Aerial PHotography Flights 'Required' to File Flight Plans

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 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

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

"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? :-)

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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