Rocker Tommy Lee's Helicopter Forced to Land by Police
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stan,
thanks for your examples, your actions make perfect sense and from what I can see they were within my personal common sense scope, meaning somebody has to bring them to justice and certainly you can argue later what kind of crime was committed
I guess what I was getting at were less severe cases where some of your colleagues couldn't help but pursue their interpretation of "air law" in day to day operations.
In addition to my example earlier, here's another one:
Big sporting event in a large city - no TFRs, no restrictions other than the normal airspace. Incident happened outside controlled airspace.
Acquaintance of mine was tasked by the organizer of the event to provide coverage; although he clearly stated his task and intention on air-to-air (the customer specifically wanted that particular shot), the police wanted all news helicopters above a certain altitude, arguing they need to be down there (flying the major on a sightseeing trip) and so everybody else would have to move. He successfully negotiated his position by not moving, saying he is not a regular news helicopter (btw. not being anywhere near a crowd or imposing any danger) and doing the job he was tasked to do. You can question his actions, he certainly didn't make any friends in the police department or the major's office, but at least finished the job and didn't get fired. He never heard from the officials again.
Sometimes I believe your colleagues think their badge grants them special rights - and mostly it works, but back to my initial question:
Apart from being operating procedure or local policy, is there any federal regulation? It doesn't appear that way.
Little pun intended: You would never flash your badge when you get pulled over in your private vehicle for speeding and get away with it, hu?
thanks for your examples, your actions make perfect sense and from what I can see they were within my personal common sense scope, meaning somebody has to bring them to justice and certainly you can argue later what kind of crime was committed
I guess what I was getting at were less severe cases where some of your colleagues couldn't help but pursue their interpretation of "air law" in day to day operations.
In addition to my example earlier, here's another one:
Big sporting event in a large city - no TFRs, no restrictions other than the normal airspace. Incident happened outside controlled airspace.
Acquaintance of mine was tasked by the organizer of the event to provide coverage; although he clearly stated his task and intention on air-to-air (the customer specifically wanted that particular shot), the police wanted all news helicopters above a certain altitude, arguing they need to be down there (flying the major on a sightseeing trip) and so everybody else would have to move. He successfully negotiated his position by not moving, saying he is not a regular news helicopter (btw. not being anywhere near a crowd or imposing any danger) and doing the job he was tasked to do. You can question his actions, he certainly didn't make any friends in the police department or the major's office, but at least finished the job and didn't get fired. He never heard from the officials again.
Sometimes I believe your colleagues think their badge grants them special rights - and mostly it works, but back to my initial question:
Apart from being operating procedure or local policy, is there any federal regulation? It doesn't appear that way.
Little pun intended: You would never flash your badge when you get pulled over in your private vehicle for speeding and get away with it, hu?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess all the above refers to the US of A. For what little it is worth, in the UK the picture is also a bit vague.
We normally expect the CAA's legal enforcement branch (or whatever they are called this month) to enforce civil aviation rules. They are mainly retired police officers, and essentially, they only respond to complaints, I believe.
However, police officers have initiated prosecutions under those rules. For example, some police forces raise prosecutions for laser use against aircraft - Endangering Aircraft. Other times it is done by the CAA.
I know from another area of regulation that sometmes the police are specifically prohibited from taking prosecutions under certain laws. I believe there is no such ban under the CAA rules, so perhaps police can raise prosecutions under any CA rules, if they want.
Police officers have certain powers to inspect licences and similar. They have also been specifically introduced into the new UK rules about alcohol and are authorised to require breath tests.
Not heard of a specific power to direct other aircraft though (but that does not mean it does not exist). However, you might get a situation where a police aircraft was requested by ATC to "pass on" a clearance or request from ATC, who would have powers within controlled airspace. Police aircraft are certainly used when aircraft infringe airspace or threaten such infringement. That may not be too surprising in the current climate. The police observers will sometimes take statements from pilots after flying incidents too. Often, they are passed on to the CAA.
The rules for UK police aircraft do allow them to "fly in formation with other aircraft" without the agreement of the pilot of that other aircraft. However the details of their exemptions say that they are only allowed to do that in certain conditions and long enough to gain information to ID the aircraft etc.
If a police helicopter or other operation at an emergency is being hampered by other aircraft, there is a process for the police to ask the CAA (DAP) to put a RA(T) in place which excludes other than approved aircraft - takes a while though.
If police operations (airborne or otherwise) in controlled airspace are being hampered by other aircraft and the job/situation warrants it, then they can ask ATC to move the aircraft.
And finally, UK police ops are specifically prohibited from firing from an aircraft, when they operate under civil aviation rules.
We normally expect the CAA's legal enforcement branch (or whatever they are called this month) to enforce civil aviation rules. They are mainly retired police officers, and essentially, they only respond to complaints, I believe.
However, police officers have initiated prosecutions under those rules. For example, some police forces raise prosecutions for laser use against aircraft - Endangering Aircraft. Other times it is done by the CAA.
I know from another area of regulation that sometmes the police are specifically prohibited from taking prosecutions under certain laws. I believe there is no such ban under the CAA rules, so perhaps police can raise prosecutions under any CA rules, if they want.
Police officers have certain powers to inspect licences and similar. They have also been specifically introduced into the new UK rules about alcohol and are authorised to require breath tests.
Not heard of a specific power to direct other aircraft though (but that does not mean it does not exist). However, you might get a situation where a police aircraft was requested by ATC to "pass on" a clearance or request from ATC, who would have powers within controlled airspace. Police aircraft are certainly used when aircraft infringe airspace or threaten such infringement. That may not be too surprising in the current climate. The police observers will sometimes take statements from pilots after flying incidents too. Often, they are passed on to the CAA.
The rules for UK police aircraft do allow them to "fly in formation with other aircraft" without the agreement of the pilot of that other aircraft. However the details of their exemptions say that they are only allowed to do that in certain conditions and long enough to gain information to ID the aircraft etc.
If a police helicopter or other operation at an emergency is being hampered by other aircraft, there is a process for the police to ask the CAA (DAP) to put a RA(T) in place which excludes other than approved aircraft - takes a while though.
If police operations (airborne or otherwise) in controlled airspace are being hampered by other aircraft and the job/situation warrants it, then they can ask ATC to move the aircraft.
And finally, UK police ops are specifically prohibited from firing from an aircraft, when they operate under civil aviation rules.
Last edited by Helinut; 3rd Feb 2009 at 15:29. Reason: Minor Edits and Additions
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local police have every right in fact a duty to enforce ALL laws.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My department always did it's job & notified ICE when we arrested illegal aliens on criminal charges which was frequently. Department policy was to fax written notification to ICE upon arresting any suspected illegal alien. We always complied with the policy. Getting the feds to pick them up was a whole different story. My career ended when I was working a car one night and struck by a unlicensed illegal alien. My injuries were so severe I was medically retired against my wishes so spare me the BS. I was attempting to provide informed comments on the topic at hand and clear up any misinformation..
Bert Baby,
I suggest you direct your complaint about illegal immigration to the Bush...now Obama folks in the White House....and not at the local police.
Please to recall the Federal Government is the protector of the border not local police.
Why is it a problem anyway....did we not spend pot fulls of tax money building the American equivalent of the Maginot Line along parts of our southern border?
Perhaps that is what is keeping so many of them folks trapped here....they can't find their way home now.
I suggest you direct your complaint about illegal immigration to the Bush...now Obama folks in the White House....and not at the local police.
Please to recall the Federal Government is the protector of the border not local police.
Why is it a problem anyway....did we not spend pot fulls of tax money building the American equivalent of the Maginot Line along parts of our southern border?
Perhaps that is what is keeping so many of them folks trapped here....they can't find their way home now.
1. Certainly it seems as if the media is, as usual, overblowing this story (which you can read here if you like). Forced to land? Hmm. I think not. Sounds like Martz landed when he was good and ready to land. The PD helicopter that Martz flew "too close" to was apparently too busy or otherwise unable to follow them to the airport in hot pursuit. Instead, Martz and Lee landed and had time to repair to a nearby hotel(?) before the ground cops got there. Hmm again. So it's not like the PD ship flew up next to Martz and commanded him to, "Pull over, bub!" I don't detect too much sense of urgency there. (Then again, I'm assuming that Martz didn't just land, short-cool it and hop out into a speeding getaway car, leaving it with the blades spinning down and the battery on. But you never know.)
2. U.S. FAR 91.17 allows local law enforcement officers certain limited authority to require blood or breath alcohol tests of pilots. Nevertheless, the airborne PD cannot interfere with or endanger another aircraft in flight, even if their chest-puffing attitude would suggest otherwise.
3. That pilot Martz is getting quite a reputation as a wild man. His antics have come under the spotlight of the L.A. media. If the reports of his various suspensions and revocations are true, you can bet that the FAA has him under a microscope. (I would assume that he gets some sort of perverse enjoyment out of tweaking the authorities, and obviously isn't afraid of a little FAA certificate action now and then. He probably has the means to defend himself legally.)
2. U.S. FAR 91.17 allows local law enforcement officers certain limited authority to require blood or breath alcohol tests of pilots. Nevertheless, the airborne PD cannot interfere with or endanger another aircraft in flight, even if their chest-puffing attitude would suggest otherwise.
3. That pilot Martz is getting quite a reputation as a wild man. His antics have come under the spotlight of the L.A. media. If the reports of his various suspensions and revocations are true, you can bet that the FAA has him under a microscope. (I would assume that he gets some sort of perverse enjoyment out of tweaking the authorities, and obviously isn't afraid of a little FAA certificate action now and then. He probably has the means to defend himself legally.)
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please to recall the Federal Government is the protector of the border not local police.
You know that dog wont hunt. Its called a lack of leadership and La La Land is second to San Francisco for that.
That pilot Martz is getting quite a reputation as a wild man.
Martz is gonna have to stand in his own mud for sure. Interesting as you really have to be a screw up to get the FAA interested.
Perhaps that is what is keeping so many of them folks trapped here....they can't find their way home now.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How appropriate that her name was Puma!
I guess that she'll be charged with interfering with the controls of an aircraft, it being alleged that she came into contact with the collective stick whilst it was in the 'up' position!
I guess that she'll be charged with interfering with the controls of an aircraft, it being alleged that she came into contact with the collective stick whilst it was in the 'up' position!
Porn Star Provides In-Flight 'Entertainment'
Porn Star Provides In-Flight 'Entertainment' - NBCSANDIEGO.COM- msnbc.com
That's CRM or MCC ?
Regards
Aser
By Eric S. Page
NBCSanDiego.com
updated 2:45 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2009
A local helicopter pilot is under investigation, accused of shooting a porn flick in the skies over San Diego while he was at the controls.
David Martz is known for ferrying celebrities like rocker Tommy Lee.
A video obtained by TMZ shows porn star Puma Swede topless on the tarmac at Montgomery Field in 2007. She can then be seen on the video inside the chopper alongside Martz, buzzing over crowded freeways and neighborhoods.
Shortly afterward, she leaned over and performed a sex act on Martz.
Puma said it was a way to repay Martz for allowing the crew to use his chopper and hangar at Montgomery Field.
Martz had his pilot's license suspended and revoked twice for flying recklessly. He is also under investigation by the FAA for flying dangerously close to an Los Angeles police helicopter near Van Nuys airport, just days ago.
NBCSanDiego.com
updated 2:45 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2009
A local helicopter pilot is under investigation, accused of shooting a porn flick in the skies over San Diego while he was at the controls.
David Martz is known for ferrying celebrities like rocker Tommy Lee.
A video obtained by TMZ shows porn star Puma Swede topless on the tarmac at Montgomery Field in 2007. She can then be seen on the video inside the chopper alongside Martz, buzzing over crowded freeways and neighborhoods.
Shortly afterward, she leaned over and performed a sex act on Martz.
Puma said it was a way to repay Martz for allowing the crew to use his chopper and hangar at Montgomery Field.
Martz had his pilot's license suspended and revoked twice for flying recklessly. He is also under investigation by the FAA for flying dangerously close to an Los Angeles police helicopter near Van Nuys airport, just days ago.
Regards
Aser
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, this guy gets better 
Are there any laws about actually shooting a porn flick in the back of a helicopter? Because I may know of one done in a certain Sunshine State........
Are there any laws about actually shooting a porn flick in the back of a helicopter? Because I may know of one done in a certain Sunshine State........
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for allowing the crew to use his chopper
Just wondering if there was a restriction in aft cyclic travel?
never thought you English guys would be more prudish than the Americans
Cheers
Whirls
(British, not English!!)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go to TMZ.com and do a search using the pilots last name, there are several stories/videos. Reportedly, according to the media, this guys license has been suspended four times. One of the times involved a forged medical. He also reportedly had a wire strike in Mexico. The FAA has been aware of this incident and had the evidence for quite some time. At least one person disapproved of this guys alleged actions and forwarded the info to the FAA who did nothing till this pilots colorful history became public knowledge. Now, suddenly they are investigating. I'll close by saying that 47.5 seconds is a disgrace to the entire profession. 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a poor example of CRM.
I did not hear any positive hand over 'you have control - I have control' when she took a turn on the cyclic (or was it collective - it was blacked out...)
Is he even rated as a CFI?
I did not hear any positive hand over 'you have control - I have control' when she took a turn on the cyclic (or was it collective - it was blacked out...)
Is he even rated as a CFI?
