First, I will concede that flash is damaging to the documents, but this seems to be the end of the NARA's argument. I ask the question to them: "If you are protecting the documents from photographic flash, then why not ban flash?" And the answer to that question is simple; they think Americans are stupid. And, the organization may be right. The NARA states, "This final rule applies only to the general public, who are the source of most photographic flash from either accidental or intentional action."<1> The NARA also stated that what is driving the organization to this decision is that people are ignoring currently posted signs that ban the use of flash. So, why would a new sign banning photography change things? Because, under the new rules the NARA includes enforcement that wasn't present under the old "no flash" rule. Under this new enforcement, individuals will be escorted out of the facility after receiving a second warning about no photography. Why doesn't the organization not simply add enforcement to the old rule?

But, I think this represents a systemic problem in our government: if x is a negative, then ban x and y when the opportunity presents itself. It is a slow erosion of our rights—specifically photographers, who have been the target of many new "rules" since 2001. And, how will this new power to kick people out of the rotunda affect those who have gained this power? One commenter of the proposed rule had suggested that the new powers would create overzealous security guards who might harass and harm those with cameras. The NARA states "that those hypothetical behaviors and policies will not happen,"<1> simply pointing to the new guidelines for how the security guards will act. But, if anyone has been through an airport in the last 9 years, I will let them determine for themselves if a small bit of power will lead to abusive guards.

But that's not the worst part of it: the NARA also highlighted another problem with our government, its complete lack of respect for those whom it represents. The NARA had published the proposed rule to the Federal Register (74 FR 38153) for two months to allow the general public to comment on the new rule. And, NARA did: "In response, NARA received comments from three private citizens. All three of the commenters were opposed to the proposed rule."<1> And yet they went forward with the rule, with zero concrete support from the general public. Instead NARA "monitored the NAE's informal visitor comment log as well as letters received from visitors requesting and demanding that NARA eliminate all photography."<1> If there was such overwhelming support to ban photography, why were 100% of the comments opposed to the new rule? And, if individuals had been demanding the elimination of all photography, why is NARA only banning photography by the general public? Begin infinite loop on old "no flash" rule.

My final question to the NARA would be simply this: "How does the new rule enhance the overall visitor experience?"

And I think the crowd did make it more fun for me, too, despite the fact that I hate crowds and almost didn't go because of them. Everyone knew the plane was scheduled to fly, and some people had paid >$100 for a place on the roof of the Future of Flight at the north end of the airport. I was also assuming that the plane was going to take off going north because, if it had crashed, it would have been more likely to hit the water rather than homes to the south. So, with that in mind, Sherri and I drove past the north end of the runway, about 30 minutes prior to scheduled flight time, and we just kept driving past the throngs of thousands of people already lined up waiting for the event. I had seen on the news that people started showing up to claim the best spots at about 1:30 am.

We instead went around to the south end of the runway to watch the plane take off away from us. And, boy, did that work to our advantage! Just prior to the plane taxing down to the south end of the runway, the airport staff was nice enough to open the fence and allow us to line up on the grass near the taxi way. As you can see in Sherri's picture above, that gave us one great view. And, although that helped make the event an exciting one for us, it was still cold and ultimately short. But as the plane lifted off and the crowds cheered, the excitement was simply contagious.

I think this is why sporting events—with the exception of baseball—are so much more fun to watch in person rather than on TV. This was also the scheme I used to get Sherri into watching college basketball—because anyone can have a good time in Allen Field House watching the Jayhawks play in front of a home crowd. I can also see how easily an angry mob can form and turn dangerous because people simply get caught up in it. So, in the end, I don't think you needed to be an aviation nerd like me to enjoy it; you just needed to get into the spirit of the event, made even easier with people excited for the day. Also, if you want to see more pictures, including the second 787 painted in ANA colors, then go here.

We are placed in a square building the entire time we grow up, and yet we are constantly told to think outside the box. And, if we are lucky enough to get out of school with the ability to actually "think outside the box," we are immediately put back into boxes. Most of us are even unluckily enough to get put into literal boxes surrounded by countless other boxes in a warm cube farm.

So, if you are one of the people who asks others what and why they photograph, stop for a moment and take a picture of something different today. And it doesn't matter why you are a photographer—trying new things with your photography will help you look at what you normally photograph differently. And here is a really big secret: you don't have to photograph outside the box! Check out flickr for an idea of things you like and replicate them. Or if you hang out with other photographers, ask them what they like to photograph and give it a try.

This isn't just theory, either; I come bearing a true-to-life example of just this strategy. I had been wanting to get a picture of the Snoqualmie Falls at sunset for awhile and finally came up with a plan to get my wife, Sherri, out that way at the correct time. Knowing that she was running out of Pyssla beads for her artwork (flickr set can be found here), I saw an opportunity. To get the beads, we would need to go to IKEA, which happens to be past Snoqualmie Falls. So, during dinner, I suggested we go down to get her beads tonight. Then, I said I was going to bring my camera so we could swing past the falls on the way home to get some pictures since we would be down that way anyway. And, as the picture can attest to, my plan worked out nearly to perfection: we arrived at the falls about 30 minutes prior to sunset and stuck around for nearly an hour trying to get the perfect shot. That is the birth of the magic shopping hour. But, be careful how you use it because the only fault in my plan was the unforeseen $300 tab at IKEA after we found all this stuff we didn't know we needed.

Well, there it is my first post in my new series of Dabbling Photography, as I had eluded to in my previous post here. I am writing these for people like myself: amateur photographers who aren't—and don't plan on being—experts; we just dabble in photography. Tell me what you think and feel free to send your ideas as well.

Also, don't get me wrong because I love reading the blogs and books of travel photographers such as David duChemin, Trey Ratcliff, and Matt Brandon to name a few. But these guys are professional photographers and are traveling purely for photography. Just once I would like to see them taking pictures of something like the Lincoln Memorial, and then they explain to their spouses that they want to see something else and they're going to wait here until dusk. I know these guys tell as about all the bad situations, but they also are so much more prepared for these situations. When I go to Paris for work, I don't have room for an additional case for cameras, lenses, and flashes. And, even when I'm traveling as a tourist, Sherri will only carry so much equipment for me.

So, remember kids, if a theory can't be falsifiable, it isn't science.

Of course, the best part for me was that I had a few pictures selected and used on the HeraldNet's reader photo gallery. Currently, my pictures are 1 and 2; if they change, just look for my name as the credit.

Since the pets will be kept in the main cabin, I decided to do a quick search to see if I could find anything about pets getting oxygen on traditional airlines when in the cabin. All I could find was this page from Continental Airlines, that simply states:

No oxygen will be administered to a pet in the event of an emergency.

Seems simple enough. It was the only airline I could quickly find with any statement, and I have never heard of airlines carrying animal oxygen masks.

Pet Airways seems big on keeping the animals safe by keeping the animals out of the cargo area and a Pet Attendant monitors and checks the comfort of all passengers every 15 minutes during the flight.

I figured they may actually have something onboard to keep all the animals alive during a loss of cabin pressure. To check on that I sent a message to the company's Twitter account and had the following exchange:

craigd @PetAirways how do you protect the pets against loss of cabin pressure?

PetAirways @craigd you know i dont know answer but i will look into it and see if i can find that answer for you.

craigd @PetAirways thanks; I look forward to the answer.

PetAirways @craigd i looked into it and i believe we are still working on developing those procedures but will have them in place soon

So, that is the answer: they plan on it but don't have anything yet. I actually hope that they do find a way to protect the pets; however, even if they don't, I think that the airline will be a success. They don't charge [currently $150 each way] much more than the traditional airlines, and, yet, the safety and health of the pets seems to be much better. I know I will use them when they start service between Seattle and Kansas City.

Now, I have read on some places online about people complaining about those like me who allow these sites to use images for free; but, I'm not letting that bother me. Yeah, I understand that I may be hurting stock photographers by not charging a ton of money for someone to use my picture; but, some careers simply die out. Think of the paper boy (it's in the process of dying), shoe cobbler, type-writer repairman, or any other number of careers not needed anymore. I'm not saying that I don't feel bad about it, but sometimes you need to look around and find a new way to make a career!