Author Topic: Two Helicopters Collide Over Phoenix [WARNING: Disturbing images] (Read 5958 times)

JFC · « **on:** July 29, 2007, 11:51:56 PM »

A lot of people don't realize how dangerous it can be when you're a journalist. Credit to Skyknight over at HJU for originally posting the first vid there.

Jul 27 05:23 PM US/Eastern
By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX (AP) - Two news helicopters collided and crashed Friday while covering a police chase on live television, killing four people on board.

Video links:

a) Footage from one of the helicopters that was involved in the collision:
- http://www.breitbart.tv/html/3645.html

b) Footage from other helicopters from other networks who were in the air at the same time, pursuing the same story:
- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3651
- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3649
- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3647
- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3643

Condolences to the families of those who were killed in this tragic accident.

RatBastich · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2007, 12:26:20 AM »

This was definitely a tragedy...condolences go out to all the families.
AFAIK, news copters usually stay in touch with each when airborne, regardless of station affiliation, so as to avoid these sorts of tragic accidents from occuring.

Asmodai · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2007, 01:08:42 AM »

Very strange.

Makes you wonder if we really need a dozen news helicopters following every police chase.

They're talking about charging the driver in the deaths. That seems a bit silly to me.

chokkan 2 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2007, 01:41:11 AM »

Quote from: Asmodai on July 30, 2007, 01:08:42 AM

They're talking about charging the driver in the deaths. That seems a bit silly to me.

....... are they trying to find someone to blame ?

arun.yothin · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2007, 05:10:15 AM »

It is silly that they might charge the driver for the deaths. I forget exactly, but I think I heard that one helicopter was over the other or something like that. I don't think the number of the helicopters is that big of a problem(Although it's not like we need a bunch of them flying around everywhere either). But why were they so close?

thatguy · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2007, 05:44:30 AM »

FAA regulations for impromptu and unplanned flights only allow for air traffic control to guide aircraft to a particular entry zone. From there it's strictly up to the pilots to be aware of exactly where they are, because there are no pre-planned paths. I think the problem was that the pilots simply weren't aware of another helicopter being in the area until it was too late.

As far as charging the driver with the deaths... it seems appropriate, even if it's not entirely logical. It was "chance" that caused the helicopters to collide, but "chance" isn't something you can take to court and convict. But it was the driver that caused this "chance" to occur. I imagine that he'll probably be charged with manslaughter, though the degree of punishment is up in the air.

frblckstr1 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2007, 10:37:46 AM »

Quote from: thatguy on July 30, 2007, 05:44:30 AM

FAA regulations for impromptu and unplanned flights only allow for air traffic control to guide aircraft to a particular entry zone. From there it's strictly up to the pilots to be aware of exactly where they are, because there are no pre-planned paths. I think the problem was that the pilots simply weren't aware of another helicopter being in the area until it was too late.

As far as charging the driver with the deaths... it seems appropriate, even if it's not entirely logical. It was "chance" that caused the helicopters to collide, but "chance" isn't something you can take to court and convict. But it was the driver that caused this "chance" to occur. I imagine that he'll probably be charged with manslaughter, though the degree of punishment is up in the air.

How about charging the public that watches with 'second degree manslaughter' I think it is called?

And isn't the pilot flying above the other always the one that has to evade the one below? So prime responsebility is with the pilot nobody else (unless you are going to charge the FAA with reckless endangerment for allowing to many helicopters in one area...)

ctz · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2007, 10:43:14 AM »

Quote from: thatguy on July 30, 2007, 05:44:30 AM

As far as charging the driver with the deaths... it seems appropriate, even if it's not entirely logical. It was "chance" that caused the helicopters to collide, but "chance" isn't something you can take to court and convict. But it was the driver that caused this "chance" to occur. I imagine that he'll probably be charged with manslaughter, though the degree of punishment is up in the air.

Charging him manslaughter would be once again a triumph to a stupidity of the american trials. With same logic I can be charged of manslaughter if a friend coming to visit me trips and breaks his neck at stairs. Poor guy had nothing to do with the accident.

Guchi_Jnr · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2007, 01:31:24 PM »

Totally agree.. Charging the driver for the unforeseen deaths of the people in the helicopters is just ridiculous..
Since we are making comparisons, were you ever sitting at home as a kid, hear the sound of a fire engine roar past and think "Cool!!", jump on your bicycle and peddle like mad to see the action?? Well, charging the driver here for the deaths, would be like charging a burning house owner if a kid got cleaned up on his bike.. It would clearly the kid's fault, just like this is clearly the pilots.. Both didn't have to be there, both wanted to have a look at what's going on.

thatguy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2007, 04:07:27 PM »

The people who watched the helicopters weren't doing anything criminal, that's why they can't be held accountable. When you invite a friend over, you're not doing something criminal, that's why you can't be held accountable. And whether or not a house owner (whose house is burning) is responsible depends on whether he had a criminal intent (arsen). But the driver? He was evading the law, there was criminal intent.

What if as the driver was running from the police, a bystander driver had to swerve to avoid the criminal, and ended up crashing into another bystander? Is it the bystanders' fault, or the criminal driver, who didn't actually hit anyone?

The point isn't to say that this driver is accountable for specifically 4 people's lives. The pilots have their share of responsibility, and they've already paid the ultimate price for that. But these deaths have to be rationalized somehow (think of the news crew's families), and the only reason they were out there in the first place was because of the driver. I'm not saying the driver deserves 4 counts of manslaughter, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is held partly accountable for the accident.

chokkan 2 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2007, 04:14:12 PM »

"He's the reason why they crash, so he's guilty !!!"

well, that's the American way to solve this case (the stupid way)

frblckstr1 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2007, 04:35:52 PM »

Quote from: thatguy on July 30, 2007, 04:07:27 PM

The people who watched the helicopters weren't doing anything criminal,

Its the main reason the 'News' helicopters where there, and why there are multiple.

thatguy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2007, 04:48:29 PM »

I never said that the driver will be convicted in such a manner, nor that such a base rationale is acceptable. But helicopter crashes don't happen everyday, and people need a way to come to terms with a death as rare as this kind: jumping to conclusions is one natural way human beings deal with death, and you have to respect that type of reaction. But even if in the short-term it's irrationale, it's not as if the criminal driver can get away scott-free, either.

The way you guys see it is that this sort of thing was so unlikely that the only way it could have happened is because of the pilots. The way I see it, it's still an accident no matter how unlikely it may have been, and it was an accident that could only have occured because there was a criminal driver.

Guchi_Jnr · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2007, 05:21:52 PM »

I'm surprised this type of accident doesn't happen more often. With the Amagasaki train crash which killed 106, I counted 14 helicopters all within about 100metres..

Only after seeing them, did we know something major just happened outside..

If this accident involved police helicopters, then yeah, I would put partial blame on the driver since they would've been doing their job and had to be there, but not for news crews just covering a story..

thatguy · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2007, 07:36:56 PM »

But there's no criminal in a train crash, unless of course someone caused it, in which case don't you think it makes sense that such a person would be held accountable? And the news reporters have a job too, theirs is an obligation to report to the public what is happening (in this case to inform them of the danger).

In any case it seems that no one here cares to think about it in a perspective other than their own opinion, so I'll just leave it be.

chokkan 2 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2007, 10:08:18 PM »

in short :

charging the driver with manslaughter is plain stupid .....

also, look where you're flying !!!

ctz · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2007, 04:39:39 AM »

Quote from: thatguy on July 30, 2007, 04:07:27 PM

The people who watched the helicopters weren't doing anything criminal, that's why they can't be held accountable. When you invite a friend over, you're not doing something criminal, that's why you can't be held accountable. And whether or not a house owner (whose house is burning) is responsible depends on whether he had a criminal intent (arsen). But the driver? He was evading the law, there was criminal intent.

What if as the driver was running from the police, a bystander driver had to swerve to avoid the criminal, and ended up crashing into another bystander? Is it the bystanders' fault, or the criminal driver, who didn't actually hit anyone?

So if I was downloading some illegal copy of a music album while waiting my friend (who had already died after tripping at stairs) I should be charged of manslaughter? Sorry, your logic still does not work.

RionZ · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2007, 05:08:41 AM »

Cops are told to try and not engage in high-speed pursuits as much as they can. Plenty of damage can be done, and lives can be lost over the course of the chase. The news choppers, on the other hand, is a whole different party. Not sure how they'll handle that in court...even though it probably won't be brought up in the driver's charges, it will definitely sway a judge's decision in his sentencing.

Quote from: chokkan 2

"He's the reason why they crash, so he's guilty !!!"

well, that's the American way to solve this case (the stupid way)

Hey now, whats with the American bashing? That's uncalled for.

Shinora · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2007, 05:23:47 AM »

Quote from: ctz on July 31, 2007, 04:39:39 AM

Quote from: thatguy on July 30, 2007, 04:07:27 PM
The people who watched the helicopters weren't doing anything criminal, that's why they can't be held accountable. When you invite a friend over, you're not doing something criminal, that's why you can't be held accountable. And whether or not a house owner (whose house is burning) is responsible depends on whether he had a criminal intent (arsen). But the driver? He was evading the law, there was criminal intent.

What if as the driver was running from the police, a bystander driver had to swerve to avoid the criminal, and ended up crashing into another bystander? Is it the bystanders' fault, or the criminal driver, who didn't actually hit anyone?

So if I was downloading some illegal copy of a music album while waiting my friend (who had already died after tripping at stairs) I should be charged of manslaughter? Sorry, your logic still does not work.

I'm sorry, but your situation is not in anyway similar to that of the helicopter incident. the character illegally in your event whom was downloading music did not cause your friend to fall down the stairs causing his death , which means it is merely an accident. however, in the helicopter event, it was the criminal taking part in the highspeed pursuits, which lead to the 2 news copters chasing after the police as well as the criminal, which as a result lead to the deaths of 4 people. therefore, as you can see the situation which you have provided and the one that has actually happened are completely different.

chokkan 2 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2007, 05:32:30 AM »

Quote from: RionZ on July 31, 2007, 05:08:41 AM

Cops are told to try and not engage in high-speed pursuits as much as they can. Plenty of damage can be done, and lives can be lost over the course of the chase. The news choppers, on the other hand, is a whole different party. Not sure how they'll handle that in court...even though it probably won't be brought up in the driver's charges, it will definitely sway a judge's decision in his sentencing.

Quote from: chokkan 2
"He's the reason why they crash, so he's guilty !!!"

well, that's the American way to solve this case (the stupid way)

Hey now, whats with the American bashing? That's uncalled for.

that's what we Americans do ..... we always thought we are smart, but we aren't .......look at the Iraq War (I support the troops but I don't support the war)