National Geographic Photog Arrested

dukeblue219

New member
http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nat--Geographic-photog-arrested-in-GC

Some interesting points to chew on. First, it seems they *were* trespassing by driving onto and launching from public property, though I suspect an arrest would never have been made if the farmers hadn't really been trying to keep them from photographing the cows. However, what I know some folks will find interesting are the following snippets:

After all, hundreds of thousands of cattle are fattening in a 100-mile radius around Garden City and such incidents could turn into a food security issue - especially in an era where agri-terrorism is a threat.
Sigh -- we're so paranoid and afraid of our own damn shadows. Somebody is flying around some cows in a 600 square mile area and our first concern is terrorism.

Steinmetz was circling around the feedlot and taking photographs - not flying straight across it, Popelka said. Criminal statute, however, Popelka said, doesn't define how far land goes - in this case, how far up. Moreover, while Congress has authorized flights and air travel, the photographer wasn't engaging in air travel to pass through on a public air highway.

"This was a low-level entry with intent to remain in that space," he said.

So, congress "allows" us to fly, for travel purposes, but if you're not on a public air highway look out, because you must be up to no good and need to be investigated.
 
douglas393 said:
I am sure there are exceptions but it was my understanding that when I purchase property I purchase the land and that is it. TFR's, controlled airspace, and prohibited areas aside I can fly my plane where I want, usually. I do not purchase the airspace above my property, and so unless I am someone insanely important or know someone insanely important I have no say over the use of the airspace above my property. Furthermore, I know of no law that prevents me from taking pictures from the air. Now if he violated airspace rules which I guess would be 1000 ft AGL in this area then he is guilty of violated an FAR, but that would be an FAA enforcement issue, and not a local cop issue. Trespassing on the other hand is what they may be guilty of, but that is a local nonflying issue.
tonycondon said:
1000 AGL would apply only if you consider cattle to constitute a "congested area"
If the paraglider was an ultralight then the 1000 AGL reg does not apply since that is in Part 91, not Part 103 operations. Part 103.15 "Operations over congested areas" and 103.9 "Hazardous operations" would seem to be the relevant regulations.

No FAA regs appear to be busted.
 
Back
Top