• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson police used flight restrictions to muzzle media, with feds' help

TheDemSocialist said:
Because they issued the restriction and it banned media helicopters from entering the area, and as the tapes and direct quotes reveal it was not about "safety" it was about silencing the media. So much for "free press".
Click to expand...

My friend, I explained to you already that the media helicopters are dangerous and are not controllable by the FAA, and given that there were numerous police helicopters flying around, the airspace had to be restricted to controlled commercial traffic and the police only. It was a safety issue.

Has nothing to do with free press. This story has everything to do with the press being pissed off and pole vaulting over rat turds in an attempt to make it out to be some sinister conspiracy against them. Which it is not.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Blame the source. I guess AP must have an "anti-US view" AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media
Click to expand...

I personally would like to here the raw recordings and see if the police actually stated their purpose was to keep media out.

The restricted flight zone initially encompassed airspace in a 3.4-mile radius around Ferguson and up to 5,000 feet in altitude, but police agreed to reduce it to 3,000 feet after the FAA's command center in Warrenton, Virginia, complained to managers in Kansas City that it was impeding traffic into St. Louis.
Click to expand...

The restriction ceiling was 3k feet. I'm not saying that wasn't truly the police's intended purpose but have seen similar restrictions placed during response activities and the same claims made that its intent was to keep the media out.

Recall Anderson Cooper getting his tampon string all knotted up during the Deep Water Horizon oil spill response over an nearly identical air space restriction. And I can matter of fact state that the purpose of that restriction was due to the number of aircraft involved in the response and the media's pilots utterly ignoring air traffic controllers for the area.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Did you read the article?
--Also its interesting to note that the helicopter accident you bring up was not because of "overcrowded airspace" it was: "cause of this accident was both pilots' failure to see and avoid the other helicopter. Contributing to this failure was the pilots' responsibility to perform reporting and visual tracking duties to support their station's [electronic news gathering] operation. Contributing to the accident was the lack of formal procedures for Phoenix-area ENG pilots to follow regarding the conduct of these operations."


But as well, again, as direct quotes from the FAA state that they were not worried about safety but wanted to ban the media covering the situation on the ground.
Click to expand...

It wasn't overcrowded airspace. And it still happened.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Blame the source. I guess AP must have an "anti-US view" AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media
Click to expand...

:doh
The AP also reports this.


So?


The folks here have been telling you why this no-fly zone was put in place yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Why?

Yes they wanted to keep press helicopters out, not to restrict the Press, which is a claim disproved by the Press on the ground.



It was a safety issue and nothing more.

twit-2.jpg

JJMcNab ~ Twitter
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:
We have this little thing called the Free Press.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. However, when the interests of public safety come into play such rights are, justifiably, restricted in ways which are the least obstructive to those freedoms. In this case there was ample opportunity for the media to do their thing on the ground and the restriction on aerial operations was minimally obstructive.
 
Excon said:
:doh
The AP also reports this.


So?


The folks here have been telling you why this no-fly zone was put in place yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Why?

Yes they wanted to keep press helicopters out, not to restrict the Press, which is a claim disproved by the Press on the ground.



It was a safety issue and nothing more.

twit-2.jpg

JJMcNab ~ Twitter
Click to expand...
Someone must not of read the article.. "On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Someone must not of read the article.. "On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
Click to expand...

In fairness, he followed up that comment with saying he never saw any official reports. Now that wouldn't be all that surprising considering that the Ferguson PD was in full on "All hands on deck" for what was going on. People are going to pull resources to do paperwork in the middle of a full response.

Is it completely unfathomable that rioters were taking shots at the PD helicopter?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Someone must not of read the article.. "On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
Click to expand...
:doh
I read the articles. Probably before you did.
I even posted about recent restricted airspace above Ferguson on 31 Oct to 1 Nov.

And what the heck do you call what I provided but unconfirmed. :doh

Yet the claim still exists and it was those with feet on the ground making the claims.
So for safety reasons it was more than appropriate to restrict the air space, yet for some reason you don't seem to understand that.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes we do. However, when the interests of public safety come into play such rights are, justifiably, restricted in ways which are the least obstructive to those freedoms. In this case there was ample opportunity for the media to do their thing on the ground and the restriction on aerial operations was minimally obstructive.
Click to expand...

but...but....murder!....racism.....blrgfglrgle
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Give me a break ADPST.
"audio recordings obtained by The Associated Press show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters."... ""They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations"..... "a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."....
Click to expand...

Come on, TDS, you aren't serious, are you? What altitude were the commercial jet liners be flying at? Do you think they were a threat to collide with police helicopters?

Was it to keep the press out? Hell yes, the press HELICOPTERS. Are you trying to argue that there wasn't enough press allowed into Ferguson to capture what happened there? Because if so you are crazy.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
I'd agree. I mean, hell, there was almost no media coverage of the protests. If you didn't live there you probably had no idea what was happening.:roll:
Click to expand...

Well, we totally missed the all the marching band-like formations the rampaging crowds were forming for the news helicopters that just never came. :(

Their space invaders montage was top notch, so the police tell me.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
AP....
Click to expand...

The article quotes an accusation by one FAA person on a tape. It does not make the statement as a matter of fact. The vast majority of the article disproves the taped claim by an unnamed FAA person. For example:

KMOV-TV News Director Brian Thouvenot told the AP that his station was prepared at first to legally challenge the flight restrictions, but was later advised that its pilot could fly over the area as long as the helicopter stayed above 3,000 feet. That kept the helicopter and its mounted camera outside the restricted zone, although filming from such a distance, he said, was "less than ideal."
Click to expand...

And let's also keep in mind that countless reporters were on the ground.

Pretending the AP article proves your claim is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Might want to read something other than Al Jazeera and RT, which tend to spin things into an anti-US view when this as an example has a very simple explanation that has historical and safety precedence.

It is normal practice to limit airspace access over areas that police helicopters are being used, to reduce the potential for mid-air collisions in uncontrollable airspace with police and news helicopters flying all around in every direction and altitude (usually in the dark but also during daylight hours) without the ability to prevent them from making course or altitude changes at will, which is because mid-air collisions and near collisions have happened in the past. This is done in many areas, including the liberal havens of California, New York and so on.

Here's just one example: 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That is a pretty weak counterpoint. Newly revealed records, discussed in places other than this, clearly show that the purpose of the requested TFR was to keep the media out. Ferguson's claims of their helicopter being fired upon are called "rumors" even by the feds.
 
There's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the conservatives regarding this Ferguson situation.

You don't trust government, but you appear to blindly belief anything that comes out from the Ferguson PD. Even confronted with straight up proof, you make every effort to deny, deflect or completely ignore evidence that gives credence to the idea that there's something fishy going on in Ferguson.

It's kind of pathetic.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Might want to read something other than Al Jazeera and RT, which tend to spin things into an anti-US view when this as an example has a very simple explanation that has historical and safety precedence.

It is normal practice to limit airspace access over areas that police helicopters are being used, to reduce the potential for mid-air collisions in uncontrollable airspace with police and news helicopters flying all around in every direction and altitude (usually in the dark but also during daylight hours) without the ability to prevent them from making course or altitude changes at will, which is because mid-air collisions and near collisions have happened in the past. This is done in many areas, including the liberal havens of California, New York and so on.

Here's just one example: 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Hi. Pilot here. You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Tettsuo said:
There's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the conservatives regarding this Ferguson situation.

You don't trust government, but you appear to blindly belief anything that comes out from the Ferguson PD. Even confronted with straight up proof, you make every effort to deny, deflect or completely ignore evidence that gives credence to the idea that there's something fishy going on in Ferguson.

It's kind of pathetic.
Click to expand...

Just like how the conservatives on this page were in strong opposition to the comments and actions made and carried out by Holder and Obama (government)? Nice sweeping statements too.
 
Henry David said:
That is a pretty weak counterpoint. Newly revealed records, discussed in places other than this, clearly show that the purpose of the requested TFR was to keep the media out. Ferguson's claims of their helicopter being fired upon are called "rumors" even by the feds.
Click to expand...

Facts are not weak, and are not a counterpoint - they just happen to be "the point."
 
Lutherf said:
Authorities probably did request the restriction. The last thing you need when you're trying to keep a riot under control is some asshole in a news chopper telling the "protesters" where the cops are staging and what direction they're moving.
Click to expand...

Someone can do that with a balloon mounted camera. Or a $300 drone with camera.
 
Tettsuo said:
There's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the conservatives regarding this Ferguson situation.

You don't trust government, but you appear to blindly belief anything that comes out from the Ferguson PD. Even confronted with straight up proof, you make every effort to deny, deflect or completely ignore evidence that gives credence to the idea that there's something fishy going on in Ferguson.

It's kind of pathetic.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Restricting airspace because the helicopters are dangerously flown? Or the evidence regarding the death of brown? You know. The evidence that shows he was absolutely not some "sweet African American child destined for doctoral fame" and was instead involved in strong arm robbery and tried to grab the gun of the cop?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Someone can do that with a balloon mounted camera. Or a $300 drone with camera.
Click to expand...

People are stupid and they would watch tv before they would do that. Hell...for that matter why didn't the press do that?
 
Deuce said:
Hi. Pilot here. You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Hi. Pilot for 30+ years here (Private, multi-engine, Recip, Retract, Variable pitch, Turbo-prop and Jet, IFR ratings, as well as others) - I do know what I'm talking about.
 
Tettsuo said:
There's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the conservatives regarding this Ferguson situation.

You don't trust government, but you appear to blindly belief anything that comes out from the Ferguson PD. Even confronted with straight up proof, you make every effort to deny, deflect or completely ignore evidence that gives credence to the idea that there's something fishy going on in Ferguson.

It's kind of pathetic.
Click to expand...

That comment could be said about the extremes on both sides. In fact, the majority of people, like me, prefer to wait and see what the evidence (empirical evidence) shows before jumping to conclusions - whether that conclusion is that he had his hands up and was not approaching the officer, or that the officer was justified in shooting him. I didn't see it, and from what I can see from the hyperbolic nature of this event, both the race hatred industry on the left and the right skewed the facts from the beginning.

At this time, the evidence appears to be leaning toward neither the US DOJ or the local DA pressing charges against the officer. Why that is, is still not completely clear. However, clear or not, the tendency appears to be that the narrative in the media and from the black community leaders demanding the officers head is not completely accurate. Again, I don't know what all the evidence shows or doesn't show, but to say that there is evidence to justify prosecution, much less conviction, of the officer at this time, is not supported by the facts that we do know, nor the leaks and hints coming from both the local DA and the US DOJ (which is not, just in case you forgot, run by a conservative).
 
It was unconstitutional and wrong for the locals and the FAA to ban copters for the purpose of limiting the media coverage. The local taxpayers will probably have to fund several lawsuits or settlements as a result, while the responsible public officials will suffer no consequences. The clueless way the local government handled the shooting and protests shows a need for better training for elected officials, police and other responders on dealing with such situations.

However, I have seen many protests with several news copters hovering around, which creates a lot of noise and makes for a more tense situation. I suspect that the noise may make violence or destruction more likely. If it was up to me, I would only allow one copter well above the protest at a time.
 
stonewall50 said:
What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Restricting airspace because the helicopters are dangerously flown? Or the evidence regarding the death of brown? You know. The evidence that shows he was absolutely not some "sweet African American child destined for doctoral fame" and was instead involved in strong arm robbery and tried to grab the gun of the cop?
Click to expand...

Did the PD restrict airspace for the Keene Pumpkin riot?

If the behavior is different for the same thing, then it's clear bias imo.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Someone can do that with a balloon mounted camera. Or a $300 drone with camera.
Click to expand...

A broadcast quality drone costs more than that. It isn't legal to use a drone for commercial purposes without an FAA permit, and the permits are virtually impossible to obtain. I don't know whether balloons are legal to use that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom