The idea that questioning this is somehow unacceptable is a mite disturbing.
Even constructive criticism should not be 'off limits'.
Because the lessons of how organisational arrangements affect safety transcend national boundaries - and those lessons need to be learned by everyone.
Safety is everyone's business, as they say.
And it's not as though I'm campaigning to change things in the USA, though I'm interested in the view that 'limiting the powers of the Federal Government' seems a more important aim to some than does maximising safety and professional standards.
This is a particularly interesting issue, as it is clear that the hands-off approach, relying on voluntary participation, works a lot of the time, and that many of these agencies do have much stricter requirements than are required by the FAA.
But not all, and there are clearly some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.
And I would question that the idea that the best way of recruiting Police pilots is from the ranks of beat policemen. The standards, skillsets and competences required for the two occupations are very different, and while I would not wish to disrespect Police officers nor put down the value of what they do, I would suggest that while anyone with the intelligence and skills to be an above average commercial helicopter pilot could probably learn the Policeman's job, the reverse is not necessarily true.
I am fascinated that people are reacting with anger and irritation to the fact that a foreigner is questioning the way things are done, and that almost no-one is answering any of the questions I've raised.
We're all aviators, and isn't safety the most fundamental issue that should unite us?