O-47 out in the cold
Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:06 am
After having been briefly questioned by the local Sheriff deputy -for taking a picture of a B-57 at the Kansas ANG main entrance in Topeka, KS . . . . after about 15 minutes (and showing i.d. and answering many questions, I was let go, no warning, no ticket, no citation, nothing....) And I shot my only photo of the B-57, from probably a block away, without showing any of the guard shacks or the entrance to the KANG base in Forbes Field.
Anyway, after all of this, I made it to the Combat Air Museum.
Photography inside is almost impossible, because the airplanes are just too close to each other.
Last time I visited was in 2001, and several new airframes have joined the collection.. there is an F-4, a MiG-17, an HH-3, a Hiller Raven (being restored)....
Of interest though, one of the volunteers told me that the Air Force requested that they get insurance for the aircraft on display, and that the owners of the privately owned aircraft should assume responsibility for their own coverage (nothing wrong with this, I think.)
Well, the volunteer told me that they have sent several letters to the owners of the O-47 and the MiG-17 and have received no answer.
In consequence, they were supposed to remove this airplanes from the hangar, and put them outside!!!!
The EC-121 looks like it needs lots of TLC outside; the inside looks very good.
Lastly, there are signs inside the hangar, warning visitors and stating that due to the heightened security situation, the photographing of aircraft while parked at the ramp, taxiing or taking off, is forbidden...............
Saludos,
Tulio
Anyway, after all of this, I made it to the Combat Air Museum.
Photography inside is almost impossible, because the airplanes are just too close to each other.
Last time I visited was in 2001, and several new airframes have joined the collection.. there is an F-4, a MiG-17, an HH-3, a Hiller Raven (being restored)....
Of interest though, one of the volunteers told me that the Air Force requested that they get insurance for the aircraft on display, and that the owners of the privately owned aircraft should assume responsibility for their own coverage (nothing wrong with this, I think.)
Well, the volunteer told me that they have sent several letters to the owners of the O-47 and the MiG-17 and have received no answer.
In consequence, they were supposed to remove this airplanes from the hangar, and put them outside!!!!
The EC-121 looks like it needs lots of TLC outside; the inside looks very good.
Lastly, there are signs inside the hangar, warning visitors and stating that due to the heightened security situation, the photographing of aircraft while parked at the ramp, taxiing or taking off, is forbidden...............
Saludos,
Tulio
Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:59 pm
We used to race at Forbes Field up to last year. My co-driver was hassled by the airport police and the local police for taking a picture. Only thing was on the tarmac where we were racing was about 1000 cameras taking pictures of not only the racing action, but of the planes also!!!
Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:07 pm
Sounds like Russia to me. Maybe the terrorists are winning after all. Can you say Paranoia?
Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:28 pm
This is the offending photo:
On purpose, I shot it in such a way, that only the airplane was visible, and nothing else -like the main gates to the base. I could have had a better angle, but then, the gates would have been visible.
And this, is the sign:
I believe that I am reading it correctly, and it simply means: No photos of any aircraft are allowed.
Saludos,
Tulio
On purpose, I shot it in such a way, that only the airplane was visible, and nothing else -like the main gates to the base. I could have had a better angle, but then, the gates would have been visible.
And this, is the sign:
I believe that I am reading it correctly, and it simply means: No photos of any aircraft are allowed.
Saludos,
Tulio
Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:11 pm
Hi Tulio!
That aircraft is on a stick, therefore it is not covered by the edict.
That aircraft is on a stick, therefore it is not covered by the edict.
Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:51 pm
I agree with O.P., Tulio. Go back and make that argument will ya ?
Let us know when they let you out.
Let us know when they let you out.
Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:10 pm
Very sad to see things like this, things are really getting a bit out of control.
I had to do a drive by to get shots of a AH-1 on a stick at my local airport.
Tim
I had to do a drive by to get shots of a AH-1 on a stick at my local airport.
Tim
Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:55 pm
Here's a picture I took 8 or 9 years ago, long before you could get arrested for such things......
Not to change the subject of the post, but here are a few other assorted B-57 pictures I have...
Not to change the subject of the post, but here are a few other assorted B-57 pictures I have...
Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:53 am
I hate stupid airport photo Nazi's....
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8639&highlight=beware
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8639&highlight=beware
Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:00 am
I have no doubt had you pointed out that the aircraft was mounted on a pole and therefore not covered in the edict, he would have made the argument that it was either parked or hovering.
Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:34 am
Technically, I guess it is parked.
Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:17 am
The Sheriff's deputy was actually really nice, nothing threatening in his behaviour, a true professional.
I asked him if there was a prohibition regarding taking photos of airplanes, and he said there was none, but that "we have had many problems" without being more specific.
I stated -respectfully- that our rights were being trampled, and I also stated that I understood that he was doing his job.
He has to be the ugly end of policies enacted by people who should know better . . . but don't.
One of these days though, a group of photographers, both pros and amateurs are going to say ENOUGH, and legal action will be taken to recover the right, for law abiding citizens, to go and do what has been a harmless hobby.
Better pictures of any military aircraft, can be obtained either through books, magazines, or through the web...
Saludos,
Tulio
I asked him if there was a prohibition regarding taking photos of airplanes, and he said there was none, but that "we have had many problems" without being more specific.
I stated -respectfully- that our rights were being trampled, and I also stated that I understood that he was doing his job.
He has to be the ugly end of policies enacted by people who should know better . . . but don't.
One of these days though, a group of photographers, both pros and amateurs are going to say ENOUGH, and legal action will be taken to recover the right, for law abiding citizens, to go and do what has been a harmless hobby.
Better pictures of any military aircraft, can be obtained either through books, magazines, or through the web...
Saludos,
Tulio