I may be about to put the cat amongst the pigeons, but here goes...
I have never failed to be impressed by the professionalism of BHH's London heliroute operation. As a previous fare-paying sightseer, my only gripe with them is that I enjoyed it so much I went on to spend loads of money getting my PPL(H)! I am now a regular user of the heliroutes myself and support their continual availability.
I also agree with the many posts about the risks posed by water and road-borne traffic as opposed to the very small risk posed by light helicopters.
But, and I speak as someone who has been employed on many anti-terrorist operations, do we not do ourselves a disservice by being
too defensive, when this sort of reaction and apparent "closing of ranks" is just the reaction the journo wanted to provoke?
My point is, why
don't we search luggage of passengers on helicopter trips? Why can't we scan them with a hand-held scanner? How many people, post-9/11 are really going to object if it is done in a professional and dignified manner? I just feel that sometimes, a polite smile through gritted teeth and an assurance that their claims will be looked into does more to deflate the sensation-seeking journo than a defensive outcry. Bill Lowry has very eloquently replied to the innacuracies in the original article, let's now, as an industry, thank them for their "interest" and stick two fingers up at them by reacting professionally.
DBChopper
