Man taking pictures of B-24 in the wrong place(Edited Title)

cozmo · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:15 am

That was good, Gary, ya' beat me to it while I was trying to decide on the "reliever airport" description in the story.

I looked for a definition for reliever airport and could only find:
"A third major category contains reliever airports, which are essentially large general-aviation airports located in metropolitan areas that serve to offload small aircraft traffic from hub airports in the region. These account for the remaining 10% of AIP-funded airports."

I don't think Addison fits that description. It may be a small thing, and I may me wrong. It just kind of irked me.

As for the incident, the photographer was at fault. It may have gotten a little overblown, but no harm.

I was in Chicago the week before 9-11 and got almost the same treatment at the Chicago Museum of Industry when I went outside to get some good shots of the U-505. There were no signs "not" to do it and no "no trespassing" signs, but man, you would have thought I was there do something bad.

B-25 C · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:19 am

I had permission from the owners, airport officials to be where I was. I just ran into an uninformed person with an ego twice as big as him, with the ability not to listen to my explanation. I went back to the Airport officials to complain and found out he was a volunteer for the day. I got my pic.

fotobass · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:26 am

So you're 'the guy', then? I'm glad you've posted then. To this point, the story is all we had to go on, and it (astonishingly) doesn't appear to have its facts straight.

So you had clearance for that spot, then? In that case, the fault actually lies with whatever airport official didn't bother to inform security that you were allowed into that area. If you're going to make an exception to the rules, you sure ought to inform the folks who are supposed to enforce them.

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

Quote:

So you're 'the guy', then? I'm glad you've posted then. To this point, the story is all we had to go on, and it (astonishingly) doesn't appear to have its facts straight.

Shocking!!

:roll:

fotobass · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:01 am

Yeah, I'm glad I was sitting down.

cozmo · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:26 am

fotobass wrote:

So you're 'the guy'...

I think he was referring to an incident on the previous page.

Here is a link to the Dallas Observer story:

unfairpark
I didn't choose the title. And I usually don't like the writing there, but every once in a while...

For those of y'all who haven't seen ol' 927 up close, the slide show is good. If you don't like tramp stamps skip photo 11.

Mudge · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:35 am

JDK wrote:

BTW, IMHO, going on about 'Gestapo' and 'USSR' only ensure people don't have to take you seriously as well.

Just my opinion.

Good on ya' 'mate. Mine, too.

Mudge the reserved

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:38 am

I'm glad to see our national airway system protected by that Constitutional guarantee that you are guilty until proven innocent.

This is pure lunacy. The cows are already out of the barn, and we're burning down the barn to stop them from hurting it again.

cozmo · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:44 am

From Danny Hurley, the guy who was involved, at the Dallas Observer blog:

Quote:

Danno says:

Thanks for the comments guys.
But, I was on the tarmac, after being told not to be, it was my fault. I did not know the legal boundaries, and my ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

For the record, I'm not sure the gun was pointed, once I saw him unholster the gun, my eyes went to reading his lips, as I am quite hard of hearing and I wanted to make sure I understood his commands.

My Dad died 35 years ago, but his wisdom came back in a flash on Fathers Day.
"Right or Wrong" my Dad once said, " Never, Never argue with a Man with a Gun, say Yes Sir, No Sir, then get the hell out of there." He was no kittie, fought and flew in two wars.

Quote:

Danno says:

DB, by, "he unholstered his gun", I meant that he unlocked it from the holster, and Im pretty sure it was a show of force and a defensive tactic, Im not sure he handled it.
I was there and I do not think he exceeded his authority.

David, the vet was referring to Homeland Security laws, not the Cops Tatics.

Again, I did a stupid thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. The officers were only doing their Job.

Big Guy, ....sitck it to Da Man:)
Posted On: Tuesday, Jun. 23 2009 @ 8:21AM

There is other stuff there, but these folks are, for the most part, alternative newspaper readers and not real knowledgeable on the workings of airports.

fotobass · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:52 am

But, I was on the tarmac, after being told not to be, it was my fault. I did not know the legal boundaries, and my ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

There's the answer. It appears, then, that he had permission to shoot, but didn't verify where he was allowed to be.

Like I said earlier, that's why I'm very clear as to where I'm planning on shooting from, in order to avoid any incursions.

A friend of mine, several years ago, was hired to photograph an event with then-President Bush in Florida. He made the mistake of saying that he had been hired to 'shoot the President' to airport security.

Needless to say...he didn't make the event.

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

Stockton TSA Version 2.0

:lol:

Dan Newcomb · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:02 am

Ah gee wiz! All the way from "Man Arrested" to "It was my fault."

Much ado about nothing.

fotobass · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:16 am

PinecastleAAF wrote:

Stockton TSA Version 2.0

:lol:

'JAWS' had a sequel, 'Rambo' had a sequel, 'Rocky' had 9 or 10 of 'em...

AHancock51 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:20 pm

Yeah, standing there with a camera taking pictures of a warbird, that's a real threat :roll:

Permission or not, doesn't seem very dangerous to me, glad I have a place like Geneseo to take my pics

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11336

fotobass wrote:

I'm not saying he was wrong for wanting an image, I'm saying he was where he wasn't supposed to be.

Let me understand this...are you guys saying that, if he was in a restricted area of the field without escort that they should have ignored it? What if this was some ill-intentioned individual trying to get near the runway for nefarious purposes?

Clearly this guy wasn't, but security doesn't know that until they investigate it.

Whatever happened to someone driving out in a pickup truck and saying, "Yo, dude... This is a restricted area, y'all aren't supposed to be out here. Can I give you a lift back to the ramp?"

Warbird Information Exchange

Man taking pictures of B-24 in the wrong place(Edited Title)

Who is online