" - there are a number of them in each precinct. They are not manned full time, but serve as a "substation" for officers on patrol. It's a place to make phone calls, do paper work, use the rest room, etc.

I think that being in a group actually improves public perception of spotting. Instead of a few people trying to "sneak around", acting suspicious, there is a group of people out having a good time. Remember, the times where you look the most suspicious are when you act like you have something to hide.....

About the Air India lot:

1. It was closed because that building is no longer occupied, not because we spotted there
2. In all the times we were there, no one ever said anything.
3. We had police officers drive by and WAVE at us while we were spotting there
4. There were other people (non-spotters) there who were watching the aircraft and doing the same thing, including a police officer walking his K-9 dog.
5. We spotted that area after they closed the lot.... Again, police officers drove by, smiled and waved.

I think it is a bit naive to blame a parking lot closing on 3 teenage kids who didn't even get a suspicious look from anybody, especially without knowing the full situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nwafan20

I think that being in a group actually improves public perception of spotting. Instead of a few people trying to "sneak around", acting suspicious, there is a group of people out having a good time. Remember, the times where you look the most suspicious are when you act like you have something to hide.....

About the Air India lot:

1. It was closed because that building is no longer occupied, not because we spotted there
2. In all the times we were there, no one ever said anything.
3. We had police officers drive by and WAVE at us while we were spotting there
4. There were other people (non-spotters) there who were watching the aircraft and doing the same thing, including a police officer walking his K-9 dog.
5. We spotted that area after they closed the lot.... Again, police officers drove by, smiled and waved.

I think it is a bit naive to blame a parking lot closing on 3 teenage kids who didn't even get a suspicious look from anybody, especially without knowing the full situation.

---

Matt no one blamed you, I said you guys were irresponsible...but my contacts in Port saw the pic and asked "do you know them and who are they?" Here's the deal...You, Matt, and Gordan were trespassing on FAA property and simply because no one said anything to you doesn't make it ok.. That's like saying I break the speed limit when I drive but since I don't get pulled over, it’s ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Matt no one blamed you,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Actually Tom it has everything to do with entitlement. Gordon and Matt treated that area as their personal spotting location. Not private property. They used absolutely no common sense and thought only about themselves. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well usually is. When we start to realize that some of these spots are not our personal spotting locations and start to treat them as places where with some common sense we can get some shots and not bring attention to ourselves we will be much better off.

---

...

[quote=stuart schechter]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":2cvl1m5p

Matt no one blamed you,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Actually Tom it has everything to do with entitlement. Gordon and Matt treated that area as their personal spotting location. Not private property. They used absolutely no common sense and thought only about themselves. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well usually is. When we start to realize that some of these spots are not our personal spotting locations and start to treat them as places where with some common sense we can get some shots and not bring attention to ourselves we will be much better off.

---

...[/quote:2cvl1m5p]

Stuart do you have something to add? Because I'm not smart enough to know what "..." mean? I generally don't agree with Nick on much but in this case he's spot on.

I understand that you agreed on what Nick said. I was pointing out that Matt's response in this was because of what Nick said. When you responded to him saying that, "No one blamed you,"... In fact, someone did, that's why that quote was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuart schechter

I understand that you agreed on what Nick said. I was pointing out that Matt's response in this was because of what Nick said. When you responded to him saying that, "No one blamed you,"... In fact, someone did, that's why that quote was there.

---

Nick never accussed them of being the sole reason why the lot was closed. Yes the pics didn't help and combined with sensitive facilites that are there the lot was closed.

Here's the deal...! We have plenty of spots to shoot from to enjoy JFK's traffic. There are no reason people and not even those we are discussing have to in some cases break the law to get a picture. Not only do they put themselves at risk but jeopardize the hobby for everyone else and IMO these risk takers photos should not be celebrated.

Tommy, you never walked on the grass at Air India before?

What law broken? I don't recall seeing them climbing on the landing lights or anything. Peopel walk their dogs right up to the landing lights all the time as well.

As I said, it's one of those spots that was bound to develop problems. I'm just happy we did get to shoot there for the time that we did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Tommy, you never walked on the grass at Air India before?

What law broken? I don't recall seeing them climbing on the landing lights or anything. Peopel walk their dogs right up to the landing lights all the time as well.

As I said, it's one of those spots that was bound to develop problems. I'm just happy we did get to shoot there for the time that we did.

---

Phil no I've never gone to the area right near the landing lights before because I know its FAA property. There are plenty of signs that even Stevie Wonder could see that say "No Trespassing." How do we know what else they did? It was irresponsible and Nick this time is right with his summation of their actions. Are you justifying that their actions are ok because people walk their dogs their? Lets get real...they shouldn't have gone there, it’s that simple.

I think standing in the grass is just as violating as walking the extra 10 feet to the landing lights themselves. The tresspassing sign I always thought referenced the ladder leading up to the walkway that's ON the light itself. In addition, how far from the lights is considered tresspassing?

I don't blame them. ALL of us were tresspassing as far as I'm concerned, on the grass or not. That's not a store's parking lot, and is much more private property, than other locations we employ....which is why it was never listed on the Spotting Maps.

I jsut don't blame them specifically. I cna name a dozen other people, myself included, who have set foot on the grass there in a way that someone wanting to look for excuses to kick us out can declare as tresspassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I think standing in the grass is just as violating as walking the extra 10 feet to the landing lights themselves. The tresspassing sign I always thought referenced the ladder leading up to the walkway that's ON the light itself. In addition, how far from the lights is considered tresspassing?

I don't blame them. ALL of us were tresspassing as far as I'm concerned, on the grass or not. That's not a store's parking lot, and is much more private property, than other locations we employ....which is why it was never listed on the Spotting Maps.

I jsut don't blame them specifically. I cna name a dozen other people, myself included, who have set foot on the grass there in a way that someone wanting to look for excuses to kick us out can declare as tresspassing.

---

10 feet Phil...come on that's not even close and your justifying the three of them glorifying their actions in those pics. Those lights are a good 50 feet from the parking lot if not more. There's a difference between walking 10 feet on the grass and 50 feet. Your playing both sides here Phil..one breath you're saying you have to spot responsibly and the next breath they did nothing wrong. Which is it, spot responsibly or its ok to go where you don't belong?

Yes I tell people to act responsibly, but I don't think anyone was irresponsible in this case.

I don't think that walking within a few feet of the landing lights is irresponsible. If that was the case, the lights themselves would have fences around each light like at other airports, or clear signage saying to stay back x-feet.

If I'm wrong, and if tresspassing is in fact the abuse that caused this, then the mere act of showing up in the lot is tresspassing, and we are all guilty of that.

I don't think that the lot was closed because of those three, or because or spotters in general.

I don't think it was a Port decision to close the lot.

My only issue is that specific people are being pointed out, when I don't think that's accurate nor fair. In your first post mentioning them, by the description you gave, I was nearly expecting to see pics of them on top of the light humping it or something, not just standing next to it. If standing next to the landing light is such a severe offense to you, myself and many other members and people that you have a lot of respect for are just as guilty.

I'll point finger when necessary, but I just don't think there's any one or three peolpe to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Yes I tell people to act responsibly, but I don't think anyone was irresponsible in this case.

I don't think that walking within a few feet of the landing lights is irresponsible. If that was the case, the lights themselves would have fences around each light like at other airports, or clear signage saying to stay back x-feet.

If I'm wrong, and if tresspassing is in fact the abuse that caused this, then the mere act of showing up in the lot is tresspassing, and we are all guilty of that.

I don't think that the lot was closed because of those three, or because or spotters in general.

I don't think it was a Port decision to close the lot.

My only issue is that specific people are being pointed out, when I don't think that's accurate nor fair. In your first post mentioning them, by the description you gave, I was nearly expecting to see pics of them on top of the light humping it or something, not just standing next to it. If standing next to the landing light is such a severe offense to you, myself and many other members and people that you have a lot of respect for are just as guilty.

I'll point finger when necessary, but I just don't think there's any one or three peolpe to blame.

---

Once again...who said it was their fault? No one said it was their fault. The argument is about spotting responsibly but I'm getting the impression the act of spotting responsibly is purely subjective in your eyes which is not the message your trying to convey. What I'm saying is these pics should have never been posted that glorifies the action.

Uh, responsibility is subjective in ANYONE'S eyes. There is always going to be opinion of what is and isn't ok. I just think that standing next to the landing light isn't that irresponsible, that's all. Drinking, fighting, urinating, indecent exposure, campfires, climbing the landing lights, wearing Yankee hats, throwing rocks and things like that are irresponsible.

Quote:

---

Drinking, fighting, urinating, indecent exposure, campfires, climbing the landing lights, wearing Yankee hats, throwing rocks and things like that are irresponsible.

---

You didn't need to use personal example now Phil. :wink:

Excuse me? I do not wear Yankee hats, pal. :evil:

What exactly happened at Cargo Plaza?; as i have not been there in 2 months?

As to the people who blame us, or think we acted irresponsibly:
We did not violate any "no trespassing" signs, jump over any fences or clime the ladders. I have seen other people in that area. We ere respectful, and did not draw unneeded attention to ourselves. If asked to leave, we would do so without questioning. The fact is, we weren't bothering anyone, and people in the area were ok with us being there. sooooo whats the problem?

I think we as aircraft spotters, have the right to go where any civilians can, but we need to be respectful, and if we are in a private or commercial place, and are asked to leave, we need to do so.

Tom? What exactly, did the PA ask in their letter?