Mirror exposes deadly helicopter peril! (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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..
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..
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SE England
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Now if that doesn't happen, then is the time to think again.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Mar 2003 at 19:18.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COMPLAIN TO THE MIRROR
[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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Helinut; 2nd Mar 2003 at 22:19.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(Credit to someone calling himself '28July2001')
Helliport
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.
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.
Helliport
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO 'Inquiry'... NO 'Probe'
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
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
Last edited by Dantruck; 3rd Mar 2003 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Perhaps they are more sensible than we sometimes think?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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'
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Last edited by Dantruck; 12th Mar 2003 at 14:54.