Unwelcomed media chopper
 

Channel 7 chopper reportedly made unauthorised landing inside a Temporary Restrictd Area set up near Moyston around the scene of car crash/ burnt out vehicle containing bodies of father and son.
Victorian Police not impressed as debris blown around all over the investigation scene. Police grounded the chopper for some period. Ah the media- what would we do without them?:yuk:

Obviously the pilot had a "Bowl of Stupid" for breakfast that morning !!

That's as bad as starting up in front of the hangar pointing out with the hangar doors open,,, that generally keeps the engineers happy with the breeze aey'

Austin

:hmm: ... seems to be an ongoing thing with media pilots. Same with this recent thread.

I know of a couple of media chopper drivers that are the most professional pilots I can think of. The positions they hold are very much sought after and not ones for 'cowboys' that don't know their way through the various classes of airspace our Capital Cities and their surrounds, offer. They're dispatched with minimum notice and operate with a profound knowledge of the airspaces through which they fly. And the knowledge of these lads is intimate when it comes to approaches to incidents, accidents and the like. Not to mention what is required of them when fire fighting duties (bambi buckets) are required. The various TV networks they work for generally offer their services to fire fighting with little hesitation. Don't be too quick to defame these chaps. Their services are greatly appreciated. If one of these lads, as has been suggested, made an error in judgement, look to the bigger picture. I'm not making light of the original topic of this thread but don't put all these guys in one box.
D:ok:

This sort of stunt undoes years of trying to develop a cooperative working arrangement and mutual trust with the emergency services, particularly down to the grass roots level.

You can bet next time something is on, the emergency services won't be very cooperative and accommodating.

why blame all the pilots, thats a generalisation, much better to switch off the rubbish that 7, 9, and 10 peddle to the public who watch those channels.

Obviously that's to prevent government embarrassment.

or maybe out of respect to the two deceased people and perhaps the investigation of their deaths ? :sad:

Excuse my ignorance, but how much notice do you get of a Temporary Restricted Area, and in what format is the notice given?

Well who pushed the machine out there in front of the hangar in the first place?

Beats me why the beers get cranky when they just wheel it out the front door and then someone hops in and starts it up. Must be a demarcation thing...... :rolleyes:

There were no grass roots anywhere near that place. Issued by NOTAM, usually they are active as soon as the NOTAM is published as TRAs are generally not used for 'predicted events', but observed events or events that have already occurred.

Sm4pirate
 

Try typing with two hands.
Kickatinalong:=

In addition to what SM4 Pirate has outlined:

• after the NOTAM is issued, a hazard alert broadcast is made on the ATC/FIA freqs., and repeated for the next hour or so
• the NOTAM is specifically directed to aircraft who have submitted flight plans believed to be affected
• Aircraft who have not submitted a flight plan either become aware of the TRA by hazard alert broadcast, or when updating their briefing material enroute with Flightwatch.

Remember, whatever WX and NOTAMS you obtain when flight planning become "stale" as soon as you get them, and can/will be updated as time passes, and new NOTAMS issued. Which is why it is critical to update your briefings enroute.

These sort of TRAs are usually only SFC-1500 AGL, so few aircraft are affected.

In this sort of incident, in the case of media aircraft who know access restrictions of some sort are likely to have been imposed, the expection (and common sense) is that they should ask Flightwatch or ATC what the situation is, or make an enquiry to the emergency service involved. Having said that, knowing what the answer would be, perhaps that is why the question might not be asked.

There was no "debris" blown anywhere by the chopper and the police have no powers in respect to aircraft movements. There are even questions being asked about how a TRA was initiated. Car accident scenes do not normally constitute a need for a TRA and AsA are looking at this procedure. No longer will bushy tailed sargeants be able to call in restricted airspace just because they can.

maple21 Are you sure that "police have no powers in respect to aircraft movements" ?

Who was it that stopped the PanAm attempted hijack in Sydney. OK it's a few years ago. I thought that was the Police - AFP. That aircraft was held up for a while.

And I don't think the Police would appreciate or allow a helicopter to hover over a crime scene. I could be wrong.

Interesting. I went to a meeting with ATC (ASA); Police; Prisons & Media representatives a while ago, to discuss the misuse of the TRA system in Victoria and was assured that abuses like TRA's over car accidents wouldn't happen any more - but thanks for the info, I'll look into it on a formal basis. Restricted areas are for use when there is danger to or from aircraft - not as media exclusion zones. Ah air traffickers what we could do without them!!:rolleyes:

Talked to the pilot involved (& by the way, other media choppers landed there, as well), he landed several hundred meters downwind in a separate paddock and there was no debris blown all over the scene. Police did get upset at the landing, but after a quick chat, all was apparently forgiven. There was a TRA they were operating in with approval - for bushfires, not relevant to the landing.

On a general note, whether you like the media, the news or not - they do turn up to events like this to report it. Should we get rid of the media? should we get rid of the police? should we get rid of ATC? or just accept they're all part of our fabulous western democracies and turn off the TV if we're not interested? Most people expect to see the coverage and watch it.

All the talk about NOTAMs and radio announcements are great, but when you're in a fire CTAF with a dozen helicopters talking, calls on the area frequency are easy to miss - IF there were any - I'm not even sure there was a separate TRA up.

Brings up a good point though, in the brave new Aussie airspace system, poor old VFR operators get no / limited advice of inflight hazards and they can't ask ATC anymore, just flightwatch IF they can raise them (and how often DO you check?). I think the system has let us down badly, in this regard.

LowNr:)

LowNr, are you suggesting with that ATCers have something to do with creating TRAs? Why would we want to make more work for ourselves?
VFR aircraft monitoring the area frequency will get 3 chances to hear the broadcast. How is that no/limited? Where does it say that you CANNOT ask ATC anything to do with the safe conduct of flight? If I remember correctly, if you can't contact FlightWatch, you are perfectally entitled to ask the appropriate area controller. In fact, I would prefer that you did ask me, rather than wandering into a hazard.
Cheers for now,
NFR.

That comment was firmly tounge in cheek; but TRA ARE approved, authorised and promulgated by ATC - the police etc can request them, but not approve them - the vetting process is my concern.

I appreciate your attiude, but I still don't belive the system for in-flight notification is adequate. VFR pilots are DISCOURAGED from talking on area frequencies (eg. getting area QNH's). I'm sure if I and others started checking every few minutes for hazards, you'd soon hate us! There are also a myriad of frequencies a VFR pilot can be on, nowdays - Flightwatch, CTAF, 123.45, area, company and some specialist operation frequencies (eg fires, media). It is entirely possible they may be off the area frequency at the critical time. I'm not making excuses, but it is not as simple as it once was.

The old system of talking and all being on more relevant, 'smaller' area frequencies with less controller load was better - dare I say safer - IMHO.

regards, LowNr

• 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.