Mirror exposes deadly helicopter peril! (Merged) [Archive]

Happy Landing !

28th Feb 2003, 12:25

WE COULD HAVE BOMBED ANY TARGET IN LONDON

Feb 28 2003

EXCLUSIVE

By Gary Jones

A TERRIFYING security loophole was exposed by a Daily Mirror sight-seeing flight over London yesterday.

We hired a helicopter without identity or luggage checks and flew over many of the capital's landmarks - including the Houses of Parliament, Canary Wharf and the City of London.

Had we been terrorists, it would have been easy to overpower the pilot and send the helicopter crashing onto the House of Commons or Big Ben.

We could have hurled a bomb or unleashed a deadly poison cloud.

Buckingham Palace was within close range. And at one point, the helicopter hovered over Parliament at 1,500ft.

We passed the Commons three times, causing so much noise that guests at a special lunch attended by Lord Tebbit could hardly hear themselves speak.

Intelligence sources have warned that al-Qaeda terrorists might attempt a propaganda suicide bombing of Westminster.

Helicopter sight-seeing tours were banned briefly after the September 11 attacks in America.

In the US, tough security measures were introduced following the air hijackings - including stringent identity and bag checks for helicopter flights.

But there were no questions asked when photographer Emma Cattell and myself arrived at Biggin Hill in Kent for yesterday's trip. We didn't even give our full names.

I had phoned Biggin Hill Helicopters at about 10.30am saying I wanted to hire a helicopter for a sight-seeing tour as a birthday present for my girlfriend.

At first I was told one wasn't available because of a training lesson but I was called back shortly afterwards on a mobile phone to be told: "If you can get here by 1.15pm you'll be OK."

After parking directly outside BHH's prefabricated building, I was met by a man called Will, who said: "You must be Gary."

After a short briefing about the flight, involving how to wear seatbelts correctly and avoid the rotor blades, the four-seater helicopter landed to pick us up.

I had a black bag with strap slung over my shoulder and my colleague a large handbag containing a digital camera. At no stage were the bags checked for their contents. They were not even given a cursory glance.

The only mention made of my bag - which could easily have concealed a gun or a gas canister - was when I laid it at my feet.

I was asked by the pilot called Simon, in his late 20s, what it contained. I replied: "A camera." I was told to put the bag in the back because it could become entangled in the pedals.

No check had been made on either of our identities before we boarded the flight. Apart from the credit card details which I had given over the phone earlier, BHH had no information about us.

It was only after we had landed and were driving back to London that an address was asked for so a receipt could be given for the cost of the flight.

The helicopter emblazoned with the sign LBC - the capital's independent radio station which hires the chopper for its travel reports - flew directly towards Canary Wharf before following the path of the River Thames.

The spectacular journey passed the City of London and was supposed to end at Battersea power station.

But our trip was interrupted by a Ministry of Defence Chinook helicopter taking special services personnel to the Duke of York's barracks at Chelsea.

The distinctive dark green MoD chopper was given priority and flew beneath us a couple of kilometres away as we hovered above the Commons.

Helicopter sight-seeing trips follow a pre-determined path into the capital, twisting and turning along the Thames.

But with the Houses of Parliament directly on the river, a terrorist would not need to manoeuvre the helicopter any great distance to hit the target. Security services and anti- terrorist police have warned of the threat of attack.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens says: "It is not a question of if, but when."
==============================================

Perhaps the UK Government ought to search every vehicle entering the conjestion charging zone :mad: Whatever next ?

Helinut

28th Feb 2003, 14:08

Heliport,

My initial reaction (accompanied by a surge of anger) was to do things like writing to the Editor, and "remonstrate" with him, providing a logical and measured explanation of why his article is wrong.

However, a brief moment of rational thought suggests to me that this would be exactly the sort of reaction that they would want, so that they could prolong the story and its "news" value. Upon reflection, I guess (hope) that it will be a 5-second wonder and will die a death, buried under the next "sexual celebrity revelation" over the weekend.

Just in case, though I thought it might be sensible to mention it to the BHAB. I left a message, as had the poor old operator who had got caught by this "exclusive".

I think the most effective action at the moment is to ignore it, and treat it with the contempt it deserves.

DROGNA

28th Feb 2003, 14:30

Surely for the terrorist on a budget it would be cheaper to charter a small boat on the Thames to attack Parliament. Or even better value, just hire a cab "over-power" the driver and drive up to the House of Commons! At least that way any attack won't be foiled due to bad weather.

Maybe if the Daily Mirror ran the capital they would check everyone's bags in the City, just to be on the safe side.

Don't journalists have anything better to do these days??:(

Dantruck

28th Feb 2003, 14:40

Helinut is right!
The Mirror's so-called exclusive is a fine example of what real journalists call a non-story. By complaining you merely feed the non-story and turn it into a real story. The next day's headline then becomes "Heli operators object to safety calls" or somesuch, and before you know it you're embroiled in a debate where you have to defend your position of resisting a move that might prevent another 9/11.
See how it works?
My advice: don't feed it
Dantruck

Hilico

28th Feb 2003, 15:06

I've mentioned it to the BHAB too, for possible discussion at an upcoming (previously-scheduled) meeting.

I did indeed nearly explode at the breakfast table, but calming down and reflecting is a wiser course. Let's see what kind of 'calls for clamping down on irresponsible etc etc' emerge.

Steve Warner.

Helinut

28th Feb 2003, 19:49

The printed version of the "exclusive" is worse than the net version. It covers the whole of the front page (except for a photo of J-Lo's butt) and pages 4 & 5. It includes all sorts of sub-articles of quotes from spokepersons from D of T and the Lib-Dems etc., as well as the lead editorial opinion.

Interestingly, I have not seen or heard any other media outlet take up the same story.

P.S. I didn't buy a copy, but borrowed it.

Flying Lawyer

28th Feb 2003, 20:34

I'm inclined to agree this absurd non-story doesn't merit a response.
However, Biggin Hill Helicopters doesn't have that luxury. A 'No Comment' could easily be deliberately distorted to give the impresssion that they had done something wrong and/or had something to hide.

This is the full text of BHH's response to the Mirror. It will be interesting to see how much of it is published.
“Terrorflying’ Story

Response by Captain Bill Lowry.
Managing Director and Chief Pilot
BIGGIN HILL HELICOPTERS

“Biggin Hill Helicopters has conducted sight-seeing tours over London for 10 years and I’m very proud of the unblemished safety record which we’ve established.
We comply with all regulations laid down by the Civil Aviation Authority and, in common with all other Air Operators, we’re constantly monitored by the Authority. The Authority has never once had cause to criticise, or suggest changes to, our procedures.

“Helicopter operators are not required to search passengers or their bags, and I’m not aware of any operator in the country that does so. I think it’s very unfair that the article gives the impression that our procedures are in some way lax.

“If the Mirror would like to see the rules changed, it would have been much fairer if you’d taken the matter up with the authorities. We don’t search passengers or bags and, if you’d asked us, we would have told you.
There was no need to use such under-handed methods as if you were exposing some shameful behaviour. We have nothing to hide.

“It’s a great pity you resorted to sensationalising an otherwise accurate story with exaggeration and a number of inaccuracies.”
Captain Simon Maynard, pilot of the helicopter, said: “It is simply not true that I hovered over the Houses of Parliament, yet your front page headline claims that I did for five minutes. That is simply not true and is blatant scare-mongering.
All helicopters over London are under strict Air Traffic Control at all times. The Heathrow radar trace will confirm that what your reporters claim is not true. You’re welcome to obtain a print-out from the National Air Traffic Service. By the way, I’m mid 20s, not late 20s.”
Captain Maynard has been a professional pilot for five years. He holds an Airline Transport Pilots Licence, the highest level of professional pilots licence.

“You suggest a terrorist could manoeuvre a helicopter to hit the Houses of Parliament. Let’s keep this in perspective - we’re talking about a small helicopter the size of a mini here, yet lorries and trucks drive past the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace every day. They could be packed with tons of explosives. Are you suggesting all lorries and trucks should be prohibited from driving through Central London?
Where do you draw the line? If we change our way of life to try to cope with every conceivable means a terrorist might use, the terrorists have won anyway.”

I suggest any other operators who wish to take advantage of free publicity for their pleasure flights should offer their services to another newspaper. BHH seems to have a monopoly with the Mirror at the monent!

Tudor Owen

[Posted with the permission of my clients.]

Dave Jackson

28th Feb 2003, 20:43

Perhaps the best way of stopping Britain from becoming a 'fortress under siege' is for Blair to stop provoking retaliation from those who have never previously been a threat.

Nationalism is good for wars and Olympics. When's the next Olympics?

t'aint natural

28th Feb 2003, 21:07

The Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan, is still, after two years, under investigation for dubious share dealings in a company called Viglen. He bought these shares the day before they were tipped in a "finance" column in the Mirror called City Slickers, and made a handsome profit when they rose as a result of publication. Some of his shameless gyrations when questioned about this patent fraud upon his readers would have been comical to behold had not the situation been so serious. The two chancers who wrote the column were both sacked after they said Morgan had lied repeatedly over the chain of events leading up to the share purchase. I cannot see his moon face on the television without wondering when justice is going to catch up with him.
Nothing in this joker's paper can be believed, or ought to be taken seriously. Happily, the Mirror's circulation continues to decline rapidly, and I confidently expect Morgan to be unemployed when he finally goes to prison.

heedm

1st Mar 2003, 02:39

I agree with your replies to this article, but I'm not sure what the problem would be with mandatory ID and luggage checks. Doesn't affect the individual's freedom any more than the same checks on commuter flights. Increases security for the crew (pilot). Makes things more difficult for the would be terrorist.

On the other hand, why bother with ID and luggage checks on any flight? Any of the reasons I could come up with to refute my notion on the sight seeing flights also work with any other flights.

B Sousa

1st Mar 2003, 13:47

Its so very typical of those "stick your head in the sand " group. I believe its also not allowed over Paris. I was told that by some of the Security Civile who gave me a ride in their Dauphin...........over Paris.
Im sure its coming to the U.S. Very unfortunate but its shows most all governments think alike......No common sense.

Heliport

1st Mar 2003, 16:55

Hands up anyone who's surprised there's not a single word in the Mirror rag today quoting what either the owner of BHH or the pilot said. And not a word from anyone giving the other side of the argument.
(No, of course I didn't buy it.)

Just patting themselves on the back for exposing this "FLIGHT SECURITY BREACH" - their words not mine - saying Transport Secretary Alistair Darling set up an inquiry after Daily Mirror journalists hired a helicopter without identity checks and hovered unchallenged over Parliament.

"hired a helicopter without ID checks?
What are we meant to do when we are given a name?
Are we to ask Special Branch or the Anti Terrorist Squad to run a check? And would they if we asked?
"hovered unchallenged over Parliament"
She's still repeating that lie, I see - but at least she's dropped the five minutes bit.

Mirror says "Government sources indicated security will be tightened for helicopter and light aircraft flights."
Funny how these sources don't have names. And if "government sources" did say such a thing, it's worrying they are so influenced by a tabloid with falling sales.

"The move comes amid demands for action to secure the skies over Britain's most important buildings."
Really? Demands by whom?
Ah - don't panic, "Liberal Democrat MPs". (I was a bit worried there for a moment ) who are also calling for (get this) "armed police or troops to be stationed on rooftops to protect sensitive buildings from an air attack. :rolleyes:

The Transport Department said: "We have discussed restricting flights over Central London." Shame whoever said that (if anyone did) the spokesman didn't add 'and we rejected it as unnecessary'.

Let's hope they'll stand by their original sensible decision, and don't change their minds in response to this scare-mongering drivel from a tabloid.

Delta Julliet Golf

1st Mar 2003, 19:27

I agree with you all. The "Mirror" is taking it to far..If someone wants to do harm, he'll be able to do it. It's easy to buy some explosives (so I am told), put it on your body, and push the button.....Nothing fancy (like choppers/planes), but very effective.

All the precautions nowadays are just to make the civilians feel "safe", nothing more. People must realise this as well as the so-called journalists of all these tabloids!

DJG

Flying Lawyer

1st Mar 2003, 20:26

For "Liberal Democrat MPs", read "Paul Keetch MP", the Member for Hereford and Lib Dem Defence spokesman.
According to the Mirror, he went on to say:

"The Mirror has exposed a huge gap in our security. It's no good having armed police on the front gates at Westminster if someone can hover in the sky only 1500ft up."
Which, roughly translated, means 'That should ensure me good coverage in the Mirror, and appeal to the Mirror readers in my constituency.'
Politicians are not stupid when it comes to headline- grabbing comments - and it won't have escaped Mr Keetch's attention that the journo who wrote today's nonsense [Day 2] is the Deputy Political Editor of the Mirror. Like it or not, tabloids sell the most newspapers in this country, and Press coverage is oxygen to politicians. Rather important to keep well in with the Deputy Political Editor of a national newspaper!

"The Government should think about an air exclusion zone around sensitive buildings.
Does Mr Keetch wish to see a 'water exclusion zone' along the Thames beside the Houses of Parliament? A terrorist could carry a much bigger bomb in a large boat than in a camera bag in a small helicopter.

An air exclusion zone? I don't know how long Mr Keetch has been an MP, but he clearly doesn't look up on his way to work, or when having tea on the terrace, because he's not noticed helicopters passing by. The Heli Route across London for single-engine helicopters is along the river. Or perhaps Mr Keetch is extremely hard of hearing? According to the yesterday's story, a JetRanger at 1500' caused "so much noise that guests at a special lunch attended by Lord Tebbit could hardly hear themselves speak." (It must be true - it was in the Mirror.)
I wonder what Lord Tebbit thinks of the Mirror's ideas - he was an airline pilot until he became an MP in the early 70's.
Perhaps the Mirror would like to see airliners prohibited from flying over London in case we have aother 9/11? It would close Heathrow whenever there's a Westerly wind (ie most days) but what does that matter, it would be quite a coup for the Mirror if their campaign closed one of the world's busiest international airports.

"We need to review how easy it is for people to hire helicopters and light aircraft - there must be proper identity checks."
Shame Mr Keetch didn't think this through before making such a suggestion. What 'proper identity checks' will he suggest when he has thought it through?
How would helicopter operators know if the ID given was genuine? Or, if genuine, whether the passenger was a terrorist?
We can turn up at Heathrow, buy a return ticket for an internal flight or the Irish Republic, and fly both legs without ever being asked to produce any form of ID - I did precisely that to/from Dublin only three weeks ago.

The point is, as many others have pointed out, that if terrorists wish to attack, there are far more effective ways to do it than hiring a small helicopter and carrying a bomb in a camera bag.
A suicide hit at a big building would almost certainly kill those on board, but it would be a total fluke if anyone else was killed or injured.
Yesterday's 'Voice of the Daily Mirror' editorial, accompanying the 'shock horror' nonsense, said 'We could have killed most of the Cabinet at the right time.' (No obvious comments, please!) I suppose you could - if they were all out on the terrace at the same time and there was a bomb in the helicopter - but a boat on the river would be so much more effective.

We can never defend ourselves from every means terrorists might use - and would we want to try? Personally, I think the price is too high. If we turn ourselves into 'Fortress Britain', the terrorists have won.

If anyone wishes to contact Mr Keetch to answer his points, his e-mail addresses are:

Constituency Office [email protected]

House of Commons [email protected]

Perhaps we should - MP's frequently refer to the 'enormous number' of letters of support they've received. ;)

Note
In view of my earlier post, I should point out that the views I've expressed here are my own. They should not be taken as representing the views of Biggin Hill Helicopters.

Of course, if we're all wrong and there genuinely is a serious problem, it's a little worrying that the Lib-Dem Defence spokesman didn't notice the "huge gap in our security" until the Mirror 'exposed' it. :eek:
Mr Keetch would probably be the Defence Minister if the Lib-Dems won the next election. Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it? :rolleyes:

greatorex

1st Mar 2003, 21:01

As always, another outstanding post.

I and many of my colleagues, chums and fellow aviators would be more than happy to either e-mail or write to Mr Keetch regarding his comments. However, as we are all inevitably pushed for time should we perhaps draft a 'standard' letter that we could distribute amongst ourselves and others in order to bombard his office with a deluge of paperwork to deal with?

Experience tells me that unless we Really make the government think this thing through there will be an awful lot of ill-conceived, door-bolting going on. . . .

Best wishes,

G

Dave Jackson

2nd Mar 2003, 00:42

Delta Julliet Golf

I agree with the intent of your post, but politely disagrees with your second paragraph.

"All the precautions nowadays are just to make the civilians feel "safe", nothing more."

Most 'precautions', only serve to enhance the anxiety. The ludicrous color-code alert system in the United States is a classic example. Political actions of this type conjure up the image of George Orwell's 1984; :ooh: ~ but why regurgitate a previous and dearly departed thread.

handyandyuk

2nd Mar 2003, 01:56

Ok, so some joker thought it would sell some papers to 'expose a massive security loophole'. My guess... the most they've ever done is get drunk at college before getting a local paper job then eventually a slot at the Mirror. So they push the psuedo 9/11 angle and make it sound as if Guy Fawkes has been resurrected and might hijack a Jet Ranger over London. Which moron editor let this get to the presses, Mr Morgan?
I'll wager there's a good mass of the pilots, engineers and associated personnel who read this forum, who like me have served in the Armed Forces of their country. They, like me, will have a good idea what happens to a target on a range when a missile misses. Not much! We know that do do any significant damage, the explosive component needs to be as close as possible to the target. The bigger the target, the more explosive force required to do any damage. Thus, the explosive force that might be carried onto a light aircraft WITHOUT ARROUSING SUSPICION is realistically minute. Any terrorist is going to know this any is not going to risk the total failure of an attack by trying it.
My income comes from driving trucks. I have, on many occasions driven my vehicle around central London, past MI5, Parliment, BBC Radio, MoD, the Foreign Office, all lovely juicy terrorist targets. The reasonable payload of an artic can be put between 15 and 20 tonnes. Shame it's not sensational enough to highlight how easy it is to hire an artic with a fake or stolen licence, fill the trailer with home made explosive and drive it into town. Stop it on hazards outside Parliament, light the fuze and walk away to 'phone for recovery'. The blast would kill hundreds and probably cause a major collapse of the Palace of Westminster.

Anyone care to write to their MP and demand the banning of all traffic entering London given this loophole in security? Somehow, despite it being by far a more likely method of attack, I can't see it being sensational enough to warrant the interest of even the local free papers.

Just remind me... was it a truck or a helicopter that killed a load of US Marines in Beirut?

Barannfin

2nd Mar 2003, 04:03

Oaklahoma city was done with a rental van. :(

Bottom line, its impossible to stop everything.

Steve76

2nd Mar 2003, 05:44

If any of you get the chance, go to see 'Bowling for Columbine'
Its a doco done by Mike Moore the renegade American film producer.
It exposes the fear campain by Government and Media to maintain the community in a constant state of anxiety. Akin to the comments from Dave J above.
Sad, entertaining and funny to boot.. :cool:

DBChopper

2nd Mar 2003, 08:58

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
:cool:

Dantruck

2nd Mar 2003, 10:30

As a grey-haired middle-aged journalist (and pilot) I must say the Mirror's stories gave me a professional chuckle. They follow two celebrated tabloid maxims:

1...Don't let the story get in the way of a good headline.

and

2...Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The thing is, any individual or group contemplating responding to the Mirror directly should understand its journalists are not interested in facts, only in selling more newspapers. If they were interested in facts, or in doing something that really exposed wrongdoing, they'd be working for a real newspaper or a specialist magazine.
Your reasoned arguments will be as welcome as a visit from the Press Complaints Commission, and about as affective. As your resident journo I can only repeat a point made in an earlier posting: don't feed this so-called story and thereby turn it into a widely read issue that others, eg: anti-noise groups, can latch on to.
As for that MP fellow, Flying Lawyer hits the nail on the head. He's only interested in the oxygen of publicity the Mirror provides. He probably knows full well the Mirror's story is rot, but cares more for his own public profile.
As for all those official bodies who might now be looking into this claimed expose just in case the Mirror is on to something?...well, there lies the real danger. Ill thought through restrictions might just follow, and so I suggest it is to those bodies we as a group should address any comment.
So, to recap:

Engaging with the Mirror will get you nowhere.
Engaging with Mr Keetch may get him to shut up, but not much else.
Engaging with the proper authorities may deflect future restrictions, and could open doors to future grown-up discussion as and when real concerns arise.

Time to choose, ladies and gentlemen

Oh, and how do I know all of this?
Trust me...I'm a journalist.:ugh:

Whirlybird

2nd Mar 2003, 10:45

This is the first time I've had a chance to read this thread. Having considered all possible actions, my opinion, FWIW, is to treat the whole thing with the contempt it deserves, and ignore it. Did anyone ever take The Mirror seriously anyway? Yes, those involved have to respond, and some people are using it for their own ends, which is nothing new. For the rest of us, I suspect that if we keep quiet it will die a natural death, as many Mirror "stories" have in the past.

Now if that doesn't happen, then is the time to think again.

Hoverman

2nd Mar 2003, 11:00

I agree with Dantruck that the tactic suggested by Flying Lawyer in his brilliant post is the best one.

BHH have replied to the Mirror, with FL's help it seems. There's no point in wasting time with them as Dantruck has explained.

Whirly
It's gone further than a silly tabloid story now.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has already said there'll be a government inquiry into the issues raised by the Mirror. I don't think it would be wise to sit back and let that inquiry be one-sided.

greatorex
If time's short, just do a 'cut and paste' from the best posts on this thread.
Our e-mails should be polite, punchy bullet points. Far more effective than a long rambling spiel. Politicians get lots of mail - long letters aren't needed and would probably be counter-productive.

I'll be cribbing from FL's post - he hasn't said it's copyrighted!! :)

The Nr Fairy

2nd Mar 2003, 11:54

kissmysquirrel:

I think it may be more appropriate to cull relevant bits - that way you can keep any communication short and precise - easier for a busy MP to read and comprehend.

Maybe you could post a draft, that we WE can copy your ideas and mail them to our MPs ? :D

Seaking

2nd Mar 2003, 12:40

:yuk: This whole business with the Mirror (the choice of morons) gets me so bloody angry.Thankfully where i am now it is not available along with the other thrash of its type.Time was when the only use for this kind of paper was in the little room with the flushing handle !

Don't these people,both those who write this rubbish and those who are prepaired to exploit it realise what the are doing by their so called "protection of the public interest" ?

Only a couple of week ago a person (so called journalist) managed to sneak into an airliner at one of the smaller airports in the UK and the next day there were the usual lurid headlines splashed over the front pages of some rag.This sort of thing as well as the many others that we see are just fuelling the fire,causing the average person to panic,and giving some 3rd rate politician a leg up.:mad:

As was pointed out earlier it would take a hell of a lot more than a Jet Ranger to do any ammount of damage to any of the buildings around any major city,all we have to do is to look back 60 years or so to see the effects of mass bombing and how much of that was just throwing a lot more weight into a widespread area to do not a lot of damage.But once again we have politicians who have never worn a uniform but think its nice to visit the Officers Mess,pretend they know something and have their picture taken with the "boys and girls" who end up doing their dirty work for them ! Yet they and the petty journalists who can't get a real job have to find something to justify their existance and so they cook up some of this sort of crap.

I firmly believe that it is time that the helicopter owners,operators,pilots,engineers,medical and SAR services,in fact anyone who has an interest professionally or privately in the operation of aircraft both fixed wing and rotary,balloons,glider,whatever,got together and start a campaign to push some sort of pride and understanding of what aviation is all about and what it does for the country and what it does for security and the people.

HAI and AOPA in the united states are heavily involved in the promotion of aviation and the have a very powerful political lobby behind them.Our side of the pond needs to do the same.Support our lobby groups and make them do something about what is happening.

Lets take the politicians and the journalists and show them what we really do,take them on the SAR and ambulance flights,show them the ability of a helicopter,actually give real information about the London heliroutes to them,enlist the serious newspapers and get them to write the other side of the story,even get the opposition of the Mirror involved and try to get a better perspective on things.

If we do not wake up we are going to find our rights to continue to fly and operate being further eroded or before long it may become part of a memory about what it was like to do these things,to find ourselves boxed into smaller and smaller pieces of sky,with more and more restrictions.The results of this sort of thing are all ready being felt since the attacks in New York,and if a sensible and co-ordinated approach to these sorts of issues is not instigated then everyone will be the looser.

By all means have security i am all for it but lets have some truth and perspective.

Heliport

2nd Mar 2003, 12:49

kissmysquirrel
You don't have to 'cut and paste' if you want to send a copy of an entire thread to somebody - if you click on the 'Email' box at the bottom of a thread, you can insert the recipient's e-mail address and either accept the standard message or compose your own.
BUT I do not think it would be a good idea to do send the entire thread to Mr Keetch or any other politician for the reasons given by Hoverman and Nr Fairy.

--------------------

Short points which go straight to the issue are the most effective way of getting your views across.
Above all, whatever you may think of Mr Keetch in particular, or politicians in general, emails should be polite and reasonable or they'll end up in a cyber bin as the rantings of some crank. Being forceful does not = being rude.

Heliport

Flying Lawyer

2nd Mar 2003, 17:53

kms
With great respect, this is a serious issue which must be approached in a mature way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'No-one takes the Mirror seriously' / 'Keep quiet and it will go away' :

In normal circumstances I'd entirely agree with you, but we don't live in 'normal' times. What the Mirror thinks isn't the issue. Please don't make the mistake of thinking the government isn't already looking at all aspects of security. We must ensure that our arguments are taken into consideration before the government decides what restrictions upon aviation, if any, are necessary for security reasons. Complaining afterwards will be too late.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The objective of writing to Mr Keetch (as Defence spokesman for one of the three main parties) is to try to persuade him that he was too quick to support the Mirror's 'campaign' and that, if he considers your counter arguments, he will upon calm reflection realise that the Mirror was simply scare-mongering for the sake of a story.
Most of his ideas were ill-considered. One - 'armed police or troops to be stationed on rooftops to protect sensitive buildings from an air attack' - was completely potty. But, it's more effective to suggest such a measure would be of 'limited value' than to tell him you think he's barking mad!

All that said, Mr Keetch won't be making any decisions about whether to change the rules - the government will, and it is pointless suggesting to anyone in authority that the issue isn't even worthy of consideration. There are security implications attaching to helicopters/light aircraft operations in general. If we deny that, or give the impression that we don't realise it, we lose all credibility.

The more persuasive approach is to accept that in the current climate the government has to be concerned about all aspects of security - including helicopters/light aircraft - and demonstrate by carefully reasoned, informed arguments that the theoretical risks are, in reality, so small that they don't require/justify changing the existing rules. ie A knee-jerk over-reaction to a minor risk would be wrong. The damage a light helicopter could do is minute compared with a large lorry or boat. Even if all helicopter flights over London were banned, that wouldn't stop a determined terrorist - if he's bent on a suicide mission, upsetting the CAA enforcement branch is going to be the last thing on his mind. An exclusion zone over parts of Washington DC is understandable, but are we Brits really at such risk that we're going to have fighters on standby ready to enforce it here?

In the current climate, complaining that we don't want our freedom to fly restricted won't cut any ice. We have to show there is no good reason to restrict our freedom - even in the current climate.

If that is unsuccessful, our fall-back position should be to try to ensure that if any rules are changed, or new rules introduced, they cause as little interference as possible with our present freedoms. eg If passengers on commercial helicopter flights were required by law to produce ID and/or to submit to a search with a hand-held x-ray machine, that would be a minor (and largely pointless) inconvenience - but far better than having all helicopter flights over London banned.

Don't make Mr Keetch's mistake of sounding off out before thinking through the implications of what you say. Nothing is going to happen overnight - give yourself a few days to think how best to present your arguments.
In the meantime, we can monitor what the people with power are saying.

headsethair

2nd Mar 2003, 20:22

[email protected]

OR call the newsdesk in London on 020 7293 3831 or Manchester on 0161 683 6402 or email [email protected]

All info as published on their website. Give 'em hell!

Heliport

2nd Mar 2003, 20:31

Thank you headsethair.
Don't call us, we'll call you. :rolleyes:

Helinut

2nd Mar 2003, 21:49

The problem is NOT the Mirror, in my view. They certainly caused it, but the problem is now that some politicians have or may see some mileage in running with it. I would suggest that having seen how BHH's response was ignored by the Mirror, that there is no useful purpose in saying anything to them at all. They will probably ignore it or ridicule it or twist it completely out of context - that's what tabloid journalists do!

I haven't tracked the saga in the Mirror beyond the first day - I am certainly got going to buy one of their papers now! But from what others are saying we seem to have two of the UK's "finest" have taken the bait.

The Lib-Dem man would probably benefit from a carefully put together rational argument along the lines of some of the more sensible comments in this thread. He is probably clueless about helicopters, aviation and how bombs explosives and ordinance work.

If Alistair Darling does set some sort of Inquiry in motion, then we need to look to our representative bodies to prepare in advance a broader based submission for such an Inquiry. The obvious candidate is the BHAB - not a large organisation, but a suitable focal point. I suspect that the inquiry would not be formal and/or public, so they may need to push a bit to ensure that their comments are taken into account.

Don't be afraid to offer any assistance to the BHAB if you have any useful capabilities that may help them..

Others have also raised that we need to be not too dogmatic ourselves.

As very much a secondary level of importance and given the current and soon to get worse security situation, some small enhancement to our security arrangements might decrease the risk from terrrorism associated with our activities. We should at least be prepared to consider the possibility - I don't mean exclusion zones but baggage checking and some attempt at establishing an identity would not cost too much. Indeed, we already cooperate in similar levels of security at the heliports associated with special events. If it can be shown that such measures could help, then we should consider them.

Heliport

3rd Mar 2003, 02:29

I'm pleased to see we are almost united in our opinion that writing to the Mirror would be a completely pointless exercise.

I noticed the following post in the Private Flying forum. The point has been made here, but it amused me anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the terrorists ignore the air exclusion zones and risk losing their license?

Just imagine the conversation (in a terrorist accent):

"Hey lets crash our flimsy little helicopter into the Houses Of Parliament and break a few windows"...
"We can't, there is an Air Exclusion Zone"
"Oh b0ll0cks."

Ho Hum, I suppose it keeps the man in the street happy. (Credit to someone calling himself '28July2001')

Helliport

Helinut

3rd Mar 2003, 08:41

And in a nutshell, that is exactly what we need to get over to those people who have been mislead by the Mirror's garbage. We have to work on the assumption that they are reasonable people, but misguided by the misinformation in the tabloid.

My only worry is that the "decision-makers" in this are the same as the ones who have "exclusion zones" around some prisons and nuclear installations. It is clear that these have no significant effect on reducing the risks to these places, but we continue to have them anyway.

Looking at how these things have happened in the past, such zones are created by the DAP bit of the CAA. I have talked to them about prisons, and they indicate that these zones were a response to a helicopter hijack jailbreak in the UK and a small number of others that continue too happen through world. They simply get requested by the Home Office (the UK dept responsible for prisons). Because the Home Office request it DAP does it. There is no evaluation of the risk, or the effectiveness of the measures that the zone provides or consideration of alternative and far more effective steps that could be taken.

The quality of "our" response is important. It needs to be well-argued, well-timed and well-directed if it is to have the desired effect.

Dantruck

3rd Mar 2003, 08:51

Have just spoken to the Department for Transport's press office - aviation desk.

They confirmed to me - as a journalist - that a low-level "investigation" is underway, but insisted it was not a big issue as far as they are concerned. The press officer even volunteered: "It is not the full inquiry with a big table and a board of people or anything like that...the papers love to use this word 'enquiry.' But we are looking into what happened."

I was also told that Alistair Darling, the UK's Transport Secretary, has "Asked to know what happened." The Mirror's assertion that he has launched a 'probe' or some other kind of 'search for the guilty' is exaggeration, it seems.

My reading of what I have been told is that the Mirror's story was brought to Mr Darling's attention, and then he instructed an aide to find out whether this was something he needed to be briefed on further. I suggest Mr Darling is not as stupid as Paul Keetch MP, and that there is no need to panic just yet.

I suggest a 'wait and see' strategy. Judging by the lack of any follow-up this morning in any version of the Mirror I have seen - yes, they do print different versions - it seems even its journalists have lost interest, at least for now.

Dantruck

Helinut

3rd Mar 2003, 10:57

Following on from Dantruck's informative post, it does appear as though no other "voice of the people" has taken up the cry, or even mentioned it in anything that I have seen or heard.

Perhaps they are more sensible than we sometimes think?:cool:

Tail Bloater

4th Mar 2003, 13:50

Dantruck;-
Thanks for the sensible advice. You must be a rare breed, one of only a small handful of journalists who think of the wider issue rather than the gutter press journalists who appear to indulge in equally decomposing human waste.
It is however 'frightening' that many people read this gutter press and believe what they read (much to the benefit of the paper) and have opinions obout what they read.
With the film producers aiding the impression that every helicopter is flown by rogue factions and will eventually be blown out of the sky in an impressive ball of flame and bits flying everywhere. WE in the helicopter seem to have been placed with our backs against the wall trying in every case to defend ourselves.
As you well know 'truth' makes boring reading and what the Jackass in the street wants is sensationalism no matter who will suffer, as long as they themselves are not involved.

Helicopter are viewed with the same odd spectacles as the police.
' Where are you when I need you and why are you here hounding me when you ought to have better things to do elsewhere'

Dantruck

4th Mar 2003, 17:22

Tail Bloater
What a perceptive fellow (or fellowette) you are, but before we get carried away on a tide of mutual admiration I will say society gets the press/media it deserves. The Mirror and the rest write such stuff because they know it is what the Man On The Clapham Omnibus wants to read and believe. Individuals stick with newspapers they like because they are comfortable with what they see inside, not because they know the contents will be accurate. Ask yourselves, when was the last time you deliberately chose a newspaper with which you were unfamiliar, or knew to have a different political stance to your own? Student journo's are taught to daily read all available titles and then decide where the truth lies. Try it. It can give you a whole new perspective on current events.
Flying Lawyer made the point that the tabloids sell many times more newspapers than the quality broadsheets. I will not bore everyone with a condensed media studies course - though I'm happy to start a new thread on the subject if there is an audience - but, in a sense, it is futile to blame the Mirror for writing the sort of stuff people want to buy. It is a business too. The fact its news is all tosh is largely irrelevant.
MPs like Paul Keetch, on the other hand...what's his excuse?
Dantruck
(aka Dan Coughlan)

Flying Lawyer

4th Mar 2003, 18:04

Helinut
Unless it's unavoidable, the nationals rarely adopt a 'campaign' started by a competitor, any more than they'd give additional publicicity to another paper's 'exclusive' - they'd rather run a 'spoiler' than do that. If a campaign is successful, the orginal paper takes all the credit.

----------------

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror's 'campaign' fizzles out, but it would be a big mistake to assume the problem has gone away for ever. The results of Dantruck's enquiries are interesting and helpful, but it would be a mistake to assume the DoT is the only government department/body looking at the security aspects of helicopters and GA in the current climate.

The way forward is to keep our ears to the ground and be ready to advance carefully reasoned, informed arguments if/when the need arises. If the need doesn't arise - all the better!

Mr Keetch's excuse?
I don't know what he'd say, but I suspect the truth is someone from the Mirror called him on Friday inviting him (as LibDem Defence spokesman) to comment on that day's big story for Saturday's edition. Journos always want a comment then, not later, about stories of this sort. The wise course is to take time to consider the issues and think about what you want to say. However, from a politician's point of view, there's a terrible risk they'll find someone else to comment - and he'll get the coverage. Horror!
Result: Ill thought out, uninformed, drivel.

Down-side - people who don't matter much realise it was drivel.
Up-side - 99% of people don't realise it was drivel.
And, it still got his name in the papers!
How many people on this forum had even heard of Paul Keetch MP before this? Or, knew that he was LibDem Defence spokesman?
No publicity is bad publicity etc :rolleyes:

Edit
Bold added

ppheli

4th Mar 2003, 20:33

Not quite sure if Helinut's "voice of the people" refers only to the print media, but sadly a local councillor has padlocked herself to the railings on this one.

In this story (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.703060.Headlines.questions_into_helicopter_tour_ security_check.html) she has written to the airport wanting tighter security checks "because residents living under the flight path are vulnerable". Argh. Sounds like she needs to live on Fairford's flightpath instead.........

Full text of that story to save you looking it up (I've only included the link so you can double check it!)...........

A HELICOPTER company at the centre of a security loophole exposed by a national newspaper says it has nothing to hide.

Biggin Hill Helicopters, which operates out of a hangar at Biggin Hill Airport, was exposed by the Daily Mirror as not carrying out luggage checks before a sight-seeing flight over London .

But Captain Bill Lowry, managing director of Biggin Hill Helicopters, says his company complies with all regulations laid down by the Civil Aviation Authority.

He said: "Helicopter operators are not required to search passengers or their bags and I'm not aware of any operator in the country which does."

He added: "If the Mirror would like to see the rules changed, it would have been much fairer if they'd taken the matter up with the authorities."

Biggin Hill Airport was singled out for allegedly allowing a helicopter to be chartered and flown over Parliament, Buckingham Palace and other city landmarks without rigid security controls.

Orpington councillor Jenny Powell has written to the airport to seek assurances security will be tightened.

She said: "If the airport is lax about safety and security, residents living under the flight path are vulnerable."

Biggin Hill Airport says it operates in accordance with the Department of Transport's National Aviation Security Programme (NASP).

A spokesman said: "The airport is carrying out a full investigation into the helicopter company's operation."

11:48 Tuesday 4th March 2003

Helinut

4th Mar 2003, 22:59

ppheli,

My "voice of the people" was intended to refer to any additional media reporting of the event.

You don't say where it comes from, but this article appears to be from a local rag near Biggin. I don't suppose that the Cabinet form their policy by reading such a paper, but it is a shame that the article has appeared.

This poor lady is obviously on completely the wrong track, but she no doubt thinks she is looking after her constituents. She is one of those sad misguided people that believes what she reads in the newspapers! :eek:

It will probably die a death, but at some point someone who actually knows something about helicopters and their ability/inability to be used for terrorist activity needs to intervene with some information.

I had hoped that the BHAB were going to be generating some sort of response that could be wheeled out on behalf of the industry - a simple enquiry there today suggest they are not planning to do anything at all at the moment - my feeling is that it would be useful for something to prepared at relative leisure - otherwise we will be behind the curve if the S**T starts to impact on the rotating air pump..

Heliport

5th Mar 2003, 05:54

Helinut
I agree.
I suspect/hope the BHAB is doing that, but it's important that we all do.
Burying our heads in the sand/assuming the problem's gone away would be a very big mistake.

Quote from FL post further up the page The way forward is to keep our ears to the ground and be ready to advance carefully reasoned, informed arguments if/when the need arises. If the need doesn't arise - all the better!
Heliport

Dantruck

5th Mar 2003, 13:21

In my humble one, the job of preparing a response rests with the BHAB and the Helicopter Club of Great Britain. The former represents the commercial operators while the second can largely be said to speak for other civil interests. A joint representation would be best.

The trade press has responsibilities here, too. And an opportunity.

Yet the decision to spend time and members' money rests solely with those organisations and their members. Are any of us members? I am not, so I do not feel I have any right to ring them and demand or even suggest they do something. To mirror (sic) a point made in the 'easyJet pilots to strike?' thread about BALPA membership, such bodies are only as strong as the membership support they receive.

This is one of those times when we may be about to find out whether our membership fees were well spent or, worse, that we failed our community by never joining in the first place.

just a thought from afar

ppheli

5th Mar 2003, 22:15

Helinut
Your reply was as I expected regarding "voice of the people" The link I gave in my previous note goes to www.thisislocallondon.co.uk which appears to represent 28 local newspapers but it does not say which one filed this story. As you say, it seems to be local to Biggin. My reason for including it here was just to ensure that all the available info was brought together, however accurate or otherwise it might be eg. to ensure Flying Lawyer sees it as he is obviously in touch with BHH.

GJB

6th Mar 2003, 12:21

I have an idea.

We could make our passengers wear straight jackets during flights.

Sorry, I mean 'customers' not 'passenegers'

SKYWOLF

6th Mar 2003, 20:40

I have read a few of these posts today.
I can see where this Gary Jones is coming from.
You should not be allowed to hover over parliament for that length of time without some sort of response.

People seem to have forgot 9/11.

I have no problems with choppers flying over London, but getting this close to parliament is a serious situation.

Do you think that a civy helicopter could get that close to the White House? I think not.

A terrorist attack is inevitable if we carry on with these security blunders.
We live in dangerous times. We have to take appropiate actions to minimise any attacks.
If it means that some of our civil libities have to be restricted then so be it.

I suppose I will be savaged now on this forum for speaking this way.

DBChopper

6th Mar 2003, 21:30

Skywolf...

I won't savage you, although I expect many will do, but...

Although I agree the helicopter industry should take some steps towards tightening security arrangements (or even simply introducing some, in some cases), the remainder of your comments are ill-informed. I suggest you re-read the thread more carefully and check the facts.

Quite clearly the helicopter in question did NOT hover over parliament. This was clearly stated by the pilot, Simon Maynard, and is not the sort of manouever approved on the heliroutes in any case. And to suggest, on a forum for professional civilian, military and private pilots that we have forgotten 9/11 is quite simply an insult.

Your deliberately inflammatory comments are out of place on this thread and more suited to a tabloid newspaper. Wonder if the Mirror would be interested...

DBChopper
:cool:

helmet fire

7th Mar 2003, 02:44

This post needs to be read in conjunction with the initial report on page one of the thread!

WE COULD HAVE BOMBED ANY TARGET IN LONDON

Mar 07 2003

EXCLUSIVE

By A. Pilot

A fu<kin unbelievably, incredibly, heart stoppingly, mortifyingly, ball tearingly, TERRIFYING security loophole was exposed by a sight-seeing drive around London yesterday!!!

We hired a taxi without identity or luggage checks and drove near many of the capital's landmarks - including the Houses of Parliament, Canary Wharf, and the Putney Pie Shop.

Had we been terrorists (and we certainly looked terrified), it would have been easy to overpower the driver and send the taxi crashing into the House of Commons or Big Ben.

We could have hurled a bomb, hurled a lot, unleashed a deadly poison cloud or the gases from last night’s curry.

Buckingham Palace was within close range. A decent fart could have made it through the lax security at the gate and singed the top of those big furry hats. And at one point, the taxi stopped near Parliament about 1,500ft away!

We passed the Commons three times, and wind about eight times, causing so much noise that guests at a special lunch attended by Lord Tebbit could hardly hear themselves slap each other on the back.

Intelligence sources have warned that al-Qaeda terrorists might attempt a propaganda suicide bombing of Westminster. Intelligent sauces have always been a feature of Westminster cuisine and has therefore increased it’s value as a target, according to intelligent intelligence officers who intellegently leak this kind of important stuff to me when we are on another curry and beer night.

Helicopter sight-seeing tours were banned briefly after the September 11 attacks in America. Flying was banned briefly after the September 11 attacks in America. Crap journalism was supported extensively after the September 11 attacks in America. Incredibly – taxis WERE NOT banned after the September 11 attacks in America, and I for one want to know WHY!

In the US, tough security measures were introduced following the air hijackings - including stringent identity and bag checks for helicopter flights.

But there were no questions asked when some photographer I picked up the night before, (and can’t remember her name), and myself arrived at Putney for yesterday's trip. We didn't even give our full names. I think I told him my name was Brian, or Ali Akbar, or Roderick of Putney, or something (in case the tart tried to track me down in the future).

I had phoned the taxi company at about 10.30am saying I wanted to hire a taxi for a sight-seeing tour so I could confuse my “girlfriend” about her current location before dropping her off near Paddington.

At first I was told one wasn't available because of a training lesson but I was called back shortly afterwards on a mobile phone to be told: "If you can get out of bed by 1.15pm you'll be OK."

After jumping into the cab, I was met by a man called Will, who said: "You must be an animal. She is as ugly as half sucked mango". :}

I had a black bag with strap slung over my shoulder and my colleague a large handbag containing a digital camera (which we had used to great effect in the bedroom earlier). At no stage were the bags, or the bag, checked for their contents. They were not even given a cursory glance.

I was asked by the driver called Simon, in his early teens, what it contained. I replied: “About 20 pounds worth of curry, 5000 champagnes, and the fruit of my loins”. I was told to put the bag in the back because she could become entangled in the pedals.

No check had been made on either of our identities before we boarded the cab. Apart from the credit card details which I had given over the phone earlier, the cab company had no information about us, nor thankfully, did we have any information about each other.

It was only after we had toured and were driving back to Paddington Station that an address was asked for so a receipt could be given for the cost of the night. :eek: :eek: (And I had thought she just loved me!)

The taxi emblazoned with the company sign - drove directly towards Canary Wharf before following the path of the River Thames.

The spectacular journey passed the City of London and was supposed to end at Battersea power station when the slapper began to feel sick.

But our trip was interrupted by a Ministry of Defence taxi taking special services personnel to the Duke of York's barracks at Chelsea.

The distinctive dark green of her bile was given priority, and it flew out of her window a couple of feet away as we parked near the Commons. :yuk:

Taxi’s apparently follow a pre-determined path into the capital, twisting and turning along the roads.

But with the Houses of Parliament directly on the road, a terrorist would not need to manoeuvre the taxi any great distance to hit the target. Security services and anti- terrorist police have warned of the threat of attack (and have been doing so over the past thirty years or so!!). MR SKYWOLF repeatedly screamed at passers by: “doesn’t anyone remember Oklahoma?”

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens says: "It is not a question of if, but when." His aide then clapped him on the back and said “Well done sir, very profound sir, love ya quote there sir, wished I’d thought of it sir, that’s why you’re the bleedin’ commissioner sir”. All of the journalists present were so overcome by the profundity (I think I am too) that they forgot that the “when” has occurred already and the commissioner was taking the pi55 out of them. All then retired to the Putney Pie Shop to hear my lastest security concern about the amount of explosives that could be hidden under those furry hats at the Palace gates, and the increasing amount of champagne I need to apply as leg-opener these days.

A. Pilot wishes to acknowledge and thank Gary Jones for the structure of this report.

:p

Woss goin on..?

8th Mar 2003, 17:26

Mr SKYWOLF;

I take it that you are not fully knowledgeable about the procedures the helicopter industry observes when flying over London or anywhere else for that matter. I suggest you research this further thus allowing you to make an informed judgement in the future. Consider yourself only mildly savaged!

If you would like to pose any questions, I, or Im sure any helicopter operator would be happy to help in the interests of reassuring the public about our industry. Send me a PM if you have any questions.

HELMET FIRE;

I take it that you also are not a professional in the helicopter industry as nobody that I know of in this game could produce something that creative and amusing! OUTSTANDING!!!

And of course, well done for countering this paranoia about flying over London, with a scenario that we are far more likely to experience.

:D :D

Flying Lawyer

8th Mar 2003, 20:33

Interesting that the Mirror quoted the Commissioner of the Mteropolitan Police, speaking in a different context. This month's AOPA General Aviation mag has a feature on the Commissioner, He's an enthusiastic high hour PPL with, amongst other things, a share in a Jet Provost. :p

BTW, the AOPA mag is now excellent.

SKYWOLF
I assume you don't fly helicopters.
Clue: Single-engine helicopters flying over London have to fly along the river. ;)

A check

9th Mar 2003, 23:53

This is amazing, I got on the train to London and a bloke asked to see if I had paid my fare, no checks of my bags, not even a question about if I packed them myself, and not only that, he looked not at all interested. Now Simon, being the mid twenties guy that he is, asked whats in the bag? do not endanger my aircraft, ( put it in the back ) and is a proffesional pilot, perhaps the Mirror should concentrate on tits and arse which is the only reason why I might sneak a look at a raggy old copy.

All-Blacks

10th Mar 2003, 06:34

In reply to Skywolfs post in my opinion the difference between flying a helicopter over London and a helicopter over Washington is one city has hysteria and paranoia created by the media to contend with, and its not London.

The UK has lived with terrorism for many years, read IRA etc etc, whereas the US recently began to experience what the UK public has been experiencing for years. Rather than be practical and open minded, organisations such as the TSA have just shut everything down, with some ridiculous rules that are amazing to say the least. I have spoken to numerous ENG pilots who when they get a notam closing off some area, they call the number on there and are transferred to 10 different departments, yet no one will make a decision and say yes you can or no you cant. These Government flunkies dont even have to justify closing off airspace, they just do it. Talking to the EMS pilots and if they have to do a medevac job which even remotely looks like its going towards the White House, they have a list of numbers they need to call which could double as the Los Angeles telephone book.

However in the UK its a different story where they have realistic rules and regs and in most cases trust the local helicopter operators to uphold them.

Anyway thats my opinion.

Oh and by the way you will probably find that Helmet Fire was sitting down, feet up somewhere, penning his memoirs while the TV crews were off doing the real work. :}

All Blacks

All-Blacks

10th Mar 2003, 06:54

Dear PPrune UK Members

I was talking with Mark Ogden earlier who is going to be writing a story about the recent "tabloid journalism" article about the security scare of flying over London, which has been often referred to in this forum. The angle of the story is to counter all the stupid comments this Mirror reporter has made and highlight the need to have helicopter corridors, access to London metro areas etc. The story will also highlight the valuable roles that helicopters play in and around London from EMS to ENG to Police to general charter and moving VIPS.

If any of you would consider adding your input to the story please drop me a PM as it would all be very helpful. All those who give their two cents worth can remain anonymous and will just be quoted as an industry source.

Thought it might give the industry there an opportunity to have their say.

AB

Vfrpilotpb

10th Mar 2003, 08:23

The Mirror and their Journo's should stick to Queer MPs or MSPs Samantha's boobbies, and Kylies arse!:yuk:

Most Journo's are morons , most of them are Tw**s and they believe they have a God given right to write the " Truth" spelt CRAP!

Sorry, spleen vented, hypertension now gone, time for work.

PR-B

Hilico

10th Mar 2003, 22:48

All-Blacks

It's a great idea - in principle. However (and I don't speak as an industry insider - I'm a computer programmer who's written an aviation-specific database product), I notice from your profile that you only joined PPRuNe on the same day as you posted this. I don't know who Mark Ogden is (bound to be somebody famous as everyone will now point out). There are large warnings at the bottom of lots of the pages saying 'people may not be who they purport to be'.

How do we know you aren't the Daily Mirror, planning some vicious follow-up? ("Extensive checks revealed that NONE of BHH's JetRangers are RVSM-compliant!").

I apologise profusely if you're genuine - but you take my point?

All-Blacks

10th Mar 2003, 23:55

Hilico

Actually I have been a member here off an on for quite a white but always get myself kicked out for some reason or another. I had another login that I had trouble finding my password for so decided to use the same login with a hyphen in the middle.

I publish a helicopter trade magazine, that I am not allowed to mention here, because I will again get kicked off, even though others freely talk about various other mags, but they who own the board make the rules as they go so no point in arguing.

The story was an idea to help promote the helo industry side of the viewpoint but to date havent had any feedback from anyone so probably not going to go forward with it anyway.

Can see your point about knowing who people are by their login and agree with you. Dont worry not with the Express or mirror etc.

AB

jellycopter

11th Mar 2003, 06:37

If Mark Ogden is the bloke who did Discovery channel's ' A Chopper is Born', I can think of no-one less suitable to put forward a meaningful and coherant argument on the benefits of operating helicopters over London. On the other hand, if I've got the wrong guy; please accept my apologies and ignore this post. J

[email protected]

11th Mar 2003, 06:37

All-Blacks, there is a press liaison officer at RAF St Mawgan who can give you statistics as to how often the UK SAR force fly critically ill patients into London Hospitals to get the expert care without which they would not survive.

The Daily Mirror should run a scare story by sitting under the Heathrow approach path and counting the number of aircraft landing there in a day - will they campaign to shut Heathrow? course not. The story was a space filler on a slow news day written by a hack (probably in a pub somewhere) under pressure from his editor - I am surprised that anyone has taken it seriously. Now if they could just get someone from Corrie to crash an R22 into the Eastenders set, then we might have a story:D

Dantruck

11th Mar 2003, 07:45

I can vouch for Mark Ogden and the validity of his intended story, so relax and go ahead with your PM's if you wish. Mark worked for me as a journalist for many moons. He's also an ex-military pilot turned accident investigator and aviation photographer.

Oh dear!...But who will vouch for me?

The only thing to add is: be aware this will be a helicopter mag story, so no matter how good/accurate it may be it is unlikely to reach Joe Public. The heli industry still needs to consider NOW how it will react to similar mass-media stories in the future.

Dan (trust me...I'm a journalist) Coughlan

jellycopter

11th Mar 2003, 16:06

AB. Sorry mate. Wires well and truly crossed. Had the pleasure of meeting 'your' Mark Ogden at Heli Asia about 3 years ago. He then came to visit my ex Sqn in the Uk and ran an excellent article for 'Defence Helciopter' (I think that's who ran the story). Anyway, he took loads of air-to-air shots and I had the pleasure of being the pilot of the target AS350BB helicopter and even made the front cover! (The guy I was referring to in my previous post was Mark Evans - sorry, my mistake!) J

Agaricus bisporus

11th Mar 2003, 17:02

Remember, the Helicopter is the only mode of transport yet invented by man that has saved more lives than it has taken.

So stick that in yer pipe n' smoke it!

Heliport

11th Mar 2003, 23:10

Dantruck The heli industry still needs to consider NOW how it will react to similar mass-media stories in the future.

What do you recommend?

Heliport

All-Blacks

11th Mar 2003, 23:45

How about having a public awareness day somewhere in central london, Hyde Park (not sure if this is a big area or not where helos can be landed) where it is publicised to the general public, so they can come along and see what helicopters are all about. Include the Met Police, Fire dept, Virgin EMS, charter, ag operators, Air Harrods machines etc etc.

They do this in Los Angeles every few months and literally thousands of people turn up and it has really improved the way helicopters are looked upon. They get great attendance and its a perfect opportunity to educate people.

It wouldnt be that hard to arrange and if you got between 10 and 20 helos there, which given the numbers around London, would be great day out for mum and the kids. Have the Police put on a simulated display, as could the Hems Explorer.

Anyway just a thought. It has worked in other countries and couldnt see why it wouldnt work over there.

AB

Dantruck

12th Mar 2003, 14:09

Heliport

In the short term, and always assuming the resources are available, I suggest one industry body, probably BHAB, appoint a media-savvy individual to speak for commercial and private operators alike. In truth this body needs to be backed by the Helicopter Club of Great Britain and others with a vested interest in the London heli lanes.

I’d have that person prepare a one page briefing document for journalists and gather all the necessary email and fax numbers to which it would be sent in the event of another Daily Mirror-type story…standard PR stuff this. The recent spat should be ignored for the drivel it was, but any development it spawns needs to be addressed. Meanwhile the BHAB should be actively making contact with all relevant authorities (if it is not already) to ensure they know who they should be consulting, and where those folks can go for first-hand information on operational and commercial matters. Most important during these security-riddled times is then to stay in contact with them, not wait for them to call.

In the medium term I think more fly-ins need to be arranged similar to the excellent Heli-Days event held annually at Weston-Super-Mare. For those who don’t know, Heli-Days is staged alongside a public fair over a public holiday weekend. Crucially, this event allows Joe Public, Mrs Public and little Johnnie and Mary Public to see, touch and smell a helicopter up close. Experience shows that only when the public has direct contact with such remote assets and their crews do they begin to see them as relevant to their own lives.

Alongside more public fly-ins I’d also charge the BHAB with preparing a schools’ information pack complete with wall posters and other National Curriculum-coordinated teaching materials. The ‘Get-them-young’ lesson was learned long ago by the trucking industry. In the UK the Friends of Road Transport campaign has gone a long way to changing public-perception of heavy trucks. I’d get the various police authorities involved here too. They are always interested in an opportunity to get closer to the young, and they also share the need for public support of aviation.

Long term I’d encourage the BHAB (and by that I mean its members) to be more politically and commercially pro-active as a unit. I’d model the organisation on the Freight Transport Association and make it more media and government aware. I’d seek to cement links between aircraft operators and schools at the local level and then offer the CAA, the AAIB, NATS and all the other regulatory bodies the opportunity to get involved, to fund, sponsor or otherwise back such on-going initiatives so that they too may benefit. In this way, and possibly through an industry levy, I’d seek to keep the whole ball rolling financially.

All of this would require boundless personal energy from all involved, but not so much in the way of money, I feel. Handling the media and public perception takes experience and media understanding more than it costs cash. The end result would be a more valued industry wrapped in the protective blanket of public admiration. Even the Mirror wouldn’t pick a fight with that.

Hope no-one that reads this now thinks they’re granny and I’m trying to teach them how to suck eggs. I have been asked the question, so please consider this just me thinking out loud. My reply is, however, laced with experience from a parallel industry. I know there are many good people at the BHAB and elsewhere who would get behind such initiatives if they could see a way. Like I said at the start, all the above takes resources: people, time, money. Little will change long-term if these resources are not put in place, and that will take the will of members and non-members alike.

Heliport. A long answer to a short question I know, but I always saw the Mirror’s story as inevitable. The industry should have seen it coming and was caught unprepared. Preventing its repeat, especially in security-conscious times, is ultimately a long-term job. And prevention is always better than cure.

Dan Coughlan

Helinut

12th Mar 2003, 19:00

Dan,

I think you should copy your last post to the BHAB....

MPR

14th Mar 2003, 21:27

What about that for an alternative headline in another paper?

Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that when he was around Robert Maxwell operated a private Heliport on the roof of Mirror Group Newspaper HQ (Holborn Circus?). If there was ever a reckless, ruthless madman with a Twin Squirrel at his disposal over London it was him! Aircraft was G-RMGN 1986 - 1992(ish).

Hilico

14th Mar 2003, 23:03

MPR

I'll never forget walking out of Farringdon tube one morning and thinking, 'I can smell Avtur', and then hearing the Allisons winding up, and there, far above us all is Cap'n Bob taking to the skies.

Don't know who he had to bribe to manage that, and now I suppose we never will.

Slotty

14th May 2004, 18:48

We'll miss you Piers!!!!

Dantruck

14th May 2004, 20:41

Ref: The Daily Mirror...22:53 UTC

(From the BBC news website)

Editor sacked over 'hoax' photos
The Mirror board said Morgan would be stepping down immediately
Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake....

...The newspaper released a statement saying: "The Daily Mirror published in good faith photographs which it absolutely believed were genuine images of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner.

"However there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax.

"The Daily Mirror therefore apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR [the Queen's Lancashire Regiment] and the Army in Iraq.

"The paper will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation. "

.........................................
Yeah! I bet they will...

OK. I'm happy to be accused of being right after the fact, but those pictures, the Daily Mirror's 'Iraq abuse' photos, always struck me as being the most faked photos in the history of photo-journalism. As a journalist and photographer I, for one, feared from day one that those pics were bull****!...their timing was too damn convenient for a start, their focus was so obviously too sharp, the clothes were too clean and the wooden truck floor was too damn obviously not British Army issue, and given the size of the regiment, too easy to trace in any case.

For Christ's sake...!!!

Answer me this one question Piers: Just how many man-hours did you, as an editor, demand be applied to the verification of their authenticity? My estimate is it was 'same-day.'

Does anyone from your legal team care to deny my estimate?

Piers, from one journalist to another... you always were a slimy ****wit. You and the ilk of The Sun, and every other tabloid who has consistently sold their sole at the alter of tomorrow's sales figures, your company's profit, and therefore your own Christmas bonus, now deserve all you get. I only pity all the honest, hardworking journalists who have fought against all the crap, threats and lies management-led todies like yourself and all those other proprietors have wrought upon their futures and that of their families and their mortgages in order to make them do your bidding. Their bonus will undoubtendly be less than your 'Golden Get Lost,' I'm sure.

Call yourself an editor? You don't have the honour, the mettle, or the balls. Your a fcuking disgrace to journalism, and the exact reason people like me have to defend professions like ours all too often on websites such as Pprune...Boll0cks!!!

Rant over...and my apologies to those hereabouts who may be wondering what this is all about.

I hereafter refuse to defend the indefensible.

And in the aftermath of Nick Berg, and the reasons stated for his murder, what can I say

Dan:{:(