Airport Made Fence Holes for Planespotting Photographers
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
Don't let our planes get into the wrong hands. If you question it, report it. Call local law enforcement. Report to your airport manager.
And you know he's a terrorist because he is pointing a telephoto lens at an airplane!
The program labels itself an "Airport Watch" like a community watch but, really, it's just so everyone is less suspicious of each other. But I suppose if we actually saw something odd we would phone it in between swapping our lenses.
But there is a disturbing flipside to such groups; I was once 'questioned' by police outside London Gatwick because some members of London Airport Watch had reported me due to my 'Irish' accent. But they gave the impression that such reports were more to harrass and deter non-local enthusiasts. You'd think that airline enthusiasts of all people would be open and inclusive, but sadly not.
I think it's more about some random outsider going somewhere they shouldn't and wrecking the program for the ones that want it to stay around. It's self-protection.
I knew people who did urban exploration in undergrad, and there were a few times they picked up a payphone to alert about things like water leaks, termites, or when they once ran into someone they suspected was burgling.
Smart institutions know that respecting harmless folks can pay dividends.
Sometimes people wear hoodies just because they feel self-conscious or don't want to feel exposed or vulnerable. No coincidence that it's mostly teenagers and young people who wear hoodies. That's understandable. But it's also fair for people to be suspicious of people not willing to expose themselves to public scrutiny.
There's a correlation between diverse societies and smiling. Why? Because smiling is a compensatory signal in environments prone to heightened suspicion or stress. Hoodies disrupt this and other social signaling mechanisms. Humans evolved extremely expressive facial signaling mechanisms, afterall, many of which are subconscious.
I would like to request source.
Hardly conclusive, but I think the general principle that hoodies disrupt facial signaling and identification is hard to dispute. Also I think it's self-evident that disruption and anonymity is a primary reason (absent weather) they're worn in the first place. That doesn't imply nefarious motivations, but it does correlate with some kinds of nefarious behavior.
Walking into a bank with a ski mask/balaclava isn't a great idea, even if you just came off the slopes. Why deny that? Same basic logic applies to hoodies, notwithstanding that they're much more common and give less reason to be suspicious in most circumstances. That doesn't mean they don't warrant any heightened suspicion whatsoever.
None of this justifies accosting and shooting unarmed people, especially unarmed children, any place. OTOH, telling people, especially kids, that there's nothing wrong with hoodies whatsoever sends the wrong signals about how people should socially engage in their communities and in public; it excuses withdrawal.
Even though I live in California where almost nobody takes off their hat when walking indoors, I've taught my 4-year-old kid to do so and he does so instinctively. (I grew up in the Deep South where it was expected, though I never actually wore hats as a kid.) I did this not because I think anybody else cares or because it intrinsically matters, but because it helps teach him to be comfortably conscientious about how he presents himself in different contexts. I also discourage him from using the hood of a hoodie unless he has good reason to; especially for kids the act of wearing the hood is an act of withdrawal, which is not a good habit to get into, especially in American culture. He won't grow up poor like I did so none of this may ever matter for him--he'll likely always travel in privileged circles. But that's not guaranteed. These life skills might prove to be useful some day.
Someone dressed as a stereotypical "American tourist" and started filming places (Sydney Harbour Bridge and a Nuclear research facility).
Then they had someone dress up as a stereotypical "Arab/Mulslim terrorist" and did the same thing to see what happened when he started filming.
Only footage of it I could find was this which is 240p - but is enough to get the idea of what it was about:
If you go to Arabic countries many people wear gear like the one in the video.
Hoodies in the UK are more of a class signifier than the US. Some people use them to hide from CCTV (usually young, poor people).
Interestingly I learned this stereotype when I went to go into pub, got told no hoodies, asked why, and then was told oh never mind when they heard my American accent.
It's all about communication. If people see the police as their partner, they'll be happy to help them do their job (at least in the UK).
Just earlier we had a post about people pulling the emergency brakes on NYC subway cars. For decades it was fine. Suddenly people are causing some chaos.
That’s about it. People will exploit weaknesses and we all lose.
Examples:
> Photography: Taking photographs of UAE military facilities, sensitive civilian sites, airports, some beaches, or foreign diplomatic missions – including the U.S. Embassy or Consulate General – may result in arrest, detention, and/or prosecution by local authorities. Travelers should be aware of signs which indicate where photography is prohibited. Note that it is illegal to take photographs of other people without their consent. In addition, engaging in mapping activities, especially mapping that includes the use of GPS equipment, without coordination with UAE authorities, may have the same consequences.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...
> Photography: Photographing military installations is forbidden. Individuals have been detained and/or had their cameras and film confiscated for taking pictures of hospitals, schools, bridges, industrial sites, and airports. Sites where photography is prohibited are not always marked.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...
Got marched to a police station and interrogated in Mozambique for it
Other countries designate key infrastructure as strategic
The whole situation is unfortunate since there's a lot of cool looking government buildings and infrastructure out there.
Interestingly, if I had to rate the approachability of cops, I'd put Japan > UK >> USA. And tbh, that's far down the list. In America, you try to avoid the police, even if you're law abiding. In the UK, you might have a chat.
After the morons started driving vans into crowds and attacking them with knives they stepped up armed officer patrols at busy times in my local city center.
My stepson was frightened as he'd never seen anyone wandering around with a gun before so I took him over and said hello and he was asking the copper all the awkward questions a young kid would :).
After that he started waving at them (and they have always waved back).
It's sad we have to have heavily armed officers on foot patrol but by and large they are damn good at their job.
Also the criteria for been an armed officer is quite strict, you have to be a full officer after probation (2 years) and a volunteer and physically fit then you get extra training.
If you do have to shoot someone you are automatically took out the field until the IPCC has gone over it in detail.
It's not perfect, nothing human is but it's a good balance.
Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago when the police stopped treating the community as their partner and started treating people with suspicion by default.
Annecdote: I’m very happy with the local police in my community.
There are of course correlations and general trends that can be observed. In recent years there’s been a lot of attention on the disproportionate rate of police shootings involving racial minorities. That’s a problem. But it’s not an all police departments by all communities by all times problem.
Also, they appear to shoot their citizens less often, which probably helps.
Just to give an example, I live in Serbia and policemen are armed. Police is far from clean, corruption is present as everywhere and there are obvious ties between crime and police. However, when it comes to the small guy, on the streets, on public events or encounters with an officer I can't say you should be cocerned with your own safety. Sometimes they are armed with rifles, when riskier events take place. Sometimes they are not the most pleasant. But I don't remember the last time I heard an officer discharge a weapon. Funny as it may seem, nobody wants dead bodies in his career. Pieceful de-escalation is a usual crisis outcome. There are a lot of veterans, PTSD sufferers and desperate people around here. Just think of the madness if police charges everywhere guns blazing... This went off topic...
Furthermore, the public image of patrol officer death typically involves violent shootouts with criminals, but in reality death by homicide only accounts for about half of patrol officer deaths, with death by automobile making up the rest. For 2013 10.8 officers died per 100,000, with 49% dying by car accident, 45% by homicide, and 6% by other causes.
This pales in comparison to the homicide rate for pregnant women, with up to 10.5 women being murdered per 100,000[0]. This means that a pregnant woman is as likely to be murdered as a cop is likely to die on the job from all causes, and said pregnant woman is twice as likely to be murdered than any cop.
So there’s your answer. But then constitutional rights yada yada. Just the idea that the other party had a deadly weapon, escalates things really fast.
Isn't this solved fairly easily?
"Whatcha upto mate?"
"Photographing the trains. I like trains"
"Oh one of those. Off I go!"
I don't know how that interaction would go in the UK, but I think in the states it would start fairly aggressively (demanding ID/barking orders), which in turn makes people who like to photograph infrastructure for artistic reasons dig their heels in, say they have a right to photograph in public, and refuse additional questions.
Some people are naturally anxious/nervous in public and a place like airports with TSA agents strip searching you and ordering you around like cattle can appear to be "suspicious" behavior.
I picked up my brother at SFO a few years ago, and walked around outside the airport terminal building to get a good view of the runway and take a picture of the Lufthansa A380 my brother was landing in, when an SUV pulled up with security and asked me what I was doing and told me to go away. Not a restricted area or anything. Maybe I got the benefit of the doubt (not being detained and all) because I just had a smartphone, no telephoto lens.
1. Surveillance 2. Elicitation 3. Tests of Security 4. Funding 5. Supplies 6. Suspicious people 7. Rehearsal 8. Deployment
They also put a page together specifically for plane spotters.[1]
[1] https://www.zurich-airport.com/passengers-and-visitors/shopp...
Looking at this they seem somewhat of a german specialty, but now with entry fees at bigger locations.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/hobica/2013/1...
Video (city government quality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReeLuUh8qB4
Well, that's similar to crowd control. They can't block other areas. But there will be less traffic and different monitoring and control requirements for those areas.
> How would safety be impaired by photographers outside fences?
You could use photography as a good cover to do other stuff. For instance, controlling an amateur drone or collecting intel for airport robbery.
I assume it would make sense to monitor activities around the airport fences.
A few decades ago someone decided chain link fences should be at a 2" hole size which worked well for keeping tennis and other balls going astray. In other applications they just use the standard stuff. Nobody had cameras in 1941 or whenever it was this fencing became popular, so 2" holes have persisted, QWERTY style.
You would need a different machine for making a 10cm hole size but it would be cheaper.
Of course, dense vegetation would be even better, as you say.
Normally you find an area that can be lifted up and you can expect barbed wire at the top, climbing is out the question though.
I would go for the bigger holes if it was my fence just so people don't vandalise it by lifting it or cutting the wire.
Additionally, the Autobahn is next to the airport, and planespotters also occupy the dirt just beside that.
And since the main approach is from the east, you have kilometers of fields with small dirt paths in that direction where you can watch airplanes very low and directly overhead.
When I lived in previous houses: the Goodyear blimp, the Space Shuttle (up and down)
I bet you never get the Space Shuttle in Frankfurt.
The Goodyear blimp was a weird buzzing noise, not that loud.
The Space Shuttle launch was at some distance, otherwise the brutally loud noise would have killed me by ripping my internal organs loose. I had about 30 miles of safety margin, giving a house-shaking rumble. Landings were quiet except for a BOOM BOOM as the shockwave passed over. That would rattle the windows.
The An-225's six engines got me running to the window, though more for the oddity of the sound. At the time, that was the world's largest operational aircraft.
The V-22 is another one that sounds really weird, but it isn't actually loud.
All the fighter jets are loud. We get lots of them for about 3 days per year, during an airshow. Four or even six of the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds making a turn around my house is quite noisy. Otherwise, the rare fighter jet flies through maybe once or twice a year.
The most awful noise was actually not on my list, because it isn't interesting. Delta likes to fly a decently large jet (probably 737-NG, 717, MD-80, or MD-90) at around 6:55 AM.
So jealous. I'd love to see one of these things in the metal, let alone see / hear it taking off and landing.
I saw the An-225 departing. I heard it, felt that the sound wasn't typical, and ran to the window. I spotted the six engines and the distinctive H-tail just in time. That was a jolt. I see that and, well, there can be only one plane. It's that one, unique in the world.
It turns out that my local airport (MLB) sometimes does maintenance for the An-225. I'm not sure why this would be done in the USA at all, but we do have a 10,000-foot runway and huge hangars that I suspect were built for the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. The An-225 has probably been here more times than I know. Maybe I could see it often if there were some way to get notified in advance. Maybe there is even a predictable schedule.
https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBOS (for Boston; replace with your local airport) and you can see the scheduled IFR departures listed, with their abbreviated callsigns and aircraft type.
I don't think it is all that much compared to the Boeing VC-25 (with Trump) or Antonov An-225 Mriya, both of which landed at the airport.
Anyway, until recently the last airworthy Vulcan bomber would fly very low over our house when these shows were taking place. Ridiculously loud thing and absolutely awe-inspiring. Sadly it's not flying anymore due to lack of spares and too many accumulated hours on the airframe.
It doesn't have a great view other then that really, but I think that's a pretty cool unique view.
Not a plane spotter myself... My 18-55mm Nikon lense can barely see straight.
https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/sustainability/co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maho_Beach#/media/File:Corsair...