"No Photography" at the airport? By LAW?!

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
I saw this new sign at Fort Worth Meacham's terminal today... Meacham is a GA airport. This is on the door that leads out onto the ramp. You can see the "pink" (salmon) control tower on the other side of the main runway, next to the 'N' in "AVIATION". But what's up with the "By City Ordinance" restriction on the left hand door??

(Posting a link to this photo... Chuck, why can I still not upload photos? The "manage attachments" link is missing since the security change, and I've certainly done more than 5 posts... or is it 5 posts SINCE your change?)

noairportpics.jpg


Dang... I just realized I broke the law taking the picture to show you guys... think they'll take away my license or fine me?
 
Last edited:
Troy Whistman said:
I saw this new sign at Fort Worth Meacham's terminal today... Meacham is a GA airport. This is on the door that leads out onto the ramp. You can see the "pink" (salmon) control tower on the other side of the main runway, next to the 'N' in "AVIATION". But what's up with the "By City Ordinance" restriction on the left hand door??

(Posting a link to this photo... Chuck, why can I still not upload photos? The "manage attachments" link is missing since the security change, and I've certainly done more than 5 posts... or is it 5 posts SINCE your change?)

noairportpics.jpg


Dang... I just realized I broke the law taking the picture to show you guys... think they'll take away my license or fine me?
Click to expand...

That's really odd... but then again, so are the tX liquor laws :yes:
 
man, that is so freakin stupid.
 
I have no doubt that the restriction is aimed at paparazzi bugging the customers, not at you, Troy.
 
Here is the code for you to see for yourself
Sec. 3-148. Photography; movie productions; polls. (a) It shall be unlawful to utilize photographic or moving picture equipment for the purpose of picture-taking or moving picture photography in or near any area designated as a restricted area within the airport unless such person has obtained a permit from the airport director.

(b) It shall be unlawful to use the airport premises for the purpose of any commercial or private photographic, theatrical or moving picture production without a permit from the airport director.

(c) It shall be unlawful to conduct polls, opinion surveys, name listings, or to solicit any other commercial data or information on airport premises without a permit from the airport director.

(Code 1964, § 4-56; Ord. No. 8840, § 1, 6-7-83)
Click to expand...
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10096&ekmensel=21_submenu_0_btnlink

America: Land of the over governed :mad:

Might be a good chance for you to go to the city council and ask why this ordinance actually exists. Use the GoFlyAmerica.org website to show how photos are being used at other airports to promote airports.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have no doubt that the restriction is aimed at paparazzi bugging the customers, not at you, Troy.
Click to expand...

No offense intended, Ron, but you'd be lucky to find a PERSON in the terminal, much less anybody "ritzy" enough for paparazzi to be bugging... they'd all be down at Texas Jet, anyway. Still you may be right... I'm going to try to find a copy of the ordinance online to see if it sheds any light on the intent of this law.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like Scott beat me to it. Thanks, Scott!
 
deafsound said:
man, that is so freakin stupid.
Click to expand...

I find it funny how they decide what to put up. Why not "no acts of terrorism", or "no alcohol beyond these doors" or even "no bull riding permitted on the tarmac".

More realistically, Sec. 3-145 prohibits kite flying or model rocketry on airport property, and section 3-147 prohibits camping or hunting on the airport grounds... so why aren't those restrictions on the door? I just find it odd how they (gov't) decide what to enforce, and what to "label", and, as Ron suggested... "WHY!?"
 
Last edited:
There is only one plausible solution:

Stand in front of the sign and take pictures all day long until someone tells you to stop. Then continue to do it until you are arrested.

Then challenge the legality of the law. Make it huge.
 
SkyHog said:
There is only one plausible solution:

Stand in front of the sign and take pictures all day long until someone tells you to stop. Then continue to do it until you are arrested.

Then challenge the legality of the law. Make it huge.
Click to expand...

The Muni code says that the penalty is $500 per day.... makes for an expensive photo shoot. At least it's not $500 per photo!! :eek: :hairraise:
 
I wonder what the burden of obtaining a permit from the Airport Director is? I wonder, indeed, whether they even have a policy or procedure to accommodate it?
 
Are they still doing Airshows at Meacham, or have them pretty much moved them all to Alliance?

I wonder if they have such a "restricted area" at Alliance. I would imagine there are few thousand camera's being used to violate that ordinance during those weekends.
 
There is a "no photography" sign on the rest room door at Panorama at HPN.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11412&highlight=panorama

PAGING NICK! SKYHOG TO THE COURTROOM!
Sir, you have been found guilty of founding the Go Fly America subversive group that intends to fly dangerous little planes all over America for the PURPOSE of breaking the law! Insurrection by Photography! 5 years! BANG {/slamming gavel sound}

-Skip
 
Last edited:
Almost the same as the New York ordinance, and equally moronic.

You probably can't do maintenance at your tie-down or hire an independent A&P in your own hangar either.

Can't let pilots have too much freedom, ya know. Someone might get hurt.
 
Last edited:
Troy Whistman said:
I find it funny how they decide what to put up. Why not "no acts of terrorism", or "no alcohol beyond these doors" or even "no bull riding permitted on the tarmac".

More realistically, Sec. 3-145 prohibits kite flying or model rocketry on airport property, and section 3-147 prohibits camping or hunting on the airport grounds... so why aren't those restrictions on the door? I just find it odd how they (gov't) decide what to enforce, and what to "label", and, as Ron suggested... "WHY!?"
Click to expand...

You mean like making the town a Nuclear Free Zone?
http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/nfz/nftpc.htm
I think it would be hard to write the ticket for the pilot of a nuclear bomber from the bomb crater.

What was the date of this oridinance. Think it was one more "we're doing something to prevent 9/11 afterwards" kneejerk? You know, they used airplanes. What are ya, dense?
 
Probably for "security" reasons. Or for "revenue".

There are signs up at the checkpoints at BWI prohibiting photography near the checkpoints.
 
Looks like it says "no dogs" on the door too. I wonder how you get your dog to the plane if you don't go through the FBO. I wonder if you are standing on a public road next to the airport if it's illegal to take pictures out on the ramp?
I wonder if they ban all cell phones because so many of them have cameras?
I wonder if it's illegal to sit in your plane and take pictures? I wonder what's happening to civil rights?:rolleyes:
 
Given that the ordinance also covers solitication and the like, it seems pretty obvious that it's aimed at folks who get in the way of airport operations and annoy the hell out of customers, and if that's true, I like it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Given that the ordinance also covers solitication and the like, it seems pretty obvious that it's aimed at folks who get in the way of airport operations and annoy the hell out of customers, and if that's true, I like it.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but I'm thinking back to the American Eagle flight at BOS that had landing gear troubles. Some guy was on the roof of the parking lot taking photos, and he was told by security to stop.
 
deafsound said:
That's fine, but I'm thinking back to the American Eagle flight at BOS that had landing gear troubles. Some guy was on the roof of the parking lot taking photos, and he was told by security to stop.
Click to expand...
Whatever for? Did the camera interfere with the landing gear hydraulic system or something? I'd think the insurance people would buy his photos.

Why not just have a "no pestering the pilots" ordinance, instead of attempting an impossible list of specific activities that are perfectly acceptable 99.9% of the time?

Can a pilot be accompanied on the ramp by his seeing-eye dog? If not, isn't that illegal discrimination under the ADA?

No wonder flying is a dying activity. Just being at the airport is practically a crime by itself.
 
I can't imagine not being able to take a photo of a student that just finished their first solo, or their checkride...surely they still have flight training at Meacham! It's a silly ordinance. I know they've had signs up around military installations like that for years, but I can't imagine there are any secret military aircraft making stops at FTW. I wonder how long it'll take before someone challenges it. All we need is for some famous movie star to land there and have a few paparazzi get tickets for it, court challenges would soon follow.
 
ausrere said:
I can't imagine not being able to take a photo of a student that just finished their first solo, or their checkride...surely they still have flight training at Meacham! It's a silly ordinance. I know they've had signs up around military installations like that for years, but I can't imagine there are any secret military aircraft making stops at FTW. I wonder how long it'll take before someone challenges it. All we need is for some famous movie star to land there and have a few paparazzi get tickets for it, court challenges would soon follow.
Click to expand...

Just outside that door, and to the left on the tarmac, are two big white hangars. I forget the names on them... but plain white turboprop planes go in, and the doors shut.. .and a few weeks later they come out in government markings and lots of pods hanging off the wings and such. I'm told it's for border surveillance. Maybe THAT's what they don't want pictures being taken of? Of course, you can take pictures of it just as easily from the parking lot...
 
JohnR said:
Why not just have a "no pestering the pilots" ordinance, instead of attempting an impossible list of specific activities that are perfectly acceptable 99.9% of the time?
Click to expand...
Clearly you have never tried to enforce a vague rule. If they don't list specifically prohibited activities, the rule would not hold up in court. I strongly suspect that the current wording of the rule is the result of past unsuccessful attempts to regulate undesired activity.
 
Troy Whistman said:
I agree with you, by the way...

Blind pilots are a RARITY! It's amazing to me what this guy did. Can you imagine flying IFR on audio clues only??!
Click to expand...
Wow, that's amazing. And it doesn't sound as if he was a pilot before he lost his sight. Of course, all his flights are IFR. And I would expect that his copilot would always be able to log the time as a required crewmember, as there's obviously no way that Steve can "see and avoid."

What gets me, though, is that the voice annunciations come only every two seconds. During landing, that can be an awfully long time! And heaven help you if your altimeter isn't perfectly set to the CORRECT (not "reported") pressure. Maybe they have a radar altimeter in the plane that they didn't mention in the article. We rely so much on visual cues when landing, that doing it without them is amazing! Every landing is a Cat III!

To get back to topic, if he used some sort of visual sensing device in the plane, might that be considered photography, prohibiting him from landing at Meacham?:dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
Clearly you have never tried to enforce a vague rule. If they don't list specifically prohibited activities, the rule would not hold up in court. I strongly suspect that the current wording of the rule is the result of past unsuccessful attempts to regulate undesired activity.
Click to expand...
Larry Flynt knows all about that. :D
 
there are obviously two issues here.

1) Over zealous security guards that are paranoid and have nothing better to do.

2) Someone has a legit security concern. I mean me taking a photo for the CONUS challange is different than someone taking photos of secure and sensitive areas. I recall after 9/11 The Philly police or Sunoco security stopped some middle eastern looking guy who was taking Photos of the Refinery. That was kinda strange and arose my suspicions as well. A blanket prohibition is a bit much though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top