helicopper

Conversely, all the best trained and equipped firefighters on the best apparatus available responding in seconds won't do much good without water. Your point about buliding blocks is a good one but you cannot ignore one block while advancing another. All the blocks are interdependent.

Likewise it can be argued that protecting the nation's borders are a federal responsibility but the border states (at least the Mexican border states) shoulder an enormous burden because of federal inaction or inadequate resources. Some argue that it is not the state's job and that they lack the authority to enforce immigration violations and that is still an unresolved legal dispute. While the traditional "air defense" has been against military actions launched from abroad, the type of threat that NYPD is defending against is homegrown or at least locally launched primarily using small general aviation aircraft. It would be virtually impossible for the federal government to offer the protection that NYC deems necessary and appropriate hence their position. In one of the subsequent articles posted in this thread, the city acknowledges coordination between the NYPD, NYC Mayor and federal government. That seems to support the argument that there is no prohibition in the law or regulations against what the NYPD is doing. Should it be there primary responsibilty? Of course not. And you're absolutely right. There are multiple federal agencies (both military and law enforcement) in the DC metro area providing immediate and decisive protection. That is not true of any other US city. Hmmm... Another interesting point to discuss.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8358826

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1183787438001/incredible-rescue-captured-in-california Great video of the rescue.

DOD has stated that the authority for the military to shoot down an aircraft comes from established chain of command and is vested in the President. It doesn't say that they are the only one's empowered to do so or that others are prohibited from it. Therein lies my point. I stand by my position that nobody has produced a law or regulation prohibting the NYPD from doing this and the existing use of force laws in NYS make no distinction between an airplane or any other conveyance.

Very true. However everyone seems to be focusing strictly on commercial air carriers (a la September 11th). If you read the article posted by efdcapt115 (thanks, George), you'll see they're concerned with a much smaller target; one that can carry far less payload (fuel/weapons) and/or passengers. As has already been pointed out, you can probably shoot at a 757 all day long with a .50 caliber rifle and have no impact. But put a round or two into a light general avaiation aircraft and the results could be much more effective.

Controlled airspace only applies to aircraft that are abiding by the regulations established for traffic/sequencing/separation. If someone is illegally using an aircraft to advance a threat, they probably aren't abiding by these regulations. I don't think the airspace or its regulation is the applicable issue here. At issue is whether or not a vehicle, by virtue of being in the air as opposed to on the ground or water, is subject to different rules and jurisdiction.

Without getting into the politics of the NYPD, the point you make about having the capability is the key. The perceived ability may act as a deterrent and the capability may never have to be implemented. It's largely a psychological game and they're trying to play it to their advantage. Whether or not their capability is a .50 cailber Barrett or some other armament, the point is they're advertising that they can take down an airplane so someone doesn't try to attack the city by airplane agian. That's all.

Clearly you don't know me. I'm familiar with the OH-58 Kiowa and its variants. The helicopter that I referenced is a commercially marketed armed Bell 407 with the designation Bell 407AH (for, wait for it... armed helicopter). It is not the OH-58. The OH-58 is not a civil aircraft (lacking an FAA airworthiness certificate and while many are in use by law enforcement around the US, they are all de-commissioned, surplus -58's and none of them are armed). This is the OH-58D and you can see it is a different aircraft.

Don't know about whisper mode but there is now a non-military armed helicopter on the market.... The Bell 407AH is equipped with defensive countermeasures, 2.75 inch rockets, and a 7.62mm gatling gun. For the discerning shopper it will be in their Christmas catalog along with the personal submarine and other need-to-haves... http://www.bellhelic...=highlights-tab Somewhere I have some close-up pictures of the armament. I'll try to find them.

Thank you for making the effort to cite something to support these statements. However, in context, this statement is referring to the authority for military assets to take such action. It doesn't speak to the use of force by law enforcement or other federal agencies. Your source is also an article, not a law or regulation so it still has not been established that there is a law prohibiting the NYPD from taking such action.

Full investigation? Of what and by whom? To what purpose? Who has to give the NYPD the authority to do anything besides the Mayor and City Council? Diversion of funds? "More traditional and legal areas of the NYPD"? You think something is illegal? As for the tradition remark, should we also villify the PC that authorized the change to semi-automatic pistols to replace the revolver or gave ESU M-4's and MP-5's to replace outdated weapons systems? Impeach/remove who from office and for what? I'd be very hestitant to use the word ONLY in a sentence about the necessity to employ deadly physical force. The NYPD has been extremely proactive since September 11th and has, on numerous occasions, stated that it will not rely on the federal government exclusively to protect its citizenry. Why is this any different than that? For all we really know, the NYPD plan could be to launch flocks of kamikaze geese from city parks to take down the plane like flight 1549. Seriously folks, we're getting all worked about rhetoric.

Authority for the military to take such action would have to come from the President but we're not talking about the military so I don't think Congress has any jurisdiction. The NYPD has the authority to protect its citizens within NYC so I'm not sure what all the hype is about.

Can you cite your source for this requirement? Where is the law/regulation that limits the authority to the feds?

Actually, you are incorrect. The components of an EMS System (as defined when the term was coined) include transportation and many other things that most local agencies don't do or are only peripherally associated with. Remember, an EMS System isn't a single agency, it is the whole system from dispatch to rehab that puts an person back on their feet (no pun intended) after an illness or injury.

Two different responses included whether or not billing was part of their service hence my question. If billing has nothing to do with being a VAC, why did you (and someone else) both include that in your statement about your agency? Is not billing somehow more desirable than billing? How are agency operations being funded if they don't bill for service?

What does billing have to do with whether or not you call yourself a VAC? I don't think the term VAC is as well known as it once was and people equate ambulance service to EMS these days. If you look at the components of an "emergency medical service system " as originally defined, the components are far more encompassing than "VAC".

"branding strategy". This is why Eastchester is ahead of the curve. Most VAC's don't have a strategy period let alone one for branding or PR. Good work!

I don't think we're twisting around what you're saying. I read what you wrote and understand your points but they're as related as apples and wing-nuts. There is no correlation between an animal rescue team and the provision of routine EMS.

The purpose of these trucks is not to move dispatch to the field or duplicate dispatch services but rather to, as tbendick stated, facilitate on-scene communications. The NYC tunnel example is a good one and it could have been useful in Schoharie, Broome, Delaware or Greene Counties after Hurricane Irene as well when there were multiple resources from multiple disciplines operating in the same environment without common communications. Especially in Schoharie where there were ongoing hazards, it would have been great to put everyone in the at-risk division on a common channel so if there was a bug-out order they'd all get the message. I can't speak to the EMS radios but NYPD has the UHF interoperability frequencies so they can be linked with FD or anyone else on common channels as well. The whole purpose of the VTAC, UTAC, and ITAC is to facilitate interagency communications. If your agency doesn't have them, when you get your radios reprogrammed for narrow-banding compliance you should have them programmed in. Work with your County's communications folks and/or emergency management and we'll actually be able to communicate effectively someday. Westchester County has several different resources for interoperable communications, including the DES Field Comm, several different PD command/communications vehicles, and RIOS vehicles deployed to each police mutual aid zone for more rapid response. In a real pinch, the helicopter can even cross-band or cross-band/repeat frequencies during a dynamic incident. We may not have nine SUV's like CHP, but Westchester definitely does have the capability to do the same type of work.

No offense, but I wouldn't want to watch most first responders forced into a ballet either. Do they even make nomex tu-tu's? Now if they wanted to have a ballot...

There is a federal law; it was cited earlier. and it is the mechanism for costs to be recovered from the responsible party. A new state law that limits the amount that can be recovered and restricts what can be billed for hardly seems "complementary" or "strengthening". From a layperson's perspective, it would seem that this law will give responsible parties a way of fighting the bill in court, "but your honor, we're not responsible for all that equipment, we're just responsible for $10,000 in consumable supplies".

What are the particulars? One crew? Days or 24 hours? Weekdays or 7 days?

Yes.

If this was a group of EMT's and/or medics or say the ABC VAC or 123 FD opting to create an animal rescue team, I'd agree with you but the people that staff this team are animal specialists (vets, vet techs, etc.) so no humans are suffering as a result of this program. Don't blame the dysfunctional, fragmented EMS system on a well-intentioned group of people who exist only to care for our animals. This was a lesson learned after Katrina and several other disasters that we actually made an improvement on. Not one EMS resource is diverted by this initiative.