Back to Squawk list
  • 15

Calif. Analysts Doubt Highway Patrol Aircraft Need

제출됨
 
LOS ANGELES (AP) — State analysts are advising the Legislature not to fund the replacement of aging California Highway Patrol planes and helicopters until the force explains why it needs 26 new aircraft. The recommendation came Thursday from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which in its review of Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2014-15 transportation budget proposal questioned the CHP’s need for a fleet that size. (losangeles.cbslocal.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


egad
A very expensive, unreliable way to enforce the law. Much better to spend the money and manpower more effectively. I am a CFI for what that matters.
btweston
btweston 3
They teach law enforcement and government finance in the CFI rating? That's fantastic.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
He's just expressing his opinion, like you do...
captskcnx01a
It may be expensive but having my business being broken into the local sheriffs dept sent up 1 of their helicopters and with the help of their FLIR was able to see and take into custody 4 suspects hiding in the bushes in total darkness expensive yes but money well spent
captskcnx01a
It may be expensive but having my business broken into and having our local sheriffs department helicopter finding the suspects hiding in some bushes using their FLIR it is very reliable and money well spent
Moviela
These aircraft are mostly used for purposes other than law enforcement. Many of the trips they take should be done by the fire departments. Executive transportation can be handled by car or that fancy-schmancy train they want to build.

Why we spend a moment chasing cars with dozens of police cars and helicopters is beyond me. It's more dangerous to the public (and the officers) than letting the idiots go, and take them into custody in a more controlled situation.
btweston
btweston 0
Well, "want to build" is the operative phrase here. It doesn't exist yet, and driving is slow.

When they build the high speed rail line, then you can complain about the need for aircraft.
bbabis
bbabis 4
I'm no fan of California, but do you realize how big California is? I'm surprised only 26 new aircraft are needed. The problem isn't the aircraft or their effective use. Its spelled out right here:

"Lawmakers already approved $17 million in the current budget to start the process by buying three helicopters and one plane, though none has yet been acquired."

Start the process? I could finish it for that amount! Robinson is right there in the state with the police package R-66 for under 1 million and Cessna would gladly sell me a crop of new Garmin 1000 turbo 182's for around half a mill each. Its just in California, no matter how much money gets allotted; after all the environmental impact studies, focus groups, meetings, carbon offsetting, and general pocket lining; there is little left to actually buy aircraft.
joelwiley
I did a google search on the R-66, and it seems to me somewhat less capable than the current CHP birds. S&R, Medivac missions come immediately to mind. Cheap can get expensive.

I posted a link to the actual report elsewhere in this thread. Did you get a chance to go over it? You might also look into the role of the LAO and the reputation of the Legislative Analyst Mac 'the knife' Taylor.
bbabis
bbabis 1
Thanks Joe. I haven't digested it yet. Its quite extensive. The R-66 is quite capable but its not a huey for sure. I don't know if medivac and SAR should be a dedicated CHP function though. The CHP should do police work. But what do I know? I'm just a pilot. This might be an opportunity to grow private business and get government off the hook. Anyway, I love the discussion. Safe travels.
joelwiley
This is wandering away from aviation toward the role of government more generally. The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) is basically the Legislature's independent BS meter for the most part. It seldom makes the pols happy, but occasionally makes good reading.
btweston
btweston 0
What's wrong with California?
bbabis
bbabis 2
Read past the first clause.
pilot62
Give me a break, he was referring to his bias to flight !!! GEEZ
joelwiley
The Legislative Analyst's Office often tries to bring some reality to the budget process. The Emperor is rarely amused.
The report is here:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/transportation/transportation-030614.aspx
pilot62
I have to agree with James, there is no need for any addiional aircraft for the CHP,
they already buy 35,000 dollar (more I suspect) Ford Explorers, and with them horrible gas mileage.
Someday society wil decide they want to travel (on the ground) faster than 70 MPH,
oh wait we already have, and then maybe we can change the laws that limit what the majority of us already do...travel at a reasonable speed and not be ticketed for it !
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I'm picturing Ponch and Jon in the flying machines...
cfwegman1
cfwegman1 -2
Cali has more important things fund. Like free college for illegal aliens and transgender appreciation classes for 2nd graders.
joelwiley
Not to mention the State Legislature- now There is something needing funding!
</end sarcasm font>
btweston
btweston 1
Something tells me you don't actually know what you're talking about. You listen to the radio much?

[This poster has been suspended.]

colinpayette
Ugh, this is why I stopped reading the FA comments and it seems to be getting worse and worse lately :/
bbabis
bbabis 8
Don't complain. Don't reply. Don't click thumbs down. Just click "report" below the comment and it will be removed the second a moderator sees it.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료