RK
There was at least one helicopter over the scene from soon after the fire broke out (I could see the fire from where I live) - so I doubt noise was a major consideration in this case (though it may be an overarching one).
Any (and every) helicopter over the scene would also have been interpreted by some who were trapped as a rescue effort, so having a TV one there is just compounding and extending the distress even further.
I've rarely heard of a helicopter rescue. The updraft from the flames would make it extremely dangerous. Here most major departments have fire helicopters which are used to assess the scene.
As to the attract complaints - a building was entirely on fire. Wouldn't the lights, sirens and the noise from the fire would wake them up.
Also with this horrific tower block fire going on in London I'm wondering why the news helicopters haven't been deployed. The current vantage points are a bit far back. But with the long lenses they helicopters can get up close while being a safe distance away. Praying that there aren't any fatalities.
I'm not sure you need close-up pictures to see an entire tower block engulfed in flames.
Sure they are one way of telling the story and providing a 'live holding feed' - but the US obsessions with helicopter coverage is always a bit bemusing this side of the pond.
As we know - and many of us feared - there have been fatalities, and some very distressing pictures of people trapped in their flats have been broadcast (which is a questionable decision)
No but the helicopter would definitely provide extra angles - over head and all. The stations pay over a million a year for about 100 hours a month. They will use it up regardless if there's news or beauty bump shots. It certainly provides a competitive advantage.
Presumably because it was night time. No doubt there will be chopper pictures this morning. Flying a helicopter at night over a residential area is only going to attract complaints.
There was at least one helicopter over the scene from soon after the fire broke out (I could see the fire from where I live) - so I doubt noise was a major consideration in this case (though it may be an overarching one).
Any (and every) helicopter over the scene would also have been interpreted by some who were trapped as a rescue effort, so having a TV one there is just compounding and extending the distress even further.
I've rarely heard of a helicopter rescue. The updraft from the flames would make it extremely dangerous. Here most major departments have fire helicopters which are used to assess the scene.
As to the attract complaints - a building was entirely on fire. Wouldn't the lights, sirens and the noise from the fire would wake them up.
Also with this horrific tower block fire going on in London I'm wondering why the news helicopters haven't been deployed. The current vantage points are a bit far back. But with the long lenses they helicopters can get up close while being a safe distance away. Praying that there aren't any fatalities.
I'm not sure you need close-up pictures to see an entire tower block engulfed in flames.
Sure they are one way of telling the story and providing a 'live holding feed' - but the US obsessions with helicopter coverage is always a bit bemusing this side of the pond.
As we know - and many of us feared - there have been fatalities, and some very distressing pictures of people trapped in their flats have been broadcast (which is a questionable decision)
No but the helicopter would definitely provide extra angles - over head and all. The stations pay over a million a year for about 100 hours a month. They will use it up regardless if there's news or beauty bump shots. It certainly provides a competitive advantage.
Hilarious..whoo thank you. You work for the White House right?
