T1B

BSmack wrote:
How the fuck did this guy ever get flight certified?

Dude -- they let AP fly. I doubt it was a big deal for his fellow HillsHaveEyesian to get a cert, either.

Apparently, they're not too picky.AP, WrongWayinPhoenix, and WhatFire all get to fly.

Hell, if Huffy made aircraft, they'd probably let Bannie fly one.

Luth -- you're lying again.

Rooster said so.

OK, I found a picture of the Willamete River, taken on the bank down at Meldrum Bar, this spring. This was taken during the month/s/ that the helo hung around. To the right of the fishing rods and the geese is where the helicopter buzzed the water. I would say when this happened the helicopter would stay virtually still, above the water (maybe set down, I just couldn't tell) for maybe one full minute, maybe a little longer.

I liked the Canadian geese. They seldom hissed at me, made less noise than the big white ducks. The Canadian geese also looked like their assholes were the size of a standard potato gun. Not that there is anything wrong with it, mind you.

Rip City

Redneck fishing, right in town. The joys of the U&L. And if your method of fishing involves a bell on the pole -- it's redneck fishing. Hell, if it involves bait, it's redneck fishing.

And if I was fishing with bait(some of you bar fisherman bait up, some just go Spin'N'Glow/Spoon), which would be quite the rarity, since I'm not a barbarian, but if I did... if one of those waterfowl touched my bait container, we'd have a problem.


BTW -- you're still lying, Luth. That's an urban area(despite the serene appearance of the pic, you know what I'm sayin') -- a helicopter would never go below 500 feet. Rooster said so.


I see them buzz down the canyon on the Clackamas too-btw. Well under 500 feet, and right past homes.


The Clackamas, where I might be floating and drinking this late afternoon-btw.

Risa wrote:What changes will occur (or should occur) to prevent something like this from happening again?

I'm thinking the fact those involved are dead now will keep it from happening again.

Good thing this diddn't happen while these helicopters were covering a traffic jam. Think of all the guilty motorists... :roll:

Dinsdale wrote:Mexican bagpipes

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Dinsdale wrote:Hell, if Huffy made aircraft, they'd probably let Bannie fly one.

Who the hell is Bannie?

Mr T wrote:

RadioFan wrote: In that sense, local TV news is no different than the tabs, for some stories. However, it is a catch-22 for both. They wouldn't be selling it if there wasn't a market for it.

People will watch anything.

And they'll still watch live car chases on TV more than they will "General Hospital," obviously.


Of course, I'm sure Mike Backer, smackaholic and Dins have never, ever watched any live TV news helicopter footage. After all, that would make them HYPOCRITES to their entire "BWAHAHAHAHAing" and "RACKing Darwin," comments.

Btw, MB, that is what I was alluding to earlier.

RadioFan wrote: And they'll still watch live car chases on TV more than they will "General Hospital," obviously.

There is already live car chases on TV...NASCAR. It is one of the most watch things on tv. So tv news doesnt have to follow two beaners run around town from the cops

Like I said, its up to the news stations to put on what they put on. Saying its the publics fault is retarded.

If TV listened to the public, I would get to see CFB on all the espn stations in the fall. Not PSU-Purdue on espn and womens lacrosse on espn2. There would be a rutgers-florida international game or something. I am sure more mother fuckers would watch two shit schools play football then some womens sport, horse racing, poker, bowling, tennis, ect. Yet time and time again they show that bullshit instead of football in the fall.

So dont give me this "The public decides shit"

Mr T wrote:So dont give me this "The public decides shit"

Content is based on ad revenue, which is based on viewership/ratings.

Do a Google search on "sweeps period" if you don't believe me. There's this amazingly similar correlation between TV news going from stupid to just plain idiotic (special reports and "investigations," in addition to more live reports) during those periods. Coincidence? Please.

And guess what? The latest one was between July 5 and Aug. 1.

Sports programming is a bit different, because there are other entities involved (pro leagues and the NCAA, for starters), all of whom want their cut. The networks can't possibly show every college, NFL or MLB game on every week, so they work out an arrangement for regional coverage, based on ... guess what? Ratings. ESPN's regional coverage of CFB also has to do with contracts with the conferences, I believe. FoxSportsNet has a similar arrangement with the Big 12 and Pac 10. That's why we get to listen to Pam Oliver calling PSU or Purdue games every other week. Given all that, I'd say ESPN/ABC and FoxSportsNet do a fairly decent job making sure the key games are for as wide an audience as possible.

ESPN/ABC and Fox also have the flexibility to switch coverage to games going on simultaneously. They usually do, especially if the regional game is a complete blowout and there's an incredible game/huge upset in the making elsewhere. In that case, it will come down to the local affiliate, whether to switch or not. Not sure about other parts of the country, but around here, if the local affiliate switches to an upset of FSU or Miami or USC by a 20+point underdog and OU is beating North Texas State by 50, the myopian tards will scream bloody murder to the local affilates for switching, for days on end.

As to lacross and other bullshit on ESPN2, if there are an extra million soccer moms and their girls watching the U.S. women's national team or lacross, it will translate into more ad revenue based on higher viewership ratings.

Usually though, ESPN2 has at least two CFB games on, if not 3, once the season starts.

Yeah, I love it when the local network switches from the bottom of the 12th inning of a tie ballgame with two on and no one out so the masses can get their fill of "That Seventies Show" reruns.

Mister Bushice wrote:Yeah, I love it when the local network switches from the bottom of the 12th inning of a tie ballgame with two on and no one out so the masses can get their fill of "That Seventies Show" reruns.

When OU is playing, everything stops here, including the news. It better be a fucking Interstate bridge collapse or a tornado ON THE GROUND, with bodies flying, before any of the TV guys here even thinks about that shit. And even then, it better be during commercials. <-- Myopic OU football tard, who would literally rather be killed by a tornado, than have a 50+point asskicking of Tennessee State, in Norman, interrupted, in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter.

I remember back in the day if OU didn't have a 45 pt blowout that Switzer was criticized. I was a sophomore when Marcus DuPree was a freshman. There were a lot of personalities on those teams my 2 years there.

I'll never forget Uwe Von Schamman (sp?) shagging punts for me in practice during spring training when he would come up from Miami. If you ever been in the locker room at the back of the horseshoe, you see all these pics of former players on the wall.

Funniest thing is the scrubs like myself had one of those 2' x 3' lockers in the alternate lcoker room, then there was like an NFL locker room for the real players. You go upstairs and there is a film room that is a mini movie theater were a few guys would sleep during the day. To the left side of the receptionists desk was Coach Switzer's office that looked almost identical to that of Craig T. Nelson's office from that show "Coach."

That chain smoking Switzer didn't like my dumbass. I forget who talked about drinking with him on this board in the last few days, but I can tell you he was a true prick in real life. Prolly the most phony person I've ever been around.

Props to him though. He was a good team manager. I wouldn't call him a coach, but a manager of personalities. For that, he was a good fit.

What do you want me to say? That every pilot out there is a law abiding citizen bound and determined that each and every rule shall be rigorously adhered to? Ouch. Boy howdy, you got me there, Dins. Mea culpa. RACK your ability to pin to the wall with such damning evidence. Shit, you make Perry Mason look like a hack when extracting confessions. Have you considered practicing law in between jobs lifeguarding or being an uber hedge fund manager?

At the same time I'd point out that your anecdotal evidence doesn't point to anything beyond the occasional pilot who does the equivilent of what 100% of all automobile drivers do at some point in their driving lives: break a law now and then. Doing 56 mph in a 55 zone doesn't mean you are a bad driver, but all the same, you are a lawbreaker. So, in the same way, low leveling down a river (which, by-the-way, isn't necessarily illegal depending on the circumstances) doesn't mean that pilot is hellbent on being a scofflaw and pissing off fishermen for the fun of it.

Who knows? Perhaps he was joyriding. But maybe he was also doing a search for someone who was reported to have fallen into the water. Maybe he was shooting a scene for a movie. Maybe he was being rented out by DNR to check on numbers of fishermen, boaters, or seeing if runoff from a nearby farm had entered the river. Who knows?

What I can say is that the colors of the aircraft suggest it was operated by Petroleum Helicopters Inc., located in Lafayette, LA. Give them a call and find out just what this pilot was doing on that particular day and then we can actually have an intelligent discussion on the legalities of his actions.

I'd also point out that if the words Dins is attempting to portray me saying were accurate, ie any flight below 500 feet is illegal, then every flight that a pilot undertakes is automatically twice in violation of the rules since it requires a take off and landing in a generally urban setting.

From what I am reading it boils down to this: Dins is all weepy that his sleep gets disturbed once in a great while and wants to see harm come to those who woke him from pleasent dreams of cuddling with Risa/LTS TRN 2/tard d'jour.

QQ. Cry more, lol. Do what the rest of us do and either ignore it, roll over, and go back to sleep or have your doc write out a prescription for Rozerem.

/editted for less anoyancy/tardedness

Dude, you're fucking up your argument with the T/O and landing reference. You know better than that.

What I've screwed up is that video insert-- it runs everytime you open this thread. I gotta nuke it.

Nuke Annie instead. I'll turn both heads the other way.

Not at all, AP. He is trying to make the claim that I said no flight can be undertaken that goes below 500 feet-- which is something I never said or implied. I did say, however, that no sane helicopter pilot would fly at night in a wire environment or nearby where unlit towers were located. Obviously this does not pertain to military HNVGO (goggles) operations, but to the civilian world of pilots. My only point is that if what he said was true, no flight could take off and land without being illegal since they obviously come within 500 feet of the surface every time-- guaranteed.

Obtuse, I know, but simple reasoning doesn't seem to work with him, so perhaps a convoluted argument will have better results.

I've been around these guys for almost 10 years and know they like to bait and debate whether right or wrong.

Nobody is stupid enough to believe any aircraft never goes below 500'.

Hell, I look back at my days of flying around 300' off a negro black Pacific Ocean ... and get this... off of the coast of Oregon to boot. Didn't want to go lower in fear of inverted deck screws sticking up out of the finest fishing boats made in Portland. That's how I rolled... err flew.

Atomic Punk wrote:
Nobody is stupid enough to believe any aircraft never goes below 500'.

What floats?

"Very small rocks."

Atomic Punk wrote:Nobody is stupid enough to believe any aircraft never goes below 500'.

Like nobody is stupid enough to believe your nuke story?

(to the person who reset this 2 days ago, i will remember your name and give you your props)

You know what pisses me off about this case? The DA wants to charge the evading defendant with responsibility for the helicopter deaths. Don't get me wrong. The guy the cops were chasing needs to get rung up for evading, and for whatever he was doing that got them going after him in the first place. However, I'm not sure it ought to be his fault that the pilots in question were too damn stupid to keep their rigs out of the same patch of sky.

Talked to my buddy in phoenix last night. I brought up the helo crash. Not only did he know about it, he had fukking ringside seats.

He is a pos lawyer, so he was doing what most pos lawyers do ever day, attending some dumb meeting in a 26th floor conference room downtown with a bunch of other pos lawyers.

Anyway, he said he was sitting there pretty much zoning out, fooling around with his blackberry when he hears some chick gasp along with a few "omigods" and "hollyshits". He looks up though the big ass floor to ceiling windows in time to watch both choppers auger themselves into the park. He said that he must have been within a few hundred yards of them.

I asked his official pos lawyer opinion on whether or not they can pin these deaths on the pos that stole the car. Apparently not. He said the DA in phoenix is a cocksucker who never saw a ham sammich he wouldn't indict and at first he made it look like he was gonna go after them, but, apparently after reading risa's opinion here in this thread, has decided that it wouldn't fly any better than those two choppers after they kissed each other.