PDA

View Full Version : Photographing inside and around JFK T3



Braniff
10-25-2011, 12:41 AM
I'm a casual aviation photographer (read: noob) and was hoping all your collective knowledge might give me some guidance.

I enjoyed the TWA open house last week. Sadly, I saw T6 next door being demolished. So when I got home I was curious as to what's happening with Delta's T3, the old PAA Worldport, and read it might meet its fate soon as well.

So as luck would have it, I'm flying to South America on business next week and decided to fly Delta out of T3 in the hopes I could get some photos of the interior and exterior. I know there's plenty of photos online but I'd really like to get some of my own shots. And it seems there's a lot more interest in T3's history now with ABC's Pan Am airing.

Also read the TSA's public statement about photography around security checkpoints, but I don't plan to take any photos in their vicinity anyway. So I guess this basically falls into PA and Delta's jurisdiction and would generally depend on who might notice or care.

So what's the general feeling about photography inside the terminals, specifically, T2/T3? I see people taking cell-phone pictures in airports all the time, but I've never seen anyone have a run-in or be questioned. I'd like to shoot with a real camera, though, so it would be pretty obvious.

If the general feeling is "don't do it", is there any way to obtain a permit or at least a letter from Delta, PA or airport management in advance?

Many thanks!

gonzalu
10-25-2011, 12:43 AM
Don't do it! :tongue:

PhilDernerJr
10-25-2011, 08:26 AM
There is unfortunately no wayt o obtain permission in advance. They will not approve it.

steve1840
10-25-2011, 08:38 AM
Does the PA really have a problem with people taking pictures inside the terminal?

PhilDernerJr
10-25-2011, 09:14 AM
They have a rule that prevents it on airport property.

Braniff
10-25-2011, 12:08 PM
They have a rule that prevents it on airport property.

PA must have had a nervous breakdown with all those cameras clicking away during the TWA open house. The majority of people were shooting in/around Saarinen, but I saw a lot of people photographing from the parking garages and the jetBlue Skywalk. And Saarinen (and T3 maybe to some extent) are natural camera magnets any day of the week.

Zee71
10-25-2011, 01:25 PM
Check this out from the PANYNJ website: http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html

jerslice
10-25-2011, 01:31 PM
Also read the TSA's public statement about photography around security checkpoints, but I don't plan to take any photos in their vicinity anyway
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember reading about a court case which said you can photograph TSA security areas all you want as long as you are not interfeering with them doing their jobs (or breaking another law in the process). Sort of like if you want to film cops making an arrest or what not.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

Braniff
10-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember reading about a court case which said you can photograph TSA security areas all you want as long as you are not interfeering with them doing their jobs (or breaking another law in the process). Sort of like if you want to film cops making an arrest or what not.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

Yeah, according to http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm there are few restrictions to photography around TSA checkpoints, but as I mentioned, I wouldn't be photographing in those locations and would try to avoid those areas in my viewfinder.

So according to the link Mark provided in the previous post, photography at T2/T3 falls under Delta's jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the info there seems to mostly be geared towards press photography rather than the general public, but I guess I will try to contact them and see what they tell me.

Thanks all!

megatop412
10-25-2011, 04:07 PM
The PA have conveniently left their language just vague enough in that website to allow them to use a range of responses instead of being consistent. They "reserve the right" to restrict but many of us, myself included, have not been asked to stop taking pictures from inside the terminals. How many posts on here have provided coverage from inside the terminals?? So I take that as, 'if we fell like telling you to stop we will'.

Matt Molnar
10-25-2011, 04:40 PM
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember reading about a court case which said you can photograph TSA security areas all you want as long as you are not interfeering with them doing their jobs (or breaking another law in the process). Sort of like if you want to film cops making an arrest or what not.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

Unfortunately, a lot of cops and TSA agents don't have any knowledge of and/or respect for the law or general common sense, so it's still a best bet to avoid them at risk of having your day or trip ruined. :frown:

Braniff
11-23-2011, 06:52 PM
So just to follow up on my post...

I decided not to bother calling Delta or the PA to ask since it seemed way too much trouble.

I arrived at T3 about 4 hours before my flight, checked in, went through security, and was able to get a lot of good pictures and no one bothered me.

When I flew back, our plane parked at T3 Gate 2, so I got another round of photos in, despite the gloomy weather.

The T3 saucer is still a cool place despite how poorly Delta has been maintaining it. If they're gonna demolish T3, they should at least try to preserve and integrate the saucer and just get rid of the expansion/rooftop parking building behind it.

NIKV69
11-24-2011, 12:34 AM
I thought the rule was you can shoot as long as you don't photograph any of the security checkpoints.


Phil is that a written or unwritten rule?

PhilDernerJr
11-24-2011, 12:39 AM
Well I don't know where Port's list of rules is of ANY kind, even non-photography related. All I can say is what I know...I have no links to share or send out on this.

I have been told by several Port officials (management) that "photography on airport property is not permitted". I've also been told and have heard that they have a policy of discouraging aviation photography in general. They simply don't want it.

NIKV69
11-24-2011, 01:21 AM
Well I don't know where Port's list of rules is of ANY kind, even non-photography related. All I can say is what I know...I have no links to share or send out on this.

I have been told by several Port officials (management) that "photography on airport property is not permitted". I've also been told and have heard that they have a policy of discouraging aviation photography in general. They simply don't want it.

How short sighted. Something else to bitch to Gov Cuomo about.

tlabranche
11-25-2011, 06:30 AM
I took this photo back in March 2011 in T4. I was approached by security within a minute of setting up my tripod. They asked that I put away my camera. I asked to see their photography policy as I was looking at a group using point and shoot cameras. They left me alone after a few minutes of them giving me a hard time. I set my camera up on a railing and held it steady enough for this shot.

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/1/4/9/9/48943_1305151994.jpg

Mateo
11-25-2011, 11:06 AM
The way public photography bylaws are written in some places tripod = commercial photography = permit required. You're not allowed to use a tripod on the grounds of the Capitol, but you can otherwise shoot away to your heart's content.

gonzalu
11-25-2011, 11:56 AM
Tripods = Tripping Hazard... fair enough and valid especially in crowded areas. In most museums (The Met for example) you can use tripods all week long, but not on weekends for good reason.

Delta's T3 is a real embarrassment. I had to go in there not too long ago and vowed NEVER to EVER fly Delta because of the treatment of their passengers and the "treat-them-like-cattle" mentality. I went to use a bathroom that could be considered a Haz-Mat area... three other gentlemen were already complaining loudly about all the horrible things that they were witnessing. One even said this is "the worst airport in the world" not just worst terminal or airline. This was a Russian gentleman who had just flown in from Russia apparently. I wouldn;t say even close to worst airport (for me that's Heathrow still) but Delta definitely does not add any positive spin ton that!

Zee71
11-25-2011, 02:29 PM
Good call Timothy about asking for their photography policy by putting them on the spot. Just because they are security doesn't mean they know the laws and policy. Ditto on the tripod.....it becomes a hazard in crowded areas with lots of people traffic.

emshighway
11-25-2011, 11:33 PM
I have no problems taking photos anywhere I want :tongue:

Most officers and security personnel assume there are laws against photography in airports... train stations... anywhere. If they tell someone it is against the law and they listen then they have an easier time. As has been said here the policies are vague and the property is under control of agencies who's law enforcement can tell you to stop. Failure to do so could be interpreted as interference in government administration so you don't get collared for taking the photograph but refusal to listen to an officers command.

Braniff
11-27-2011, 09:17 PM
I imagine the whole "if you see something, say something" campaign probably isn't friendly to casual photographers either.

PhilDernerJr
11-27-2011, 10:31 PM
I imagine the whole "if you see something, say something" campaign probably isn't friendly to casual photographers either.

On the contrary, such programs should INCLUDE and EMPLOY people such as spotters and photographers, as they are volunteer watchful eyes that can also document any suspicious activity. Not everyone sees it this way, unfortunately. Maybe one day. :)

NIKV69
11-27-2011, 10:51 PM
On the contrary, such programs should INCLUDE and EMPLOY people such as spotters and photographers, as they are volunteer watchful eyes that can also document any suspicious activity. Not everyone sees it this way, unfortunately. Maybe one day. :)

Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program. Which really doesn't matter. If we see something while spotting that doesn't jive we will be on the phone dialing 9/11 anyway. This isn't the issue. The issue is the PA doesn't want to be bothered running down calls and checking IDs and is choosing to take a thug style approach by just being heavy handed with something we should be allowed to do.


It's the same premise as law enforcement making up laws that didn't exist when trying to discourage photography from public places. PA has more of a leg to stand on since they make the laws on airport property.

moose135
11-27-2011, 11:04 PM
Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program.
Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.

PhilDernerJr
11-27-2011, 11:31 PM
Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program. Which really doesn't matter. If we see something while spotting that doesn't jive we will be on the phone dialing 9/11 anyway. This isn't the issue. The issue is the PA doesn't want to be bothered running down calls and checking IDs and is choosing to take a thug style approach by just being heavy handed with something we should be allowed to do.

It's the same premise as law enforcement making up laws that didn't exist when trying to discourage photography from public places. PA has more of a leg to stand on since they make the laws on airport property.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a "thug style approach", but more of the decision makers maybe not seeing what's on the front lines with enthusiasts? Their rule is their rule, albeit an unfortunate one. We'd of course prefer the opposite, and I feel that a no-photography rule does nothing to actually improve security. Information about whatever can be cased out at an airport can be found on Google unfortunately.


Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.

This.

NIKV69
11-27-2011, 11:44 PM
Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.

This is a smoke screen. Law enforcement in and around NY airports gets a million phone calls from pax and civilians so why would they enter into something like this? They gain nothing and just get double the calls about suspicious activity. Besides this campaigning for "watch groups" is just a veiled attempt at access and not much more. PA doesn't need spotters as extra eyes on airport property, which is why they have taken these heavy handed approach to photography inside terminals and other parts of airport property.


This.

Phil this is a discussion about photography inside of terminals. Why do you continue to pander to this fanstasy we all know the PA will never get involved in? Wouldn't we better served with a discussion on how we can somehow be allowed to photograph inside terminals without the "Hey we can be extra eyes for you" thing?

mirrodie
11-27-2011, 11:47 PM
ITs not fantasy, IMHO.

On one end, the authorities implore us to SEE something and SAY something.

yet on the other, they don't want a symbotic relationship.....


food for thought.

PhilDernerJr
11-27-2011, 11:51 PM
Phil this is a discussion about photography inside of terminals. Why do you continue to pander to this fanstasy we all know the PA will never get involved in? Wouldn't we better served with a discussion on how we can somehow be allowed to photograph inside terminals without the "Hey we can be extra eyes for you" thing?

Because I feel that's the best way to get them to modify their rules to allow it. It's directly related.


ITs not fantasy, IMHO.

On one end, the authorities implore us to SEE something and SAY something.

yet on the other, they don't want a symbotic relationship.....

Exactly.

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 12:04 AM
Because I feel that's the best way to get them to modify their rules to allow it. It's directly related.

Which has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. It's obvious the PA doesn't want to be bothered or they wouldn't have this heavy handed approach to this to begin with. They don't want the hassle so you think they want to get involved with passing out IDs to us and handling double the calls has a chance? it obviously doesn't.

A better approach would be to try to find someone in the PA that has a halfway decent attitude towards us and try to see if an arrangement can be made as to photographing inside terminals as long as checkpoints are not involved and other things are taken into consideration. It is much better than pitching the "airport watch" thing. It's a non starter.


Exactly.

No Phil, they implore everyone to SAY something if we see something. Meaning everyone, not just photogs. Like I said they get plenty of phone calls of suspicious activity already that they loathe running down, they don't want more.

moose135
11-28-2011, 10:38 AM
A better approach would be to try to find someone in the PA that has a halfway decent attitude towards us and try to see if an arrangement can be made as to photographing inside terminals as long as checkpoints are not involved and other things are taken into consideration. It is much better than pitching the "airport watch" thing. It's a non starter.
So rather than approach it as a way to partner with police, we should find some random person at Port - who's high enough in the food chain to actually make a difference - and convince him that we're nice guys and he should let us take pictures at the terminal? What, out of the goodness of his heart? Talk about a non-starter...

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 10:55 AM
So rather than approach it as a way to partner with police

Firstly, it's not being a partner with police, it's a ruse to get access. I mean it's plainly clear that the PA will never agree to this. Yet it still gets thrown out there every time we discuss this. Give it a break.


we should find some random person at Port - who's high enough in the food chain to actually make a difference - and convince him that we're nice guys and he should let us take pictures at the terminal? What, out of the goodness of his heart? Talk about a non-starter...

As opposed to clinging on to a pipe dream? Actually developing a relationship with someone with a better attitude is always a good idea. We don't have to prove we are nice guys, just people who aren't a threat who like to take pictures. As soon as you can give us an idea that doesn't include begging PA for a badge it remains the best course of action. Especially since it has the best chance of success. If you have something better let's hear it.

yankees368
11-28-2011, 11:02 AM
I've spotted from within T3 JFK before, and I intend to do that again today before my flight. It's a good place to line up and hope that an A380 rolls in. Also, see if you can find this gem:

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/JFK%20and%20DTW%209-6-11/P1060530.jpg

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/JFK%20and%20DTW%209-6-11/P1060537.jpg

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/JFK%20and%20DTW%209-6-11/P1060534.jpg

PhilDernerJr
11-28-2011, 11:42 AM
Firstly, it's not being a partner with police, it's a ruse to get access. I mean it's plainly clear that the PA will never agree to this. Yet it still gets thrown out there every time we discuss this. Give it a break.



As opposed to clinging on to a pipe dream? Actually developing a relationship with someone with a better attitude is always a good idea. We don't have to prove we are nice guys, just people who aren't a threat who like to take pictures. As soon as you can give us an idea that doesn't include begging PA for a badge it remains the best course of action. Especially since it has the best chance of success. If you have something better let's hear it.

None of the Airport Watch programs in the US or Canada provide any special access, so it's not a ruse, and it's not a purpose for access. You clearly know nothing about it.

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 12:07 PM
None of the Airport Watch programs in the US or Canada provide any special access, so it's not a ruse, and it's not a purpose for access. You clearly know nothing about it.

None of them would officially but it would be an ulterior motive to use the relationship to seek access down the road. All of which is academic as far as the PANY and NJ is concerned because I don't really see them ever going forward to something like this. Arizona and the others are much different, I would imagine you could walk into the terminal at PHX and take pictures to your hearts content long before they established their airport watch program. Much as you could camp out on top of the parking garage and do the same without so much as a phone call to LO reporting suspcious activity. At EWR, JFK and LGA their phones would ring off hook. Hence the negative, intolerant attitude toward photography on airport property.

Again it's a total non starter and simply more smoke. The best course of action still remains finding someone or a group of people in PA that are a little sympathetic and would be open to something to allow photogs to be able to shoot inside terminals. Whether that be showing ID before hand, checking in etc. All of this beats the alternatives which at this point are shooting till asked to stop or trying to become "partners" with PA. Again if you have a better idea I would love to hear it.

yankees368
11-28-2011, 02:11 PM
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/C360_2011-11-28-13-31-25.jpg

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/C360_2011-11-28-13-28-48.jpg

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac1/yankees368/2011-11-28_13-34-06_885.jpg

threeholerglory
11-28-2011, 03:56 PM
Not to sound ignorant, but I have to agree with Nick in the sense that you never know when policies can/will change to allow these things to happen.

Just remember, where there's a will, there's a way.

http://www.picshag.com/pics/102009/motivational-poster-duct-tape.jpg

see?

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 04:25 PM
Not to sound ignorant, but I have to agree with Nick in the sense that you never know when policies can/will change to allow these things to happen.




Unfortunately the PA does not want to be bothered. Being in NY and as a result of 9/11 they get besieged with calls of suspicious activity. That is a good thing to see the public vigilant but it also means the PA has to run down every call and it's obvious they don't want to. They would rather enforce a policy of doing away with it and discouraging it so they don't have to deal with it at all. I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon.

moose135
11-28-2011, 05:04 PM
They would rather enforce a policy of doing away with it and discouraging it so they don't have to deal with it at all. I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon.
Unless we find someone who is "a little sympathetic" who will allow photography... :confused:

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 07:30 PM
Unless we find someone who is "a little sympathetic" who will allow photography... :confused:

So instead of giving us an idea you just continue mocking my idea. Actually it would be a better course of action to try to find someone with a better attitude toward photographers in the terminals. You can continue with the "airport watch" approach. Let me know how it works out.

moose135
11-28-2011, 09:06 PM
So who have you spoken with at Port, and how has that worked?

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 09:59 PM
So who have you spoken with at Port, and how has that worked?

I know someone with PANY but never felt the need to bother them about shooting on airport property. Fact is if you use your head and pick your spots you can shoot on airport property just fine including inside Terminals. The times I have shot inside I have never gotten a hassle. You got plenty of "de facto" leaders around here. Why haven't they stepped up? What is your plan? You aren't still hanging on the "airport watch" thing are you?

PhilDernerJr
11-28-2011, 10:21 PM
I am going to pus the airport watch idea at airports everywhere, not just NY, and help its implementation, as it's been growing rapidly.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Nick, but the only thing I don't like is the ulterior motive remark, which is simply a wrong assumption. If that happens, fine, but it's in no part a motive or intent for any aspect of the program at any of its North American airports.

NIKV69
11-28-2011, 10:44 PM
If that happens, fine

Exactly, no matter how noble intentions are an underlying road is to facilitate access down the road. I mean it's pretty obvious.


it's in no part a motive or intent for any aspect of the program at any of its North American airports.

No just JFK.

Phil if you are so gung-ho about the airport watch thing why aren't you trying to open a dialogue with PA about their attitude toward terminal photography?

gonzalu
11-28-2011, 11:04 PM
Baby steps! Winning small wars, battles could be won!

Braniff
11-29-2011, 02:58 AM
I recently came across the so-called FBI and NYPD Terrorism Reference Cards, which identify specific behaviors and what to do if someone appears to be suspicious. Naturally, photography is mentioned. So I'm wondering if the PA uses something similar and that's how the "guidelines" somehow became de-facto anti-photography rules (I mean besides post-9/11 paranoia.)

Naturally, police and security personnel are supposed to question suspicious behavior, but they should also be trained in what really makes for suspicious behavior. I mean, if an A380 pulls up to the gate, shutters are gonna start snapping. That's pretty obvious. But if someone is taking pictures of a spiral staircase inside a vintage terminal and they think it's suspicious, they should just ask. Chances are it's not a terrorist :) But clearly, they don't want to be bothered and would rather just ban it, hence this debate.

By the way, the pigeons over in T3 make for a good diversion. You can follow them around with a camera and no one will care :) Then again, T3 looks so sad and run down no one seemed to care about anything :(

Just curious, have any of you given out a photography business card if you were ever stopped for spotting or photographing? If so, did it help?

gonzalu
11-29-2011, 09:30 AM
Just curious, have any of you given out a photography business card if you were ever stopped for spotting or photographing? If so, did it help?

Do it all the time... and it diffuses the situation somewhat... at least you're immediately going from being 100% suspicious to maybe 50% if the officer or individual has little to no experience. I find the best are the veterans... they are usually very calm, relaxed and can spot trouble a mile away... nothing beats a beat cop (sic) ... Most police departments today require at least a college degree. In the early years of the NYS Police, you needed to be either a Lawyer or an Accountant or similar to even apply for the job.

I see a lot of private security as nothing more than someone who needs a job.

And please, always use common sense if ever contacted by a police officer... this is always worth watching :tongue:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCCjFbFXn8

threeholerglory
11-29-2011, 10:22 AM
Manny that's some of the best advice I've ever seen.....fanfreakingtastic!

NIKV69
11-29-2011, 10:52 AM
Many are missing the point here. It's not a question of what is suspicious or what isn't in our opinion or the PA's opinion. Once the call is made they have to run down the call. Check the ID. go through the motions etc. At JFK at any given time they receive an influx of these calls some are photogs are some probably aren't but it's obvious they want to discourage it. Seeing that this is how our lives will be after 9/11 probably forever.

Knowing how to act when confronted is great but has nothing to do with the fact that 99 out of 100 officers in the PA will default to just running you off on airport property, usually with a bad attitude in an attempt to discourage you from doing it again. I don't see this dogma changing on it's own and unless an agreement is reached with them where we can practice our hobby with circumstances that satisfy both sides it's just more of the same.

PhilDernerJr
11-29-2011, 01:31 PM
I've showed business cards, published magazines, and anything out there that can show you are an enthusiast. Wearing a smile also goes a long way. :)

Nick, you're again assuming what I did/are/will do.

NIKV69
11-29-2011, 01:40 PM
Nick, you're again assuming what I did/are/will do.

No I didn't I simply asked you a question which I will again. Have you ever attempted or been successful with opening a dialogue with PA on the topic of their attitude and rules toward photography. In addition to asking if there was ever a way to photograph inside terminals under certain circumstances without becoming any type of watch program?

PhilDernerJr
11-29-2011, 03:04 PM
Yes, I have been successful in opening dialogue with various members of PANYNJ about their stance toward photography on airport property in a non-Airport Watch capacity.

NIKV69
11-29-2011, 07:55 PM
Yes, I have been successful in opening dialogue with various members of PANYNJ about their stance toward photography on airport property in a non-Airport Watch capacity.

Well good luck going forward. Tell them we will be very good and not stand under any landing lights. :wink:

megatop412
11-29-2011, 10:39 PM
I hand out my card all the time when spotting. It has helped set the tone(along with my demeanor) for conversations I have had to have at many airports, as well as while airborne, and I have never been successfully asked to stop taking pictures because I come across as legitimate and supportive of law enforcement. I have read of instances where people are asked to delete their images; I would never agree to do that.

As a psychologist I'm always mindful of how I am saying something and the effects it can have on the listener. I watch how people approach me and react to the first things I say to them, and adjust what I do accordingly. Most people do this, but not all are aware of which actions work/don't work with different interactional styles and defenses. There will always be the 1% that I can't "schmooze", but as long as it's once in a blue moon it's no big deal to me.

This topic of a "watch group" keeps coming up here. This isn't MSP or ORD. I think that if it were even remotely possible to pull it off at JFK, Phil would have put it together already.

seahawks7757
11-29-2011, 11:05 PM
That is such a great video Manny!

NIKV69
11-29-2011, 11:12 PM
That is such a great video Manny!

Chris Rock is one of the best. Get a white friend LOL.