If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ramifications of new TSA rules on all non-US and US citizen pilots | paul k. sanchez | Piloting | 19 | September 27th 04 11:49 PM |
Lifeguard flights: How to file a flight plan? | Peter R. | Piloting | 14 | April 8th 04 05:40 AM |
commercial privileges | Gary Drescher | Piloting | 32 | February 27th 04 02:42 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
how I map my flights | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | November 30th 03 11:26 PM |