All
← Back to Squawk list
AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media
The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests. (bigstory.ap.org) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Were the first amendment still addressing the issues of a fair and objective media, then I would say their rights should be unabridged. However, the current trend of media bias and spin are quite well known and thus their immunity from interference and unfettered access is completely understood by an objective observer. The road to a lesser democracy is already many miles and deeds in the rearview mirror. The culprits are many, and many congregate in D.C. Tomorrow would be a good day to do something about that part of it!
Amen Brother!
If you don't vote, you have no right to b***ch.
This is the same kind of TFR abuse that is over Disneyland, Disneyworld, sports stadiums, etc. In those cases, it's designed to eliminate banner towing.
It's pretty bad that on an aviation specific website, commenters don't even bother to consider the aviation related aspects of a story! The center of the city of Ferguson lies about 1.5 miles from the ends of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport's two busiest runways. The southern city limit passes right under the extended centerline of 30R, about 1.6 miles from the touchdown point, 1.2 miles from the threshold. 30L is only a short distance farther south. Since the prevailing wind is from the west, 30R and 30L are often the approach runways. Where the Ferguson city limit intersects the 30R centerline, the published 3 degree glide slope is only about 450 feet AGL.
Would you want to be landing an airliner with an uncontrolled gaggle of helicopters, some of which might, according to a pilot report, be receiving small arms fire from the ground, less than a mile from short final?
I think a TFR was a mighty wise move!
Would you want to be landing an airliner with an uncontrolled gaggle of helicopters, some of which might, according to a pilot report, be receiving small arms fire from the ground, less than a mile from short final?
I think a TFR was a mighty wise move!
Word was a few weeks back in the thick of things, that Lamberts stuff was doing a 90 right or left to keep from getting shot at. If the choppers were violating Class B airspace, then their pilots ought to be hauled in as well.
preacher1, I don't think clearance is really the issue. The question is about system capability. Could the system, relying on visual separation of the choppers from each other and from the very nearby airliners on short final, be reliable in a dynamic, possibly chaotic situation? History strongly suggests the answer is no. The controllers could have taken it upon themselves, simply denying clearance, but then they would have been in the political gun-sights. Their bosses correctly saw that this was a management level decision and took it out of the controllers' concerns. Sometimes the bosses make a good decision and we should applaud them when they do.
I can agree it's a place for an accident to happen. Even if they don't violate the "B", it mat be a little close for comfort.
