quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
Six year old story.

So?

How would you write up that accident report?

I wrecked a car in a pursuit once and was worried to death I was going to be in big trouble. At least I didn’t wreck a helicopter.

quote:

OH-58; military equipment, likely didn't cost the department anything. Retired out of the military, it's operated public use, and in that category isn't required to comply with FAA maintenance regulations, parts procurement, or any other FAA requirement, either. Cost is not what it might be were it a typical civil operation...so millions...no.

Perhaps another reason that the government shouldn't be exempt from the laws, rules, and regulations that their foist upon the rest of us.

quote:

The liveleak commentator seems to think that the crew or the department owes the public some kind of apology.

Tax payers bought those helicopters. Whether the police department got them for free is irrelevant. The government could have sold them to a private party and put that money back into the general fund.

So millions, yes. Millions of tax dollars pissed away (especially if self insured).

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Perhaps another reason that the government shouldn't be exempt from the laws, rules, and regulations that their foist upon the rest of us.

Educate yourself on public use aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Tax payers bought those helicopters. Whether the police department got them for free is irrelevant. The government could have sold them to a private party and put that money back into the general fund.

No.

The military aircraft do not have a civil airworthiness certificate and are beyond the economic value of attempting to instill one; in fact, the millions you think are involved don't exist; but those millions would exist if there was to be an effort to move them to a civil airworthiness status outside of restricted category and public use.

Long story short, they can't be sold for millions to the public, and even shorter story...they never cost that much to begin with.

It sounds like you know what you're talking about if you spout big numbers though, doesn't it? Makes that self-righteousness seem better, anyway.

Aircraft crash, you see. It happens. Whether it's at the hands of a pilot flying for the sheriff's office or one flying for the US Army. It happens. The difference here, so far as the economics go, is that the US Army already scrapped and decomissioned this aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
OH-58; military equipment, likely didn't cost the department anything. Retired out of the military, it's operated public use, and in that category isn't required to comply with FAA

These two helicopters were built in the 60's, so probably cost the taxpayers 50,000 each. Being that they were over 40 years old, didn't have much monetary value left.

I remember that NYC was using Vietnam era helicopters not too long ago. Probably most police departments do this, since there are a large surplus of heli's available from the military.

quote:

Originally posted by Scooter123:

quote:

Both helicopters sustained substantial damage.

This seems like a bit of an understatement to me. 4 million dollars worth of equipment gone in an instant.

Dont worry. The article said they have 4 other helicopters. How does Pasadena a city thats 23sq miles with less than 150k population have 6 freaking helos.

quote:

Educate yourself on public use aircraft.

I'm familiar with the government not doing things that it makes the rest of us do in the interest of public safety.

Funny how certain aspects of safety are important when it's you or I, but not so much when it's government related.

quote:

No.

Uh....Yes? Did the helicopter fairy spit those out one day?

Those helicopters were purchased with tax payer dollars. In the 1980s many were rebuilt at a cost of millions...several each...to extend their service life.

When the government uses up their equipment to the point they no longer wish to use it, they either give it to another government agency, or sell it. Just because they sell it for $1.00 doesn't mean it's worth $1.00. Doesn't mean that the taxpayers only have $1.00 in it.

So what is an OH-58 worth?

Here's an recent auction for a government entity selling the same machine. Taken out of service in 2012, no annual, "public use".

https://www.govdeals.com/index...temid=30&acctid=6532

Sold for $183,000, can't be flown. Must be removed by truck. I'm assuming that the two flying in the video may have brought more seeing they were actually flying.

So far we're at $366,000 worth of tax payer dollars for non-flying versions.

And here's a story about the same helicopter being gifted to Newark, NJ. Two machines, both at no cost to the PD. They have over $2,000,000 into maintaining one flying unit.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.s...ce_more_than_2m.html

quote:

Long story short, they can't be sold for millions to the public, and even shorter story...they never cost that much to begin with.

The government certainly did have millions invested in these aircraft to begin with.

The US government could have sold these to any number of smaller countries and recovered some of our tax payer dollars. Instead they donate the to local governments, and in many cases the donations are pissed away.

After all, it d'nt cost nobody nuffin! Free sh*t!

More information Here.

Poorly designed heliport.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

I'm familiar with the government not doing things that it makes the rest of us do in the interest of public safety.

Funny how certain aspects of safety are important when it's you or I, but not so much when it's government related.

Again, educate yourself on public use aircraft. You have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

The US government could have sold these to any number of smaller countries and recovered some of our tax payer dollars.

The US Army has been divesting itself of the OH-58 since 2014, and has made the aircraft available domestically and abroad through the Excess Defense Article and Foreign Military Sales programs. Perhaps you weren't aware.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Instead they donate the to local governments, and in many cases the donations are pissed away.

Again, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

The case of this thread was not aircraft "pissed away." It was a mishap.

It's probably easy to dismiss an aircraft mishap as "pissing away aircraft" if you're not an aviator. Then again, you wouldn't know what you're talking about, if you're not an aviator, and it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

It's usually the liberals telling guys like me that I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm usually rougher on them than I would be a fellow forum member.

So let's start with government applying rules to others that they do not apply to themselves. You tell me to "educate myself on public use aircraft".

Full stop. Hit the brakes. Aren't "public use aircrafts" an invention of government? Doesn't that specific carve out make them different than other privately owned aircraft? Why would the government even waste the time making up those words to differentiate them if they had to follow the exact same rules and regulations?

And it's not just aircraft or that definition. They do it all over the place with just about everything. I'm not saying this is bad in every case, I'm just stating the facts.

quote:

The US Army has been divesting itself of the OH-58 since 2014, and has made the aircraft available domestically and abroad through the Excess Defense Article and Foreign Military Sales programs. Perhaps you weren't aware.

Would you like to compare how much money you have spent purchasing government equipment with how much I have?

I know exactly what the government does with everything they own when they are through with it, because I have been buying things from the government for the last 20 or so years. One of two things: It goes to another government entity for a token amount, or it gets sold to those allowed to bid on it. This may include foreign governments, foreign citizens, foreign entities, or US citizens or US entities.

Just because the government decides to get rid of it doesn't mean it's worthless. Just because the government sells it for $1.00 to a police department doesn't mean it's only worth $1.00. The tax payers have purchased and maintained that government equipment. Ideally it would be sold for the highest return on that investment.

quote:

Again, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

Damn...more education. So the government isn't pissing away money now? You must work for the government.

quote:

It's probably easy to dismiss an aircraft mishap as "pissing away aircraft" if you're not an aviator. Then again, you wouldn't know what you're talking about, if you're not an aviator, and it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes...you must be an aviator to understand these complex issues.

Are you an aviator? If so there's a simple "pissed away" test we can apply. It's complex, so only aviators like yourself should be able to answer it.

Were those helicopters insured for replacement by a third party insurer?

Because if I owned something so valuable, that I paid for, it would be insured so that should a mishap occur I would be made whole again.

If I "self insured" it because it was given to me for free (or next to it), I wouldn't be worried about any mishaps. I could piss it away and get another freebie, or perhaps spend more tax payer dollars to correct it.

I'm not saying it was intentional. I'm merely stating the general attitude as it applies to these things. People tend to treat things differently when they have to pay for them. I'm confident that pilot didn't intend to damage the aircraft or injure anybody.

But when the city just shrugs it's shoulders, says "whoops", and then "no big deal, we've got four more". That's a pretty good sign that those two helicopters (and my tax dollars) were "pissed away".

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Were those helicopters insured for replacement by a third party insurer?

Because if I owned something so valuable, that I paid for, it would be insured so that should a mishap occur I would be made whole again.

If I "self insured" it because it was given to me for free (or next to it), I wouldn't be worried about any mishaps. I could piss it away and get another freebie, or perhaps spend more tax payer dollars to correct it.

That's a good point and good question that I have yet to see mentioned anywhere that talks about this accident. You know that any private or commercial user would most likely have this in place, but do cities have insurance or do they self insure?