Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
- The police have a number of powers that can be brought to bear, including giving directions to a member of the public, and control of vehicles on the ground, which includes aircraft
- I'm told the temporary restricted airspace was legally declared and published
- The airspace was requested and declared due to the scene incident, NOT for firefighting; in fact there was no restricted airspace declared due firefighting, there was (and still is) a general warning NOTAM about fire fighting and that is all;
- It was not a “car accident”. At the time of requesting the exclusion zone it would have been classed as a crime scene, due to the full circumstances of the deaths not being established at that early stage i.e. it could have involved a murder/suicide. The police were well within their rights to request that the scene be preserved.
- Helicopter downwash and people moving about can clearly disturb evidence.
If there are “questions being asked”, it is no doubt either by people who do not know the actual circumstances, or others who are sprung occasionally without adequate briefing. From time to time the latter thump the table demanding a review of the declaration of restricted airspace, so given Weipa and this one I would not be surprised if they show up again. Very few restricted airspace is declared for police matters (I’m told many requests are refused due to insufficient justification), and those that are, are subject to close scrutiny by the regulatory authority.
The media have always had the impression that restricted airspace is declared to keep them out, but evidence suggests that they rarely take the time to specifically ask the declaring authority - or in particular the arbiter - exactly why it has been declared, and what arrangements can be made for their access. Easier to grumble to others.
There is no getting around the fact that updates to briefing is required enroute, and someone going to an incident scene would clearly know or suspect that restricted airspace might have been imposed – so ask.
I'll be in thumping the desk tomorrow. I don't see a justification for this TRA if it was up. There was no danger to or from the burnt out car or the crime scene.
Media attend crime scenes regularly and are sensitive to the need to preserve evidence. Media pilots land well clear of scenes for this and other reasons. Aerial filming is done from an orbit clear of the scene. This is all regular and routine stuff. Why would any media pilot feel the need to check for a TRA at the scene of a burnt out car? We go to many more concerning scenes where there are no TRA. This includes murder and other crime scenes. There was nothing special or different about this one - a burnt out car. A siege in progress would be different.
Downwash is a great red herring here - it's just wind!! Did anyone else notice the strong winds during the recent bushfires? Downwash is only a problem at CLOSE range and media pilots, as opposed to some uneducated opinions, do not hover over scenes to blow away evidence. It is NOT a serious justification for TRA. Yet they go up - why wouldn't media consider they are being singled out. I do ask why - of both the requesting and declaring authorities and normally get no reasonable answer. There are many examples of this from the past. I thought the problem had gone away, but here it is again.
There is significant aircraft activity at bushfires and the media always treat them as TRA, declared or not, and seek permission from DSE to enter and operate in them. If DSE hadn't requested one, then silly them - the media assumed there was one. There is
clear justification in that case.