At What Cost Do We Really Need News?

twinotter · Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Thread starter):
It is truly a sad loss for such a low key event as a car chase. The general public is "hungry" for exciting news. The bigger, the gorier, the better. What is really sad is that this crash will not stop the need for a seemingly insatiable need for "up to the minute" news.

It is sad, as all fatal accidents are. But a question such as what we "need" is impossible to answer. The question is: how much control do we want? Or how much risk are we willing to take? The pilots of the helicopters knew of the very slim risk of a crash, and balanced that against their salary/motivation/enjoyment. We all make that same calculation every time we walk out the door. It isn't as if they were slaves forced to fly.

I also think you open up a "Pandora's Box" with the term "need". Do we need to fly ever, in any machine? I mean really NEED. Do we need to drive cars? Things would slow down, but do we need them for the human race to survive?

We judge risk as opposed to benefits, and in cases where benefits clearly outweigh the risks, we act.

And that includes flying helicopters for TV stations.

2H4 · Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 48):
But at any rate, you keep that little tid bit of information with you the next time you're driving down the street and riding in a car talking to the passenger/and/or driver. Or listening to the radio.

So long as I don't become task-saturated, talking to a passenger or listening to the radio presents virtually no risk.

The thing is, driving a car and flying a helicopter are very different.

Flying a helicopter requires significant (and active) concentration. Flying a helicopter in a news-reporting situation, with all of the traffic in close proximity, requires even more. In such an environment, even the best pilots begin to approach the point at which they become task-saturated. Add news-reporting responsibilities to the job, and the margin between operating safely and losing track of things becomes extremely slim.

Back in my car, listening to the radio and talking to a passenger, the margin between operating safely and losing track of things remains sizable.

That is the difference.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 48):
To make the "big bucks" as an ENG pilot, you need to do a bunch of "on-the-air" reports and become part of the news team.

And the second one person attempts to do both jobs at the same time by themselves, they place themselves and others at unnecessary risk. I feel the same about highway patrol pilots flying Cessnas head-down while focusing on and timing cars on the freeway.

2H4

stlgph · Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 51):
That is the difference

It's ok, make excuses for yourself.

Of course I notice you took the picture of your feet down from the dashboard of the plane. That was total concentration on flying that plane now wasn't it?

2H4 · Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 52):
It's ok, make excuses for yourself.

No excuses, chief....just logic. It's known as human factors, and you might consider learning a thing or two about it. Wink

Quoting STLGph (Reply 52):
Of course I notice you took the picture of your feet down from the dashboard of the plane. That was total concentration on flying that plane now wasn't it?

Your skill at jumping to conclusions is rivaled only by your skill at making assumptions. I have never posted a photo of myself on A.net.

2H4

stlgph · Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:38 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 53):
Your skill at jumping to conclusions is rivaled only by your skill at making assumptions. I have never posted a photo of myself on A.net.

No no. My memory serves me quite well. You've never posted a picture of yourself (we'll just leave out reasons why, now shall we?) but instead always like to put up a fascinating photo of your feet propped up on the dashboard of a plane you mentioned was in flight at the time.

Now how safe is that.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 53):
No excuses, chief....just logic. It's known as human factors, and you might consider learning a thing or two about it

Yes. It's ok to mess around in a car because ... hey ... it's just a car and nevermind the fact that you can wipe out people or anything of the nature. Fascinating logic that might be fit for sale in bicycle shops everywhere.

mdodd · Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:39 am

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Thread starter):
My question is why is it necessary for live coverage of a car chase in the first place? Do we really need to be barraged with 'in your face' news about the stupid shit that people do?

I think the answer is NO.
And thats all that really needs to be said.
Its unessisary and sensationalistic. period

ltbewr · Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

While at times news choppers can provide a valuable assistance to the public (especially as to traffic info, especially if a chase or major problem like an accident or fire is affecting it), or the police they cannot be in the way of the police or other first responders.
To me the police in the jurisdictions involved should have authority so that if a news chopper wants to follow a car chase, cover an accident or a fire and so on, they would have to have permission of the police first before they cover the event as well as covering it live on TV only live to the police for their benefit and show it on a delayed basis (like a few hours later).

Stealthz · Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:28 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 54):
Now how safe is that.

Quite likely, quite safe. Frankly your comparison of a pilot in what is likely a well trimmed cruise mode at altitude with task saturated helo pilots at low level in crowded airspace is not valid.

STL, your defence of your industry is understandable but does not display the even and unbiased view that you would like your customers to believe influences your product.
I find it outrageous that ENG pilots are allowed to act as reporter/photographers in addition to being PIC of the aircraft.

I would have to agree that this tragedy is Pilot error even if some other (not readily apparent) factor influenced one or both choppers, it is patently obvious that there was not enough separation between the craft to allow for misfortune or margin of error and there can only be two places to lay that responsibility.
Perhaps their first error was accepting a role that would place them in this position, the second was not backing off when things got crowded, the third .. well we all know that part.

My question is why does a professional pilot put himself in a situation that any reasonable thinking person could see will possibly have this outcome?
Is it the money, is it desparation for a flying job?

twinotter · Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:38 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 57):
My question is why does a professional pilot put himself in a situation that any reasonable thinking person could see will possibly have this outcome?

Easy. If you can tell me the date of the last time news helicopters in the United States collided, you will have your answer! And that answer also might make you reconsider what is "reasonable" and what isn't! Smile

To put it another way, why would any reasonable thinking person live in the Pacific rim where earthquakes causing death are a possible outcome? That should lead to the same answer! Smile

Coz · Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 18):
The only helicoptor operating above these high speed chases should be a AH-64 ,,and just long enough to put a hellfire up thier ass.

Well, if that were the case, I'd enjoy seeing live coverage -- purely for entertainment purposes of course.

stlgph · Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:13 pm

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 57):
STL, your defence of your industry is understandable

This has nothing to do with the news business. This is a case of pilot error and I've been saying that from the first response.

We've had pilot errors before and we'll have them again. This just gets lots of attention because it was, ironically, captured on live television.

OPNLguy · Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 57):
My question is why does a professional pilot put himself in a situation that any reasonable thinking person could see will possibly have this outcome? Is it the money, is it desperation for a flying job?

In some cases, it may be the two items that you mention, but I also think there might be another pair at play, namely self-deception and reality-evasion. Some people think it can never happen to them, let alone their being able see the situational threat.

Consider the following statement...

"The one thing you don't compromise is safety to be competitive," said Kevin McCutchen, a past president of the National Broadcast Pilots Association and a television news pilot for 11 years in Indianapolis.

OK, that's great in the context of intent, but is it supposed to preclude any possibility of an inadvertent human mistake or lapse in judgement? It's sort of like the common statement the airline pilots are careful because they'd be first on the scene in the event of an accident. Again, great in the context of intent, but nothing makes them immune from making an inadvertent error.

A few months after the Air Florida crash back in 1982, a couple of researchers wrote an article about self-deception and reality-evasion, and how it applied to the accident. These two had no backgrounds in aviation--they were both biologists, and they contended that self-deception and reality-evasion were biological mechanisms within all of us. Just like the fearful kid whistles as he walks past the graveyard late at night, we tell ourselves that situations are not as bad as they seem (or might be) and we explain away warning signs to keep ourselves feeling positive about the eventual outcome. I won't attempt to recount the entire article here, but it was penned by Robert Trivers and Huey Newton in the fall of 1982, in either Psychology Today or Science Digest. I think it should be required reading for anyone in aviation.

Re: the PHX mid-air, the only thing I can say with any absolute degree of certainty is that they collided--precisely how and why they did is unknown at this point. Anything I've mentioned above as a possible factor is just that--possible--and the NTSB will be looking at alot of items as they whittle possibilities down into a probable cause.

[Edited 2007-07-29 05:24:16]

OPNLguy · Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:35 pm

Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 58):
Easy. If you can tell me the date of the last time news helicopters in the United States collided, you will have your answer! And that answer also might make you reconsider what is "reasonable" and what isn't!

Notwithstanding that there were two collisions involving news helicopters in Japan in 1984 and 1994 killed a total of six people, it matters not that the PHX crash was the first in the USA. If it happened once, and it can happen again.

The situation StealthZ is referring to is one of a pilot putting him/herself into a position where they could get task-saturated by 5 or 6 simultaneous things, and loose situational awareness. Drive the freeway and loose situational awareness might only result in your missing your planned exit--doing so while flying in tight quarters with other aircraft may well have a more serious consequence, and not just for you.

twinotter · Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:11 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 62):
The situation StealthZ is referring to is one of a pilot putting him/herself into a position where they could get task-saturated by 5 or 6 simultaneous things, and loose situational awareness. Drive the freeway and loose situational awareness might only result in your missing your planned exit--doing so while flying in tight quarters with other aircraft may well have a more serious consequence, and not just for you.

Of course, I think we are agreeing on every point except on what is reasonable. Helicopters and Airplanes and Cars do all crash on a predicatable basis. Do we need news helicopters? No. Do we need commercial airplaines? No. Do we need cars? No.

Do we want those things? Is the slight risk of a helicopter crash worth covering a car chase? Most here seem to think no, but I haven't seen news helicopter pilots lining up to look for other employment since the crash, and the men and women who fly them surely must be the final judge in my opinion.

Have you ever been in a helcopter? The view is terrific compared to an airplane. I don't know why this accident happened, but I think it is irresponsible to use phrases like "tight quarters" -- I'm not a helicopter pilot but that characterization is not what has been described to me. Ones I have talked to say it is quite easy to see other traffic and avoid. It is my impression that something quite unusual happened here, as is the case in most accidents.

[Edited 2007-07-29 06:38:48]

OPNLguy · Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:53 pm

Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 63):
Have you ever been in a helcopter?

Yes I have...

Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 63):
I don't know why this accident happened, but I think it is irresponsible to use phrases like "tight quarters"

If it's not known why the accident happened, how do we know if "tight quarters" is or isn't applicable? Footage I've seen of other events (not this one) shows them in pretty close proximity to one another.

graphic · Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:06 pm

Quoting STLGph (Reply 39):
If you've ever driven in a car through heavy traffic and have been on your cell phone or been talking to other passengers in the car, then it is the same type of scenario.

You're not a pilot (obviously) so don't try to speak like you are. With your views, you probably couldn't make it through PPL training. I doubt you have ever come into a loaded traffic pattern, aircraft entering and leaving said traffic pattern just as fast as they can come, an air traffic controller that is obviously very busy, and an instructor yapping in your ear all the way down final. Think you could handle it? Because that pales in comparison to what the ENG guys have to deal with.

AirframeAS · Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:35 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 62):
The situation StealthZ is referring to is one of a pilot putting him/herself into a position where they could get task-saturated by 5 or 6 simultaneous things, and loose situational awareness. Drive the freeway and loose situational awareness might only result in your missing your planned exit--doing so while flying in tight quarters with other aircraft may well have a more serious consequence, and not just for you.

This is the best post I've seen on this thread. And I have to say, OPNL is right, spot on! IMO, there needs to be new regulations in place set forth for the news helicoper industry to ensure that this never happens again. I hope the F.A.A. does come up with a new regulation soon, seriously!

2H4 · Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 54):
always like to put up a fascinating photo of your feet propped up on the dashboard of a plane you mentioned was in flight at the time.

Now how safe is that.

I agree with you...it's not safe, nor have I ever done that. That's not me in the photo.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 54):
Yes. It's ok to mess around in a car because ... hey ... it's just a car and nevermind the fact that you can wipe out people or anything of the nature.

But that's just it....listening to the radio and talking with a passenger doesn't fit most people's definition of "messing around"

In fact, because driving usually places the driver at such incredibly low levels of task-saturation, doing either of these things is often beneficial to the safe operation of an automobile. Don't believe me? Well, because I care, and because you're such a swell guy, STLGph, I went ahead and dug this up for you:

...From the Michigan State Police:

Here are some tips for staying alert behind the wheel:

* Never drive more than 100 miles at a time. Switch drivers even if you do not feel tired!
* Know the signs of driving fatigue.
* Take regular breaks from driving.
* Talk with a passenger, or listen to talk radio or talking books.

So you see, STLGph, the margin between the typical operational workload of a vehicle, and the point at which the operator becomes task-saturated is vastly different between cars and helicopters. For this reason, your comparison between driving cars and flying helicopters isn't exactly apples-to-apples.

If you haven't done so already, I encourage you to go take a few flying lessons to get some perspective on the concept. If you're able to meet some airline folks and get in to experience some 121 training, I think you'll find it to be an even more enlightening experience.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 54):
Fascinating logic that might be fit for sale in bicycle shops everywhere.

Is is facinating logic, but it has little to do with any of my previous jobs. Wink

2H4

stlgph · Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:56 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 67):
I agree with you...it's not safe, nor have I ever done that. That's not me in the photo.

Except for the part where you've claimed that it's you, but whatever suits you, really.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 67):
...From the Michigan State Police:

Here are some tips for staying alert behind the wheel:

And that's for not falling asleep at the wheel.

And yet, still don't see how it's any different than this ...

Quoting STLGph (Reply 46):
When I went up in the copters in St. Louis, the pilot would often relay the information verbally on what he was seeing ... almost like giving a narrative as he was driving along a road. The reason for this being is that when he was speaking, the channels would be heard by the photographer who would adjust the on board cameras or alert him turns he was making etc etc. If he saw something explode or action happening, he'd verbally state what he was seeing and where he was going with the craft. This also not only served as a good communication tool with the photographer, but the channels would be heard by the other pilots as well and thus everyone else in the air would know where they are going.

But as I said, whatever suits you, really.

Quoting Graphic (Reply 65):
You're not a pilot (obviously) so don't try to speak like you are.

**scooby doo ears**

Quoting Graphic (Reply 65):
Think you could handle it? Because that pales in comparison to what the ENG guys have to deal with.

**scooby doo ears**

Quoting STLGph (Reply 46):
When I went up in the copters in St. Louis,

Quoting STLGph (Reply 46):
In many stations with air copters, the photographer is just as much of a pilot as the pilot and they'd hand off control as necessary. You'll rarely hear more than one voice out of a news helicopter talking to someone that is -not- in the helicopter.

Guess this means I'd never go up in WHO-TV's Chopper 13.

I should renegotiate some contracts then on my insurance policies.

[Edited 2007-07-29 18:57:54]

2H4 · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 68):
And yet, still don't see how it's any different than this ...

The difference is the workload. A helicopter pilot has a much higher workload than a motorist. Particularly when the helicopter pilot is having to monitor and maintain separation with numerous aircraft in close proximity and avoid obstacles when flying at low level. All while navigating and controlling a considerably more complex machine.

STLGph....honest question here: Have you in fact ever logged any PIC time in a complex aircraft while flying in congested airspace?

2H4

flyorski · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 8):

So what is it about? Pilot error or the need for news?

You are asking the wrong question. Yes, the immediate cause was pilot error, however those pilots where at the end of a long chain that set them up for disaster. They tried to broadcast this car chase live, and as a result lost track of each other and crashed. However to just say it was just pilot error without asking why they had to be flying their in the first place is useless.

stlgph · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 71):
d. However to just say it was just pilot error without asking why they had to be flying their in the first place is useless.

So getting the news to solely to blame?

Bullshit.

It has nothing to do with circumstance or chance happenings? Every flight crash, deadly car crash, boat sinking where people die, drownings, shootings, etc. etc. doesn't have to happen but they do because of time, place, and manner.

So therefore we'd all better sit at home on the couch and scratch ourselves while watching the Golden Girls.

...and actually I'd totally be down for that.

2H4 · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 69):
Have you in fact ever logged any PIC time in a complex aircraft while flying in congested airspace?

If the answer to the above question is no, then with all due respect, STLGph, you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to managing pilot workload.

If this is indeed the case, please do everyone a favor and stop professing your "expertise" on the topic.

Several of us here have first-hand experience managing a complex aircraft in demanding environments. For you to tell us "how things are", and profess that our training and experience (of which, I suppose, you have none) is inaccurate, well, it's a bit like a 13-year-old spouting his "expertise" on international airline ops over in Civ-Av.

That said, I still look forward to hearing from you after you take a few flight lessons, and welcome discussion on the matter after you've gained some perspective.

2H4

flyorski · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 72):
So getting the news to solely to blame?

Where did I say "Solely"? Yes, getting the news was a CONTRIBUTING factor.

stlgph · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 74):

Ok, well I'm going to write the NTSB and have them amend all their crash reports.

let's start with USAir 427.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

National Transportation Safety Board
ATTN -Ted Lopatkiewicz, Director, Public Affairs
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Lopatkiewicz;

Recent discussion on a message board disagrees with a number of crash reports and findings your office has been responsible for investigating.

When it comes to the issue of injuries and deaths, we find that reasoning for cause of said injuries and deaths needs to be amended beyond initial crash findings.

If you could amend the deaths of "132 souls aboard USAir 427, September 8, 1994, Aliquippa, Pennslyvania" to read "deaths were accelerated by the need to take air transportation in the first place" it would be more politically correct and aesthetically pleasing.

Thank you for the change.

Sincerely,

A Consortium of Fine Individuals from Airliners.Net

PPVRA · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:26 am

You know how coast guards deal with speedboats suspected to have drugs that won't slow down? And probably all over the world? They give warning shots, then they shoot the engine.

Why question the helicopters and the newspapers versus questioning the [in-]action the police is taking? It may be cool to watch it, but doesn't it have a hint of stupidity to have 20 police cars and helicopters that can't really do much about it in a hour-long car chase? Seriously, end it already. It's the only safe thing to do.

Or maybe it's the way police get some some free air time on national TV to show off? Definitely wouldn't be the fault of the average police officer, but probably the higher ups. Just a wild idea.

[Edited 2007-07-29 20:29:00]

OPNLguy · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):
You know how coast guards deal with speedboats suspected to have drugs that won't slow down? And probably all over the world? They give warning shots, then they shoot the engine.

Yes, but whenever such warning shots are unleashed, where do they go? (Hint: the only lifeforms in danger are fish, or some really unlucky scuba diver(s)). Kinda hard to pull that off successfully in urban environments without risking a ricochet nailing some innocent party.

That said, if police helicopters were armed as their military counterparts were, a Hellfire missile being launched on a fleeing suspect (on an open road devoid of potential collateral damage targets) would end the chase pretty damn quick... Wink

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):
Why question the helicopters and the newspapers versus questioning the [in-]action the police is taking? It may be cool to watch it, but doesn't it have a hint of stupidity to have 20 police cars and helicopters that can't really do much about it in a hour-long car chase? Seriously, end it already. It's the only safe thing to do.

The folks in the police helicopter aren't just there for the fun of it--they're there to follow the car (in the event the ground units back-off to take the pressure off the perps to drive so fast/recklessy), and also be in a position to follow the perps should they bail from the car, and takeoff on foot. At night, having one FLIR (in a helicopter) is a heck of alot cheaper than 20 officers each having a FLIR-type device.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):
Or maybe it's the way police get some some free air time on national TV to show off? Definitely wouldn't be the fault of the average police officer, but probably the higher ups. Just a wild idea.

I think they're much too professional for that to be a consideration.

AirframeAS · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 71):
So getting the news to solely to blame?

Bullshit.

Nobody asked the news choppers to cover this high speed chase (except their employers) nor did the guy who did the crime called the news and said 'Hey, I'm gonna do a high speed chase! Come film me!" So who do I blame? The folks who provide the news here in PHX. I also blame the pilots for not keeping track of each other in a very small confined space. I rest my case!

Those news companies were the ones that MADE the choice to film the whole thing as if nobody has ever seen a high speed chase before. With all due respect to those who died, but to me, its just another high speed chase...nothing new.

PPVRA · Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 76):

Yes, but whenever such warning shots are unleashed, where do they go? (Hint: the only lifeforms in danger are fish, or some really unlucky scuba diver(s)). Kinda hard to pull that off successfully in urban environments without risking a ricochet nailing some innocent party.

In an urban environment you can just use a megaphone and warm them. Maybe blank shots to scare the guy.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 76):
That said, if police helicopters were armed as their military counterparts were, a Hellfire missile being launched on a fleeing suspect (on an open road devoid of potential collateral damage targets) would end the chase pretty damn quick... Wink

Calling an Apache in to end the situation would be like a dream, but I think that would classify into "excessive" use of force Wink

That said, when that guy stole a tank from a military deposit, I don't think it would have been that bad of an idea to use th military to stop him. Not a missile, but something to disable the tank - such as the tank tracks - would have been feasible.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 76):
The folks in the police helicopter aren't just there for the fun of it--they're there to follow the car (in the event the ground units back-off to take the pressure off the perps to drive so fast/recklessy), and also be in a position to follow the perps should they bail from the car, and takeoff on foot. At night, having one FLIR (in a helicopter) is a heck of alot cheaper than 20 officers each having a FLIR-type device.

Completely understand why they are there. Just wished they had more capabilities.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 76):

I think they're much too professional for that to be a consideration.

Hopefully.

OPNLguy · Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 78):
Calling an Apache in to end the situation would be like a dream, but I think that would classify into "excessive" use of force

Yeah, somebody would end up suing...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 78):
That said, when that guy stole a tank from a military deposit, I don't think it would have been that bad of an idea to use th military to stop him. Not a missile, but something to disable the tank - such as the tank tracks - would have been feasible.

The nutcase did a pretty good job of disabling it himself by getting hung-up on the concrete freeway barrier, which allowed a LEO to hop aboard, pop the hatch, and (not getting the perp to comply) taking him out.

MDorBust · Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:42 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 32):
I feel like I need to say this before MDorBust comes on and starts the usual "Who is to blame" rant and the Felony Murder Law: News helicopters are NOT emergency vehicles nor are they designated as official vehicles.

Why exactly did you feel the need to throw my name into the ring to counter a rediculous assertion that I would never make?

No duh. News choppers aren't official government vehicles or emergency vehicles?

What the hell that has to do with anything is beyond me.

In case it helps... News choppers also aren't spaceships, submarines, or the Batmobile.

PC12Fan · Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:57 pm

Quoting STLGph (Reply 60):
This has nothing to do with the news business.

I understand your point, but if news had nothing to do with this accident, we wouldn't be talking about an accident at all.

You will be found correct that pilot error will be to blame in the end for this, no matter who is the root cause for the accident.

KaiGywer · Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:06 pm

Gavin Gavin Gavin....have an Appletini and chill man Smile

If anything, you should be all for the pilots doing only the flying. That should open up more positions for guys like you to ride up there to do the reporting Smile

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 67):
* Talk with a passenger, or listen to talk radio or talking books.

I've found Books on CD to be great when I'm driving. The drive goes by a lot faster if it's a good book Smile

AirframeAS · Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:30 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 80):
Why exactly did you feel the need to throw my name into the ring to counter a rediculous assertion that I would never make?

Remember the thread you sidetracked in Civ-Av that got it locked? sarcastic

itsjustme · Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:05 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):
You know how coast guards deal with speedboats suspected to have drugs that won't slow down? And probably all over the world? They give warning shots, then they shoot the engine.

Are you seriously trying to compare the the pursuit of a boat on the open water to that of a vehicle pursuit on streets and highways? You're being foolish.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75):

Or maybe it's the way police get some some free air time on national TV to show off?

Riiiiiight. We just love prolonging pursuits where our lives and those of innocent civilians are in jeopardy just to uh, "show off" to the viewing public. You're no longer being foolish; now you're just being an ass.

PPVRA · Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:12 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 84):
Are you seriously trying to compare the the pursuit of a boat on the open water to that of a vehicle pursuit on streets and highways? You're being foolish.

Uh, yes and not really. Continue reading the thread if you need more info.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 84):
Riiiiiight. We just love prolonging pursuits where our lives and those of innocent civilians are in jeopardy just to uh, "show off" to the viewing public. You're no longer being foolish; now you're just being an ass.

Did I blame you, Mr. Police Officer, or did I perhaps - and as stated - wildly suggested that there may be some political crap going on? Perhaps they are afraid of ramifications of dealing with an increase of use of force?

[Edited 2007-07-31 07:12:31]

itsjustme · Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:39 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 85):
Did I blame you, Mr. Police Officer, or did I perhaps - and as stated - wildly suggested that there may be some political crap going on? Perhaps they are afraid of ramifications of dealing with an increase of use of force?

Did you blame me? Yes, you did. When you infer that "higher ups" are condoning prolonging what is truly a life threatening situation just to "show off" to whoever, yeah, that translates to blaming me. For all you know, I could be one of those "higher ups" you're referring to. As any LEO here will attest, regardless of how they look on TV, police pursuits are anything but fun. The level of stress experienced during a pursuit is beyond description in words. Seriously, to suggest that we purposely delay ending pursuits just to get some face time on TV and to show off is beyond ridiculous.

PPVRA · Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:52 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 86):
Did you blame me? Yes, you did. When you infer that "higher ups" are condoning prolonging what is truly a life threatening situation just to "show off" to whoever, yeah, that translates to blaming me.

Ok, it could apply to you. Does it apply to you?

Sorry but political correctness knows no boundaries. American cops are great cops, but with politics meddling with everything you just never know.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 86):
As any LEO here will attest, regardless of how they look on TV, police pursuits are anything but fun. The level of stress experienced during a pursuit is beyond description in words. Seriously, to suggest that we purposely delay ending pursuits just to get some face time on TV and to show off is beyond ridiculous.

I don't doubt you, at all. And I doubt anyone directly involved would think otherwise. Police does walk a thin line with the use of force, though, and force is ugly politics ("violent police", etc.). That's all I was trying to say.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net