Aerial PHotography Flights 'Required' to File Flight Plans

[C J Campbell]

Yesterday a local aerial photographer came in just fuming. Apparently he was
working within the Seattle Class B and called FSS to get an update. He had a
squawk and was in touch with Approach, of course. Anyway, FSS told him that
they could not find his flight plan and that he was required to have a
flight plan for aerial photography. The operator really chewed him out for
it, saying that there was a NOTAM requiring this flight plan and that it was
filed in the extended edition of the NOTAMs. The operator basically refused
to help the pilot.

I am reminded of the 'public notice' that Arthur Dent's house would be
demolished in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:" It was kept in a locked
drawer in a disused basement behind a door marked "Beware of the Leopard."

Anyway, since I also do a fair amount of aerial photography and had not
heard of this NOTAM I called FSS this morning for clarification. It seems
that there is no NOTAM, but some sort of "Notice of Public Interest" that
FSS briefers get, hence pilots have no access to it. If the pilot tells FSS
that they are doing an aerial photography mission, then FSS is supposed to
tell the pilot to coordinate the flight with the Seattle Military Desk at
(253) 352-3523. This requirement is supposedly imposed on aerial photography
only, but the briefer thought it might be a good idea to call this number
any time you are loitering over industrial or other areas. He called it the
"Little Old Lady" rule. If it might frighten the "Little Old Lady" into
calling the police, then talk to the Seattle Military Desk.

I suggested that it might be better to just tell the "Little Old Lady" to
stuff it, which is what used to happen. Nowadays, though, I guess that just
is not possible.

I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest" like
this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not comply.
He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending the
text of this to AOPA.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


Ne Obliviscaris

[Jay Masino]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
> area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest" like
> this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
> since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
> any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not comply.
> He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
> it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
> their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending the
> text of this to AOPA.


This almost makes me think that the Dept of Homeland Defense is very close
to requiring an ADIZ around other metropolitan areas, like DC's.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Masino wrote:

> This almost makes me think that the Dept of Homeland Defense is very close
> to requiring an ADIZ around other metropolitan areas, like DC's.

Of course they want to. If one's goal is security, one wants to secure.
Security is achieved by reducing freedom.

Independantly, any organization wants to assure its survival. More security
bureaucracy means more money - more growth - for the security bureaucracy.

All that aside, the fact that an FSS refused to provide an "update" (I
assume that this meant weather information) to a pilot in the air is a
clear safety-of-flight issue. The operator needs serious retraining (or
removal) before he/she does something else stupid that kills one of us.

- Andrew

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell > wrote:
> > I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the
Seattle
> > area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest"
like
> > this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
> > since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see
how
> > any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not
comply.
> > He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper.
While
> > it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason
for
> > their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending
the
> > text of this to AOPA.
>
>
> This almost makes me think that the Dept of Homeland Defense is very close
> to requiring an ADIZ around other metropolitan areas, like DC's.

Does anybody know who this "Seattle Military Desk" is, anyway? Who do they
work for and who appointed them God? All I know is that I sure don't work
for them and I can find no legal basis for them to be giving anyone orders.
For all I know they work for al Qaeda. Why does Seattle have a military,
anyway? :-)

[zatatime]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:30:46 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> Who do they
>work for and who appointed them God?

I think it was some guy named George, but rumors are floating around
it's actually somebody named Dick. Chances are good it was one of the
two.

z

[C J Campbell]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Does anybody know who this "Seattle Military Desk" is, anyway? Who do
they
> >work for and who appointed them God? All I know is that I sure don't work
> >for them and I can find no legal basis for them to be giving anyone
orders.
> >For all I know they work for al Qaeda. Why does Seattle have a military,
> >anyway? :-)
>
> I'm sure one of the others here has more info, but I've
> called the "military desk" at Air Traffic Control

Yeah, that is what it is here, too. Missed the smiley?

[David Herman]

CJ, I think a phone call to AOPA first thing tomorrow morning would be in
order. This is an outrage, and I would think that very loud alarm bells
should be going off over this (at AOPA's headquarters, not at the Department
of Homeland Stupidity).

I fly around and take pictures al the time. I have no plans to file a
flight lan or "coordinate" with anybody that's not required in the regs, and
I am not aware of any reg that says I need to get down on my knees and beg
some potentate for permission to do so (even if I have dared to enter the
class Bravo - with clearance). If someone from FSS told me he wouldn't give
me the weather up ahead because I had a camera along or because I shouldn't
someplace where I could possibly disturb some little old lady, I'd be very
tempted to tell the nice FSS man to go **** himself, consequences be damned.

Seriously, I think AOPA would want to hear about this right away. How about
calling 'em in the morning? Toll free and all that....why not?


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Yesterday a local aerial photographer came in just fuming. Apparently he
> was
> working within the Seattle Class B and called FSS to get an update. He had
> a
> squawk and was in touch with Approach, of course. Anyway, FSS told him
> that
> they could not find his flight plan and that he was required to have a
> flight plan for aerial photography. The operator really chewed him out for
> it, saying that there was a NOTAM requiring this flight plan and that it
> was
> filed in the extended edition of the NOTAMs. The operator basically
> refused
> to help the pilot.
>
> I am reminded of the 'public notice' that Arthur Dent's house would be
> demolished in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:" It was kept in a locked
> drawer in a disused basement behind a door marked "Beware of the Leopard."
>
> Anyway, since I also do a fair amount of aerial photography and had not
> heard of this NOTAM I called FSS this morning for clarification. It seems
> that there is no NOTAM, but some sort of "Notice of Public Interest" that
> FSS briefers get, hence pilots have no access to it. If the pilot tells
> FSS
> that they are doing an aerial photography mission, then FSS is supposed to
> tell the pilot to coordinate the flight with the Seattle Military Desk at
> (253) 352-3523. This requirement is supposedly imposed on aerial
> photography
> only, but the briefer thought it might be a good idea to call this number
> any time you are loitering over industrial or other areas. He called it
> the
> "Little Old Lady" rule. If it might frighten the "Little Old Lady" into
> calling the police, then talk to the Seattle Military Desk.
>
> I suggested that it might be better to just tell the "Little Old Lady" to
> stuff it, which is what used to happen. Nowadays, though, I guess that
> just
> is not possible.
>
> I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
> area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest"
> like
> this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
> since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
> any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not
> comply.
> He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
> it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
> their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending
> the
> text of this to AOPA.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> Ne Obliviscaris
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"David Herman" > wrote in message
news:1102052887.373520@yasure...
>
> Seriously, I think AOPA would want to hear about this right away. How
about
> calling 'em in the morning? Toll free and all that....why not?

'Cause I already called them. The person I spoke to seemed astonished at
these demands. AOPA had not heard of them before.

[David Herman]

OK, good. I assume that once they get over their initial astonishment,
they're going to look into it, and prepare to crank up the Big Stink
Machine? I hope so.

Thanks for shining some sunlight on this BS.

--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Herman" > wrote in message
> news:1102052887.373520@yasure...
>>
>> Seriously, I think AOPA would want to hear about this right away. How
> about
>> calling 'em in the morning? Toll free and all that....why not?
>
> 'Cause I already called them. The person I spoke to seemed astonished at
> these demands. AOPA had not heard of them before.
>
>
>

[Bill Denton]

Don't know for sure, but it seems like some folks may be getting their
panties in a wad unnecessarily...

There is a big difference between "aerial photography" and someone who
simply takes along a digital camera to shoot a few "purty pitures".

I used to work in land surveying and civil engineering, so I frequently
worked with aerial photographs. For those of you who haven't seen one, these
are typically large (24" x 36" being the norm) photographs, with very high
resolution. And they are incredibly well "scaled". Assume a surveyor on the
ground measures the distance between two points as 2000'; if you use a scale
(ruler) to measure the distance on an aerial photograph, it will usually be
correct within 5 - 10 feet.

These types of aerial photographs are generally "tied" back to some sort of
"marker" with published lat/long coordinates. Give me a couple of good
aerial photos and a scale, and I can give you the GPS coordinates to drop a
bomb right down somebody's chimney.

And aerial photography generally involves multiple low-level passes over a
defined geographic area in order to pick up all of the necessary geographic
features.

Even 20 years ago, when I was in the surveying game and before the Keystone
Cops at the TSA were even thought of, most of the aerial photographers were
conscious of the security implications of their work. If it was a first-time
contract, the photographers took steps to make sure you were a legitimate
firm with a legitimate use for the products. And even with repeat customers,
the contract required the purchaser to state the purpose of the photos, with
contract numbers for the "master" project, if applicable.

They weren't just going to go out and shoot military facilities, nuke
plants, or even police stations. Sure, they'd go out and shoot an overhead
picture of your house, store, whatever, but it would usually be just that,
an overhead picture, not to scale, and not useful for much except recording
the ground features.

But responsible aerial photographers are not really the problem. Aerial
photography has long been a part of civil engineering and the FAA and TSA
know all about it.

Something I learned a long time ago: if you're going to be doing something
that might look suspicious, let somebody in authority know what you're going
to be doing, BEFORE YOU DO IT, and you generally won't have any problems.

So, when the FAA sees a guy on a flight plan making repeated low and slow
passes over an area, they know what he is doing. Put three guys, in the same
area, dong the same thing, the FAA still knows what's going on.

But when the fourth guy shows up, no flight plan, and starts making repeated
low and slow passes over a sensitive area, I think everybody here would want
the jets to show up.

To paraphrase an old commercial, "This isn't your grandfather's USA". And
many have observed that perhaps people in the US have an "excess of
freedom"; maybe so, maybe not. But, we now face a lot of security issues
that didn't exist even 30 years ago.

A couple of loose observations:

Never forget the little boy who cried wolf.

If you give them an inch, they'll take a yard.

Many people strenuously object to any act that they perceive to be an
incursion on their freedom. Sometimes it's based on the "give them an inch"
theory; they fear, and sometimes reasonably, that it may lead to further
restrictions. And other times, it's like the guy with a stinky old dog turd
on his lawn; he doesn't like it, he doesn't need it, but God help the man
who tries to take it away from him. It's his, and he's not going to give it
up.

And one final old saw: It's a lot easier to get out in front of a river and
change it's direction a little bit than it is to get out in front of it and
try to completely stop it.

Let's pick our battles. If we bitch about every little thing that comes down
the pike, just like with the little boy who cried "wolf", nobody's going to
pay attention when we bitch about something big coming down the pike.

A new regulation or restriction, while sometimes a major pain in the ass,
may be totally reasonable and necessary. It's a fact of current life that we
are simply going to have to live with it.

It's pointless to try and stop some of these new rules and regulations, the
are going to happen no matter what we do, so let's not waste our time and
energy trying.

But what we can do is get out in front of the river and change it's
direction a little bit. Stay on top of any proposed regulations, and work
with those who are proposing it. Frequently a slight change or two in a
regulation can make it far less onerous for the regulated while still
accomplish the objectives of those we allow to regulate us.

And please, look at this as you would a newspaper editorial. It's just a
statement of one person's opinion, not an invitation to start a
philosophical debate. I've got other things I would prefer to do with my
time, so why bother; after all, I'm always right! ;-)




"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Yesterday a local aerial photographer came in just fuming. Apparently he
was
> working within the Seattle Class B and called FSS to get an update. He had
a
> squawk and was in touch with Approach, of course. Anyway, FSS told him
that
> they could not find his flight plan and that he was required to have a
> flight plan for aerial photography. The operator really chewed him out for
> it, saying that there was a NOTAM requiring this flight plan and that it
was
> filed in the extended edition of the NOTAMs. The operator basically
refused
> to help the pilot.
>
> I am reminded of the 'public notice' that Arthur Dent's house would be
> demolished in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:" It was kept in a locked
> drawer in a disused basement behind a door marked "Beware of the Leopard."
>
> Anyway, since I also do a fair amount of aerial photography and had not
> heard of this NOTAM I called FSS this morning for clarification. It seems
> that there is no NOTAM, but some sort of "Notice of Public Interest" that
> FSS briefers get, hence pilots have no access to it. If the pilot tells
FSS
> that they are doing an aerial photography mission, then FSS is supposed to
> tell the pilot to coordinate the flight with the Seattle Military Desk at
> (253) 352-3523. This requirement is supposedly imposed on aerial
photography
> only, but the briefer thought it might be a good idea to call this number
> any time you are loitering over industrial or other areas. He called it
the
> "Little Old Lady" rule. If it might frighten the "Little Old Lady" into
> calling the police, then talk to the Seattle Military Desk.
>
> I suggested that it might be better to just tell the "Little Old Lady" to
> stuff it, which is what used to happen. Nowadays, though, I guess that
just
> is not possible.
>
> I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
> area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest"
like
> this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
> since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
> any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not
comply.
> He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
> it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
> their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending
the
> text of this to AOPA.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> Ne Obliviscaris
>
>
>

[David Reinhart]

An awful lot of which imagery and information is no publicly available via the
GIS. The idiots in the government have got to realize that locking the barn
door after the horse is out is no damn good.

As a reminder, not long after 9/11 a photographer in Vermont was arrested and
charged with treason (by the state, not the feds) for taking pictures of the
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Seems there is an old law still on the books up
there that taking pictures of critical facilities such as power plants, military
bases, etc., without permission during times of war is is illegal and actually
categorized as treasonous. I don't remember hearing what eventually happened to
him, but I also didn't hear about the law being repealed, either.

Dave Reinhart


Bill Denton wrote:

> Don't know for sure, but it seems like some folks may be getting their
> panties in a wad unnecessarily...
>
> There is a big difference between "aerial photography" and someone who
> simply takes along a digital camera to shoot a few "purty pitures".
>
> I used to work in land surveying and civil engineering, so I frequently
> worked with aerial photographs. For those of you who haven't seen one, these
> are typically large (24" x 36" being the norm) photographs, with very high
> resolution. And they are incredibly well "scaled". Assume a surveyor on the
> ground measures the distance between two points as 2000'; if you use a scale
> (ruler) to measure the distance on an aerial photograph, it will usually be
> correct within 5 - 10 feet.
>
> These types of aerial photographs are generally "tied" back to some sort of
> "marker" with published lat/long coordinates. Give me a couple of good
> aerial photos and a scale, and I can give you the GPS coordinates to drop a
> bomb right down somebody's chimney.
>
> And aerial photography generally involves multiple low-level passes over a
> defined geographic area in order to pick up all of the necessary geographic
> features.
>
> Even 20 years ago, when I was in the surveying game and before the Keystone
> Cops at the TSA were even thought of, most of the aerial photographers were
> conscious of the security implications of their work. If it was a first-time
> contract, the photographers took steps to make sure you were a legitimate
> firm with a legitimate use for the products. And even with repeat customers,
> the contract required the purchaser to state the purpose of the photos, with
> contract numbers for the "master" project, if applicable.
>
> They weren't just going to go out and shoot military facilities, nuke
> plants, or even police stations. Sure, they'd go out and shoot an overhead
> picture of your house, store, whatever, but it would usually be just that,
> an overhead picture, not to scale, and not useful for much except recording
> the ground features.
>
> But responsible aerial photographers are not really the problem. Aerial
> photography has long been a part of civil engineering and the FAA and TSA
> know all about it.
>
> Something I learned a long time ago: if you're going to be doing something
> that might look suspicious, let somebody in authority know what you're going
> to be doing, BEFORE YOU DO IT, and you generally won't have any problems.
>
> So, when the FAA sees a guy on a flight plan making repeated low and slow
> passes over an area, they know what he is doing. Put three guys, in the same
> area, dong the same thing, the FAA still knows what's going on.
>
> But when the fourth guy shows up, no flight plan, and starts making repeated
> low and slow passes over a sensitive area, I think everybody here would want
> the jets to show up.
>
> To paraphrase an old commercial, "This isn't your grandfather's USA". And
> many have observed that perhaps people in the US have an "excess of
> freedom"; maybe so, maybe not. But, we now face a lot of security issues
> that didn't exist even 30 years ago.
>
> A couple of loose observations:
>
> Never forget the little boy who cried wolf.
>
> If you give them an inch, they'll take a yard.
>
> Many people strenuously object to any act that they perceive to be an
> incursion on their freedom. Sometimes it's based on the "give them an inch"
> theory; they fear, and sometimes reasonably, that it may lead to further
> restrictions. And other times, it's like the guy with a stinky old dog turd
> on his lawn; he doesn't like it, he doesn't need it, but God help the man
> who tries to take it away from him. It's his, and he's not going to give it
> up.
>
> And one final old saw: It's a lot easier to get out in front of a river and
> change it's direction a little bit than it is to get out in front of it and
> try to completely stop it.
>
> Let's pick our battles. If we bitch about every little thing that comes down
> the pike, just like with the little boy who cried "wolf", nobody's going to
> pay attention when we bitch about something big coming down the pike.
>
> A new regulation or restriction, while sometimes a major pain in the ass,
> may be totally reasonable and necessary. It's a fact of current life that we
> are simply going to have to live with it.
>
> It's pointless to try and stop some of these new rules and regulations, the
> are going to happen no matter what we do, so let's not waste our time and
> energy trying.
>
> But what we can do is get out in front of the river and change it's
> direction a little bit. Stay on top of any proposed regulations, and work
> with those who are proposing it. Frequently a slight change or two in a
> regulation can make it far less onerous for the regulated while still
> accomplish the objectives of those we allow to regulate us.
>
> And please, look at this as you would a newspaper editorial. It's just a
> statement of one person's opinion, not an invitation to start a
> philosophical debate. I've got other things I would prefer to do with my
> time, so why bother; after all, I'm always right! ;-)
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yesterday a local aerial photographer came in just fuming. Apparently he
> was
> > working within the Seattle Class B and called FSS to get an update. He had
> a
> > squawk and was in touch with Approach, of course. Anyway, FSS told him
> that
> > they could not find his flight plan and that he was required to have a
> > flight plan for aerial photography. The operator really chewed him out for
> > it, saying that there was a NOTAM requiring this flight plan and that it
> was
> > filed in the extended edition of the NOTAMs. The operator basically
> refused
> > to help the pilot.
> >
> > I am reminded of the 'public notice' that Arthur Dent's house would be
> > demolished in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:" It was kept in a locked
> > drawer in a disused basement behind a door marked "Beware of the Leopard."
> >
> > Anyway, since I also do a fair amount of aerial photography and had not
> > heard of this NOTAM I called FSS this morning for clarification. It seems
> > that there is no NOTAM, but some sort of "Notice of Public Interest" that
> > FSS briefers get, hence pilots have no access to it. If the pilot tells
> FSS
> > that they are doing an aerial photography mission, then FSS is supposed to
> > tell the pilot to coordinate the flight with the Seattle Military Desk at
> > (253) 352-3523. This requirement is supposedly imposed on aerial
> photography
> > only, but the briefer thought it might be a good idea to call this number
> > any time you are loitering over industrial or other areas. He called it
> the
> > "Little Old Lady" rule. If it might frighten the "Little Old Lady" into
> > calling the police, then talk to the Seattle Military Desk.
> >
> > I suggested that it might be better to just tell the "Little Old Lady" to
> > stuff it, which is what used to happen. Nowadays, though, I guess that
> just
> > is not possible.
> >
> > I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
> > area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest"
> like
> > this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
> > since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
> > any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not
> comply.
> > He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
> > it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
> > their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending
> the
> > text of this to AOPA.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher J. Campbell
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> > Port Orchard, WA
> >
> >
> > Ne Obliviscaris
> >
> >
> >

[C Kingsbury]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Don't know for sure, but it seems like some folks may be getting their
> panties in a wad unnecessarily...

Like you I have very limited patience for those who refuse to recognize that
we are living in a new and very uncertain world. Reasonable precautions are
the very least we can do, and even with restrictions we enjoy a freedom of
flight unknown in most other first-world nations.

That being said, I think CJs reaction is more than justified, and I have to
disagree that this is not a battle worth fighting.

Look at the NRA- they vociferously protest *any* restriction on guns of any
kind, even ones a majority of their members find reasonable. Their tactics
seem to have worked quite well, though it bears saying that the NRA's
political clout is enormous and capable of swinging elections at any level.
Forget about the league, AOPA isn't even playing the same sport.

Still, I have a problem with the "save our resources for the big one"
approach for a couple of reasons. First, like all large objects, the federal
government is controlled largely by inertia. If we should ever reach the
point that the TSFAA issues an NPRM establishing an ADIZ covering all Bravo
airspace, it will be too late for our little band of rebels to stop it.
Hell, we haven't even made a dent in the DC ADIZ.

Nor is it clear that this "crying wolf" as you call it will really cost us
anything. My suspicion is that most of the heat we're getting these days is
coming from middle management doing its usual turf-grabbing best. At my home
field all pilots now have to be fingerprinted and badged by the airport
authority at a cost of $75. Neither the President, SecDHS, or the head of
the TSA had anything to do with this. It was the TSA station chief at that
airport (we have a little Part 121 traffic) who told the airport authority,
"you guys need a security program."

AOPA understands the political advocacy game pretty well and I trust them to
work the back channels effectively as these things come up. If we keep the
pressure on all the little things we can hopefully avoid the big ones ever
developing. If those come up, we'll just have to bank on the pilots in
congress to fight on our behalf.

-cwk.

[Ross Richardson]

I am not sure what the meaning here is. AOPA has a lot on its plate and
does get things accomplished. That is what is so good about this forum,
that these things are brought up and can be highlighted. AOPA cannot
know everything. It is up to us to help them out.

Ross

David Herman wrote:
>
> OK, good. I assume that once they get over their initial astonishment,
> they're going to look into it, and prepare to crank up the Big Stink
> Machine? I hope so.
>
> Thanks for shining some sunlight on this BS.
>
> --
> David Herman
> N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
> Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
> http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Herman" > wrote in message
> > news:1102052887.373520@yasure...
> >>
> >> Seriously, I think AOPA would want to hear about this right away. How
> > about
> >> calling 'em in the morning? Toll free and all that....why not?
> >
> > 'Cause I already called them. The person I spoke to seemed astonished at
> > these demands. AOPA had not heard of them before.
> >
> >
> >

[John Galban]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message >...
>
> These types of aerial photographs are generally "tied" back to some sort of
> "marker" with published lat/long coordinates. Give me a couple of good
> aerial photos and a scale, and I can give you the GPS coordinates to drop a
> bomb right down somebody's chimney.
>

Commercial, high resolution satellite imagery is available with
positional accuracies of around 2 meters. It's probably less
expensive than going to the trouble of making your own postionally
accurate aerial photographs.

The idea that aerial photography is a security risk is right up
there with the idea that little planes are a terrorists dream. The
reality is that there are better, more efficient ways to get the job
done.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Rosspilot]

>There is a big difference between "aerial photography" and someone who
>simply takes along a digital camera to shoot a few "purty pitures".

I agree so far . . . but then there's this:


>
>I used to work in land surveying and civil engineering, so I frequently
>worked with aerial photographs. For those of you who haven't seen one, these
>are typically large (24" x 36" being the norm) photographs, with very high
>resolution. And they are incredibly well "scaled". Assume a surveyor on the
>ground measures the distance between two points as 2000'; if you use a scale
>(ruler) to measure the distance on an aerial photograph, it will usually be
>correct within 5 - 10 feet.
>
>These types of aerial photographs are generally "tied" back to some sort of
>"marker" with published lat/long coordinates. Give me a couple of good
>aerial photos and a scale, and I can give you the GPS coordinates to drop a
>bomb right down somebody's chimney.


This is "mapping" or "survey". It is a very specific type of aerial
photography, but by no means the only "useful" type.



Sure, they'd go out and shoot an overhead
>picture of your house, store, whatever, but it would usually be just that,
>an overhead picture, not to scale, and not useful for much except recording
>the ground features.
>



I must take issue with this, Bill.

Oblique cosmetic aerial photography serves myriad
professionally-recognized necessary and useful purposes. I do this work for
some of the world's largest commercial realtors,
engineers, developers, and government agencies.

Vertical, scaled "sterile" aerial imagery is valuable and serves it's purpose.
So does oblique low-level. They are not mutually exclusive, and neither is
better than they other. They merely serve different purposes.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Bill Denton]

As you stated: "They merely serve different purposes".

By no means was I attempting to denigrate other types of aerial photography,
as most of it is of at least some use, even if you just want to see what
your house looks like from the air.

But we were discussing aerial photography in the context of it's national
security implications.

I am not familiar with the type of aerial photography you describe, but I
recognize that most any type of photography might be useful to someone
contemplating an attack of some sort.

I used the "scaled" aerial photography as the subject of my discussion for
two reasons:

1. It's a subject I know something about.

2. If someone were contemplating an attack on a facility occupying a large
area, such as a military installation or nuclear facility, a scaled aerial
photo would be an almost essential tool.

I intended no slight against your profession, and I apologize if it appeared
I did. I was simply addressing what I considered to be an area of aerial
photography that might be the most useful to a terrorist, and an area of
which I had some knowledge.



"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >There is a big difference between "aerial photography" and someone who
> >simply takes along a digital camera to shoot a few "purty pitures".
>
> I agree so far . . . but then there's this:
>
>
> >
> >I used to work in land surveying and civil engineering, so I frequently
> >worked with aerial photographs. For those of you who haven't seen one,
these
> >are typically large (24" x 36" being the norm) photographs, with very
high
> >resolution. And they are incredibly well "scaled". Assume a surveyor on
the
> >ground measures the distance between two points as 2000'; if you use a
scale
> >(ruler) to measure the distance on an aerial photograph, it will usually
be
> >correct within 5 - 10 feet.
> >
> >These types of aerial photographs are generally "tied" back to some sort
of
> >"marker" with published lat/long coordinates. Give me a couple of good
> >aerial photos and a scale, and I can give you the GPS coordinates to drop
a
> >bomb right down somebody's chimney.
>
>
> This is "mapping" or "survey". It is a very specific type of aerial
> photography, but by no means the only "useful" type.
>
>
>
> Sure, they'd go out and shoot an overhead
> >picture of your house, store, whatever, but it would usually be just
that,
> >an overhead picture, not to scale, and not useful for much except
recording
> >the ground features.
> >
>
>
>
> I must take issue with this, Bill.
>
> Oblique cosmetic aerial photography serves myriad
> professionally-recognized necessary and useful purposes. I do this work
for
> some of the world's largest commercial realtors,
> engineers, developers, and government agencies.
>
> Vertical, scaled "sterile" aerial imagery is valuable and serves it's
purpose.
> So does oblique low-level. They are not mutually exclusive, and neither
is
> better than they other. They merely serve different purposes.
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>