After airliner crash, SF chief bans helmet cams

page: 1
12

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I chose this forum carefully for this and you'll see why by the end. The Fire Chief is talking about the recent July Asiana Airlines crash at San Fran International.


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — San Francisco's fire chief says helmet-mounted cameras no longer will be allowed after images from July's airliner crash became public.

Chief Joanne Hayes-White told the San Francisco Chronicle (http://(link tracking not allowed)/16zguEN ) she is concerned about the privacy of victims and firefighters.


Now that sounds fair and reasonable, doesn't it? I can see the very strong arguments for HAVING the cameras, but not if gruesome photos are going to be leaked, as everyone these days seems to want to be a leaker. I believe I'd damn near go postal if my mom, for instance, were a victim in such a thing and I saw her photo ...in the wreckage...in a newspaper from leaked images. Oh...rage isn't the word. So I see the point.

Well.. I DID see the point..until I read a bit more.


That led to questions about whether the department is liable in the death of a 16-year-old who survived the crash but was run over by a fire truck. She was covered with fire-retardant foam.
Source

Should have figured it would never be as open and well intentioned as it first seemed, right? It's not victim privacy the CHIEF is worried about. It's the privacy of fatal screw ups where firetrucks run clean over victims because they buried them in their own foam.

You know...on second thought? Maybe I'll live with the chance of seeing something like a family member in a wreck from a leak ...So negligent homicide by city worker isn't so easy to cover up and deny liability for.




posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
As an employee of the city/state...etc, there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy when working for the citizens in the area.

See what I did there?



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Banning the helmet cams is very shortsighted...provides real time video of the firefighters' situation, allowing outside observers to potentially identify an increase in hazardous circumstances of the area...
edit on 18-8-2013 by totallackey because: emoval of redundant wording



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


I agree entirely. It also gives them the ability to debrief the situation later and do a post-incident investigation that actually means something. After all, firefighters aren't above average in any mental way. That's NO slight, but making the point that they are by no means above the blur and fog of a crisis situation to remember the same event as many different ways as you have men to ask. Cameras remove every last question and let the event be seen from several perspectives. No questions.

Of course... it means no hiding screw ups. Err... I guess that's the deal breaker. Sad ...when that becomes the over-riding priority. After all..They COULD encrypt those data files being recorded on each man's unit. They COULD secure the recordings and make the leak issue a non-issue. That would solve it, right? No need to ban them, huh? Easy peasy.

.....except plaintiff's attorneys could still get them and THAT is the privacy it seems matters here.

@ Sheepslayer

I have but one sentiment for your reply.



(Bet ya thought I was gonna say something different after that opener, eh? lol)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


As citizen of the state the employee has every right to expect privacy, at home but not on the job. Yep I saw what ye tried to do


OP, good catch. Nicely done.
edit on 18-8-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Thanks for the response.

As far as video evidence used to determine whether person(s) are harmed or killed in the performance of emergency responders' duty(ies), I believe it becomes incumbent on the complainant/plaintiff to provide evidence sufficient to prove negligence/willful negligence/gross negligence or deliberate indifference.

I am unsure if any of the acts performed by the SF fire dept in the case of the recent SF jet crash fit a description of negligence of any level.

I am sure the removal of helmet cams will severely hamper the discovery of any such act in any future event.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
When it comes to covering their hides, worldly authorities will often resort to the well worn 'blanket' excuse of security, safety and privacy. No surprises there.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
If a victim is covered in foam, designed to put out a fire and save the lives of everyone else, and that victim gets run over, how is that negligence? What are they supposed to do, drive up slowly, and have someone walking in front of them looking for anyone that might be buried in the foam? Then anyone that dies in the fire, because they didn't get there fast enough can claim negligence. In this case, helmet cams or not, I don't believe that there was any case of negligence.

I'm sorry that it happened, but if the choice comes down to risking running someone over, and getting on scene faster, and saving 100 lives or more, I would rather have them get to the fire quickly.

Firefighters in a plane crash, where there are survivors are sometimes put in an impossible position. They have to get to the scene, and get the fire under control fast, or everyone on board could die. It takes almost no time at all for a fire in the cabin to flash over into a raging inferno. I've heard times as little as two minutes from start of the fire, to flashover. As I pointed out in another thread, Saudi Arabian flight 163 was in flight when a minor cargo fire started. It was caught by smoke detectors in the cargo hold, and the crew was notified almost immediately. They landed, and for some reason rolled to the end of the runway, past the fire fighting equipment. They stopped 2 minutes and 40 seconds after landing. The fire fighters arrived shortly after, but couldn't approach the plane because the engines were running still. Three minutes and 15 seconds after touchdown the engines stopped, and the firefighters approached the aircraft. Firefighters could see flames in the rear windows, but the doors didn't open.

Twenty three minutes after landing, the R2 door was opened from the outside. The aircraft burst into flame and burned to the ground. The pressurization doors were found almost closed (they should have opened on landing to depressurize the aircraft). It's believed that the crew were overcome by smoke during landing, and were unable to open the doors. All 301 people on board were found to have died from smoke inhalation, which indicated they were dead long before the fire reached them.

edit on 8/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Personally? I tend to agree with you. There have certainly been a couple things in my life where I know I could have sued and before 12 Homer Simpsons in a jury box, I could have gotten a sizable award. It wouldn't have been ethical or proper when I honestly felt actionable wrongs hadn't happened ....but hey, to many? It's not right or wrong at issue, but legal threshold for a Super-Payday. Sad...pathetic...but then, it's California with a civil court system that ranks among the most generous in the world for such things.

I can see their point on that...and perhaps the video DOES show something that puts it over the line from tragic and unavoidable to negligent death. I think between Lawyers and Insurance companies, it'll settle anyway. The tape just sets the dollar amount higher.

It's sure no reason, IMO, to take cameras out of the loop when the record and accountability (to HELP as much as perhaps harm firefighters afterward) give SO much benefit.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
It is interesting how the right to privacy is now something sought by those in power, the same ones who put cameras everywhere. Ohhh the irony. I am so incensed by this it makes me want to kick something.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 





she is concerned about the privacy of victims and firefighters


Only in a world twisted as ours...a victim or a firefighter doing his job...is concerned about privacy. Or a victim that has just been robbed by all i't possessions...is concerned about privacy.



But your second quote really explained it all...It's just an angle to cover their asses in case of a fu** up.

It is becoming more and more apparent...nobody want to be accountable for anything they do. And public/gov service is perhaps the worst of all. No accountability what so ever.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 




You know...on second thought? Maybe I'll live with the chance of seeing something like a family member in a wreck from a leak ...So negligent homicide by city worker isn't so easy to cover up and deny liability for.


Right on mate.

Hoping none of any of our family are ever in a situation like that...but if they ever are, they would still be dead whether their image is taken or not...and as you quite rightly say, wouldn't we want to know if their death was because of fatal errors made by those sent to help or not?

I agree...an image of their death is going to be massively upsetting, but MUCH less important than the cause of their death being covered up.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Bad timing.

But it should be mentioned that...


Hayes-White banned video cameras in "any department facility" in 2009


Source



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
well i don't know about negligence or not. i recall reading something when it first came to light about the victim being run over, that they thought she was already dead, which implied that they DECIDED to run her over. if that is the case i would think that would be negligence.

the truly sad thing is there were a couple way that the situation could have been if not avoided altogether then much lower chance of killing a victim that could possibly have been saved. they could have had a couple "rescuers" running ahead of the trucks to find and deal with any wounded or bodies in the way. or an even better idea that could be used in conjunction of the above or alone, would be to have a piece of equipment that has been around for over 100 years mounted on the trucks. that is a "cow catcher", like was used on locomotives for a similar purpose, to keep from running things over. so why is it that something like this was never thought about before? i also have to wonder how many deaths have been caused by the same thing in air crashes before this, but not publicly known about, but hidden from everyone?
it seems to me that in the chaos involved in an air crash that it is extremely likely to have happened before and as such there really is NO EXCUSE for not trying to keep it from happening.


the death of this victim was more than an "unfortunate occurrence". even if it has never happened before it would only seem to be common sense that it COULD happen, and thus some way(s), thought out and trained with to help deal with it. a needless death of one of the very people they are supposed to save.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by generik
well i don't know about negligence or not. i recall reading something when it first came to light about the victim being run over, that they thought she was already dead, which implied that they DECIDED to run her over. if that is the case i would think that would be negligence.


Working from memory here, and that's getting less and less reliable. I think it's connected to the fact that all the grey matter is leaching out of my brain and onto my hair!! Joking aside, I thought that the coroner's initial determination was that the girl was dead when she was run over, and that the truck crew didn't realized until later that they'd hit someone.



the truly sad thing is there were a couple way that the situation could have been if not avoided altogether then much lower chance of killing a victim that could possibly have been saved. they could have had a couple "rescuers" running ahead of the trucks to find and deal with any wounded or bodies in the way.


As Zaphod mentioned above, this might seem like a good idea at first glance, but you'd wind up slowing down the trucks to the point of uselessness, even before the use of foam is taken into account. I've seen firefighting foam form drifts and lumps that were more than large enough to hide a small person, and to be effective, your outriders are going to have to check each one, and that would take more time than the fire crews have.



or an even better idea that could be used in conjunction of the above or alone, would be to have a piece of equipment that has been around for over 100 years mounted on the trucks. that is a "cow catcher", like was used on locomotives for a similar purpose, to keep from running things over.


Cow catchers on railroad locomotives worked (to the extent that they did work) in part because railroads are a very stable environment. The tracks are (relatively) flat and even. Fire fighting apparatus doesn't always have those conditions, even at an airport. Assuming that you mounted the cow catcher low enough to actually prevent a prone human body from being run over, what happens the first time your crash truck drives over a drainage path? What happens the first time the crash truck noses down under hard braking? Digging the nose of a fast-moving truck into the ground is a real show-stopper...I speak from first hand experience (thankfully *not* with a fire truck).



so why is it that something like this was never thought about before? i also have to wonder how many deaths have been caused by the same thing in air crashes before this, but not publicly known about, but hidden from everyone?
it seems to me that in the chaos involved in an air crash that it is extremely likely to have happened before and as such there really is NO EXCUSE for not trying to keep it from happening.



Believe me...there are a fair number of highly trained and very creative people who devote a lot of time to making fire fighting apparatus effective and safe. I have a soft spot in my heart for these folks in particular. I know first hand just how solid and safe their gear is. Unfortunately for all concerned, there are some things that you simply can't plan for in any realistic way. I'm fairly certain (not being a telepath, I can't speak with utter certainty) that the crew of that crash truck aren't giving each other high-fives and painting a schoolgirl silhouette on the side of the cab. Every fire fighter that I've ever known or worked with has been in the trade to save lives, not to take them...and when you lose one, it hurts on a deep and personal level.



the death of this victim was more than an "unfortunate occurrence". even if it has never happened before it would only seem to be common sense that it COULD happen, and thus some way(s), thought out and trained with to help deal with it. a needless death of one of the very people they are supposed to save.


Barring some fresh evidence to the contrary, an "unfortunate occurrence" is exactly what it is. In an ideal world, things like this wouldn't happen...unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, Murphy is always waiting for a chance to make a fool of you, and strange, stupid, and occasionally tragic things happen every day.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   


It is becoming more and more apparent...nobody want to be accountable for anything they do. And public/gov service is perhaps the worst of all. No accountability what so ever.


They will claim otherwise but that is it.

It is sad what people are becoming. They just don't want admit that something went wrong and have it known how it happened..

When the police want to sue you because you called 911 you know this system is falling apart.





new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join