4 Killed In TV News Helicopter Collision

[shemp]

This happened hours ago, I'm surprised there's no thread yet.

Two News Helicopters Collided While Following Police Chase In Phoenix (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/national/main3105441.shtml)

Two news helicopters collided and crashed Friday while covering a police chase on live television, killing four people on board.

The helicopters collided in midair over Steele Indian School Park around 12:40 p.m. while filming the pursuit for Channels 3 and 15, reports CBS News affiliate station KPHO-TV in Phoenix.

KNXV-TV Channel 15 reported that one of the choppers belonged to the station. The other chopper was from KTVK Channel 3 in Phoenix. A pilot and photographer aboard each chopper were killed.Go ahead and excoriate me for what I'm about to say. I have no ******* sympathy for these people. This is the kind of ***** that passes for TV journalism nowadays, police chases that are nothing but entertainment for knuckle-dragging couch-potato *********. I wish this would happen more often, maybe it would put a stop to this crap. ********. ***** em.

Shemp, please familiarize yourself with the recent additions to Rule 8. It is no longer acceptable to mask "swearing".

[Chupacabras]

Perhaps that's the point of news companies asking that you be the reporter, sending videos or pictures for NIL.

[Chupacabras]

From the BBC online:

The BBC's David Willis in Los Angeles says police pursuits are fertile material for many US TV stations and have proved popular with viewers.

In Los Angeles, a service exists whereby viewers, in return for a monthly subscription, are paged every time a pursuit is being shown.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6920156.stm

So there.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand why there should be a death penalty for bad taste, let alone for making a living from other people's bad taste.

[HarryKeogh]

I don't understand why there should be a death penalty for bad taste, let alone for making a living from other people's bad taste.

Well put.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...police chases that are nothing but entertainment for knuckle-dragging couch-potato <bad word>...

As a knuckle-dragging couch-potato, I take offense to that.

[LibraryLady]

Go ahead and excoriate me for what I'm about to say. I have no ******* sympathy for these people. This is the kind of ***** that passes for TV journalism nowadays, police chases that are nothing but entertainment for knuckle-dragging couch-potato *********. I wish this would happen more often, maybe it would put a stop to this crap. ********. ***** em.

When someone else has said what I think better than I can, I call upon him to provide my answer:


No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.


-- John Donne



Four people died, people with families, co-workers, and friends. They were earning an honest living. They did not deserve to die.

[Iamme]

I don't understand why there should be a death penalty for bad taste, let alone for making a living from other people's bad taste.

Art,

I'm not sure what you mean, but is this in reference to the report that the guilty party could be held responsible for the deaths of the 4? Please tell me that that can't possibly be true. How can they create such an indirect link as this? Nobody told that news crew to follow that guy did they? But even if they did, the guy did not cause the copters to crash.

So this got me thinking about other scenarios, like what if a cop was chasing after the guy at high speeds and the cop lost control of his squad car and got killed. Would that criminal be held responsible because the cop decided to pursue at some dangerous speed? Hmmmmmm.

[Nitpick]

Iamme, I just read your post while I was trying to write something about this aspect myself. And yes, I'm uneasy about it too:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-28-ariz-chopper-crash_N.htm

When asked if the suspect could be held criminally liable for the deaths of the men on the two aircraft, Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris said forcefully, "Yes."

Any legal basis for this? I really doubt that a person, even someone who's breaking the law that very moment, could be held accountable for this kind of accidental deaths.
While it probably could be argued that, by commiting the theft(s) and fleeing, the suspect did force the police to take risks (would it legally matter?), I'm not sure if the same is valid for the news people.

[shemp]

When asked if the suspect could be held criminally liable for the deaths of the men on the two aircraft, Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris said forcefully, "Yes."

People are no longer responsible for their own actions. The pilots were not responsible for the crash because they weren't watching where they were going. Oh no, the guy who was being chased is responsible! Hang him high! And the bosses who sent them out there, and the people who were watching, and the manufacturers of the helicopters, and police, and the weatherman for not telling them which way the wind was blowing, and the EMTs who failed to save them, etc. etc. etc. THEY'RE ALL RESPONSIBLE!!! HANG 'EM HIGH!!!! EVERY LAST ******' ONE OF THEM!!!!

I blame Clinton.

Shemp, please bear in mind the revised Rule 8. This is the second time in the same thread. Thank you.

[Cain]

I have no ******* sympathy for these people.

I'm not sure how to feel on the matter. I live in Los Angeles and people really do like watching police chases. I think they're boring, but it IS reality-television and has some built-in, compulsively watchable "what will happen next?" component (I guess). I do not know the personal stories for the people involved, but I'm inclined to group this incident with "Jaywalker gets run over." Obviously no one deserved to die, and these people were traffic reporters sent on assignment,

The problem here is covering police chases was not a primary responsibility for those involved. What they probably do most often is monitor traffic conditions; they didn't have a choice, and they certainly did not deserve to die.

Also, it's a bit of stretch to blame the criminal who started the chase for the helicopter deaths. Yes, you can blame him for mayhem on the streets, police cars crashing property and claiming lives, but not for news helicopters in the sky. That's ******** (just like rule 8).

[Beerina]

As a knuckle-dragging couch-potato, I take offense to that.

Potatoes are somewhat animated for my tastes.

[Iamme]

People are no longer responsible for their own actions. The pilots were not responsible for the crash because they weren't watching where they were going. Oh no, the guy who was being chased is responsible! Hang him high! And the bosses who sent them out there, and the people who were watching, and the manufacturers of the helicopters, and police, and the weatherman for not telling them which way the wind was blowing, and the EMTs who failed to save them, etc. etc. etc. THEY'RE ALL RESPONSIBLE!!! HANG 'EM HIGH!!!! EVERY LAST ******' ONE OF THEM!!!!

I blame Clinton.

Shemp, please bear in mind the revised Rule 8. This is the second time in the same thread. Thank you.

The world is simply going nuts. Every night the news is now funner to watch than the comedy channel, because it is all real. Also last night they said that that Prince what's his name who is married to Zha Zha was in his RollsRoyce handcuffed in the nude and robbed. I just love reading that screenbar as it rolls by.

[a_unique_person]

I can see it now. The top rating Show will be "TV Helicopter Collisions".

[Just thinking]

I wonder to what extent this collision was caught on film (video). Do the networks have any hesitation (hypocrisy) in allowing that to be shown, as they often times show police chases resulting in serious crashes?

[Charles Livingston]

You guys have brought up an intersting point, but I think Art's comment was regarding the 4 killed in the copter crash, i.e., the 4 do not deserve to die because of their bad taste filming it or the public's bad taste for wanting to watch.

[Darth Rotor]

Four people died, people with families, co-workers, and friends. They were earning an honest living.
The pilots, perhaps, the newsmen, pursuit with intent to pander, I'm having a hard time with.
They did not deserve to die.
I beg to differ. Thosee people (and certainly the two pilots) violated the most sacred law of skepticism, the laws of physics. If you try to enter the same volume of airspace with two different helicopters, the laws of physics tend to sentence you to death. They also violated an FAA regulation, badly, the one that says "see and avoid." (The penalty for that is not applied by the FAA, but by gravity or kinetic energy.)

Gravity never stops working.

People flying either need to keep their heads on a swivel, particularly down low, or they will die.

It's the law of physics and the rules of flying. No mercy.

Their families will be in pain, and for them I feel sorrow.

DR

[Daylight]

Pilots wise roll their eyes :D

The airport I used to fly out of would be shutdown when a car chase and "cloud of news" copters following it would go by. Where's Bluethunder when you need it? :eek:

[Just thinking]

Unless I'm mistaken (and any current pilots please correct me if I'm wrong) the basic rule for two or more aircraft in the same vicinity is that they are required to fly at different altitudes --- with a difference of at least 500 feet. A two copter collision at Niagara Falls once resulted when this was not being followed.

[Crossbow]

Unless I'm mistaken (and any current pilots please correct me if I'm wrong) the basic rule for two or more aircraft in the same vicinity is that they are required to fly at different altitudes --- with a difference of at least 500 feet. A two copter collision at Niagara Falls once resulted when this was not being followed.

Well, not to be picky since I am a fixed wing pilot and not a helicopter pilot (at least not yet!) but one is allowed to operate a helicopter over a congested area (which was the case here), in VFR conditions (which was also the case here), down to 300 feet above the surface (see item "b)" for the actual details).

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?region=DIV1;type=boolean;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=d1 0bb0d19359527c72d31f8742c81f02;q1=helicopter;rgn1= Section;op2=and;q2=altitude;rgn2=Section;op3=and;q 3=minimum;rgn3=Section;view=text;idno=14;node=14%3 A2.0.1.4.23.4.11.2;rgn=div8


§ 135.203 VFR: Minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or

(2) At night, at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown or, in designated mountainous terrain, less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown; or

(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet above the surface.


However, one is still supposed to operate their helicopter in a safe manner, therefore it looks like at least one of the pilots was seriously in error.

[ponderingturtle]

Technicaly Shemp did not violate the new Rule 8, as he has posted no ones personal information. It was Rule 10 that he violated.

Hmm is my Ben Franklin quote now a violation?

[Just thinking]

Well, not to be picky since I am a fixed wing pilot and not a helicopter pilot (at least not yet!) but one is allowed to operate a helicopter over a congested area (which was the case here), in VFR conditions (which was also the case here), down to 300 feet above the surface (see item "b)" for the actual details).

But that makes no mention of 2 aircraft in the same airspace. I too have flown fixed wing under VFR and recall something about different assigned altitudes --- especially for helicopters. (Maybe because they can cross paths much more frequently than airplanes.)

However, one is still supposed to operate their helicopter in a safe manner, therefore it looks like at least one of the pilots was seriously in error.

Yes --- someone was clearly not following proper procedures. It may have even been negligence on those monitoring both choppers.

[Darth Rotor]

But that makes no mention of 2 aircraft in the same airspace. I too have flown fixed wing under VFR and recall something about different assigned altitudes --- especially for helicopters. (Maybe because they can cross paths much more frequently than airplanes.)

Yes --- someone was clearly not following proper procedures. It may have even been negligence on those monitoring both choppers.
I don't think you'll find that anyone was "monitoring" those helicopters if they were below 500' and under VFR "see and avoid." You can ask for advisories, of course. IIRC, the definition of a near miss in VFR is anytime you pass within 500' laterally of each other unintentionally. (May need to check on that. I get the number from an MIT study on near misses. I think FAA VFR rules was the source of that datum.)

ETA: I was not quite correct. From an FAA summary.
While no proximity limits are placed on near midair collision reports, the agency does attempt to categorize each reported encounter by degree of hazard represented from an aviation safety perspective.

A "critical" near miss is one in which there is less than 100 feet of separation between two aircraft. A potential "near miss" is one in which a collision would probably have resulted if no action had been taken by either pilot . This would usually involve a separation of no less than 500 feet between aircraft." http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8426:1
See and avoid.

Altitude separation for VFR, IIRC, does not begin until cruising altitudes, at 3000.' Been a while since I checked the AIM on that, may need to do some brushing up.

DR

[Crossbow]

But that makes no mention of 2 aircraft in the same airspace. I too have flown fixed wing under VFR and recall something about different assigned altitudes --- especially for helicopters. (Maybe because they can cross paths much more frequently than airplanes.)

Well, Air Traffic Control only provides separtion to those aircraft that are participating in the system. And even then, it is still the duty of all pilots to see and avoid other aircraft.

It is still quite early to say of course, but it looks to me as if both aircraft were flying VFR and thereby not communicating to ATC, and both aircraft were quite low (probably at or just above the 300' AGL threshold) where they would not be picked up the ATC Radar. Note: I have not seen any mention of TCAS being triggered prior to the crash, therefore it is indeed quite likely that both aircraft were flying too low to be picked up by ATC.

Yes --- someone was clearly not following proper procedures. It may have even been negligence on those monitoring both choppers.

Again, I doubt any one person was monitoring both aircraft. Instead, my early judgement is that at least one of the pilots was not properly montioring his own aircraft.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes --- someone was clearly not following proper procedures. It may have even been negligence on those monitoring both choppers.
I'd bet you they lost sight of one another. Helicopters don't have 360 deg view from the pilot's seat, there are blind spots. I cannot see your assertion of negligence as making any sense, given the conditions and altitude.

Instead, my early judgement is that at least one of the pilots was not properly montioring his own aircraft.
More likely not monitoring the other aircraft, as in, lost sight. Monitoring your own aircraft won't prevent you from running into another aircraft. Your raising TCAS I had not considered, and I don't think all aircraft are required to have TCAS equipment, particularly VFR helicopters, but I'd need to look that one up.

DR