Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Experts in Wills, Trusts
& Estate Planning

Annoying Belconnen Helicopter ?

By kaitaz - 20 May 2012 212

Does anybody know why there has been a helecopter circling the Belconnen/Northside area for the past few hours?

It is about 1:30 am and the noise has left me awake pondering if there is a legitimate or even necessary reason for its flight path. This has been a regular occurrence for the past 4 or so nights.

It does not sound like a military chopper (although I may be mistaken), and I an pretty sure it is not the SouthCare chopper either.

ED – Dot3 also sent in this post:

So what is it for????

….. it’s callsign is FEDPOL 21

UPDATE 21/05/12 10:50: eq2 has sent in this info:

flight paths

The circles around Belconnen were flown at around 1am.
Flight altitude was sustained at 4700ft for both flights.
Flights like these have not occurred on previous Saturdays.

data source:

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
212 Responses to
Annoying Belconnen Helicopter ?
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Mattenagger 4:27 pm 27 Feb 14

c_c™ said :

Wonder if the chopper is back. Eurocopter (looked like an EC130) was flying over Tuggeranong the other day, doing a very tight circle with the left side angled down.

I’ve been told the day time chopper being a noisy nuisance over Tuggers is ACTEW inspecting power lines for tree obstruction.

c_c™ 3:24 pm 27 Feb 14

Wonder if the chopper is back. Eurocopter (looked like an EC130) was flying over Tuggeranong the other day, doing a very tight circle with the left side angled down.

troutfisher 2:07 pm 27 Feb 14

HenryBG said :

johnboy said :

really shouldn’t be too hard to have a sensor listening for the rotor signature and turning off the lights automatically.

It would take a very *long* time to dissipate enough heat to get the shed temperature (30-degree plus, depending on how much they’ve spent on ventilation) down to something approaching the 0-5 degrees ambient outside at this time of year.

p1 said :

I wonder how often the police turn up at a door with a search warrant for the back shed, old to find the man of the house has a heater, couch, TV and beer fridge out there?

Half a dozen 1000W bulbs on for 20-hours a day creates a massive hot spot.

If I were them, I’d be switching them all to head, with the lights coming on at 4am, meaning the shed might just be cool enough come midnight. And get better insulation and some good ventilation with the exhaust releasing under the house.

And, stop voting for idiots who legislate against harmless behaviour.

Harmless ?

troutfisher 6:27 am 13 Jun 12

Thanks basket you have cleared up a few things there. At least you admitted that you have no idea if in fact there were any laws being broken, because no matter how much I searched I couldn’t find any reference to it.

I agree with some of your views and that a lot of what was happening could have been better handled with information, but I can see the point to have the aircraft taken off the internet to see where it was operating, not doing so would be akin to putting a tracker on every police car / bike on the road so everyone could tell where and when it would be ok to drive like a tool.

From a personal side of things, when I vote I think of things like a stronger policing presence on the beats, in cars and if it is possible to have a police helicopter on a more permanent basis (just like every other city in Australia – do some reading on how the Gold Coast got one) I would be more than happy to vote for someone who supported it.

basketofcat 10:41 pm 12 Jun 12

troutfisher said :

Still no response from basketof cat. I guess silence answers the question.

i’m stiil here! and you’re right, it was both pretty shithouse grammar and intent. “I sure don’t” was supposed to apply to both questions, on the laws and on the confidence. I still don’t know why they trained in the ACT if they were indeed training, why the PR side of the police would say one thing if they were actually doing another (or many others), why the had such constant patterns, why once their anonymity was breached it gave way to hushed secrecy, and whether or not it was done with the support and blessing of the AFP legal team.

do i still care as much as I did a few weeks ago? probably not… out of general interest I did wonder though how they’d get past the possibility that they were using unsworn cadets or unrecognised officers if they really were doing training exercises? those groups could be presented as being unable to properly identify a thing, a thing that then might be surreptitiously handed to some goons on the ground for a followup visit…

i’d also be interested to know which MLAs or MPs knew wtf was going on, and when, and could present it in a light that could justify me voting for them. because I sure as shit didn’t vote for this sort of thing.

could I imagine for voting for such a thing in the future? maybe.. but I personally don’t think the idea of act first, ask forgiveness later applies to situations involving big flying machinery, big guns, and gross invasion of privacy, legal or otherwise, when there’s no directly identifiable threat to property or person. counterterrorism ops were never raised by anyone else in this thread bar me. if they were using mr howard’s lovely laws to search for drugs and missing people, then c’mon, try the other one!

the whole deal would have been a lot less interesting if the AFP idiot in charge of communicating with CASA had asked them to keep the callsign secret or private from the very start. once you let the cat out of the bag… or basket…

troutfisher 9:57 pm 12 Jun 12

Still no response from basketof cat. I guess silence answers the question.

And now a little something for Dvaey

Low flying
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or

(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.

(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or

(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

(i) a search; or

(ii) a rescue; or

(iii) dropping supplies;

in a search and rescue operation; or

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

It would appear that there are exemptions in place for police work.

Thedarkone12 4:52 am 03 Jun 12

He has a reason to be miffed though. The War On Drugs is a massive failure that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and for the police to be wasting vital resources on trying to crack down on small grow ops which will just be replaced within the week is quite annoying.

Sadly though both the Police and Politicians make quite alot of money from the Drug War so reform will most likely never come, especially with the huge amount of Government lies and misinformation out there there still tainting the public mindset. (MDMA holes in brain. LSD Chromosome Damage, Reefer Madness, Marijuana brain damage, Shroom brain bleeding etc etc)

Gotta love the hypocritical attitude of the public though, perfectly fine to drink to you vomit, smoke and give children amphetamines, yet someone on some psychedelic and it’s off to the prison with them.

“We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience. Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.” – Niccolo Machiavelli (1532)

DrKoresh 8:12 pm 02 Jun 12

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

—–HenryBG—–Wouldn’t that be more useful than hassling potheads?—–

You do realise that the potheads are what caused the killing of Don Mackay?

I see why we are are having so much trouble communicating – you have no idea what’s going on.

Mackay wasn’t killed by potheads.
Nor was he killed by pony-tailed entrepreneurs using hydro systems to grow a couple of kg of pot 3 times a year.

He was killed by Italian mafia.
The same kind of creature that Winchester was likely killed by after they perceived him to have double-crossed them when bent Sydney coppers ripped off their AFP-“authorised” crop, none of which ended up at the conclusion of Operation Seville in a police lockup, all of it having been sold on the black market with zero interference from the law.

Now, if *only* the AFP would show a bit more initiative enforcing the law against the scary dudes with guns and the vast numbers of cops who work with them instead of picking on harmless amateur growers and smokers, things would be so much better for all of us.

And why was there such a problem with drugs at that time? Because of the pot heads that were using the drug, thus causing the demand that helped organised crime grow, which lead to Underbelly: A tale of two cities.

If you’re going to use that reasoning then at the very least follow it to it’s logical conclusion and blame the government for making it illegal in the first place.

HenryBG 8:06 pm 02 Jun 12

buzz819 said :

And why was there such a problem with drugs at that time? Because of the pot heads that were using the drug, thus causing the demand that helped organised crime grow, which lead to Underbelly: A tale of two cities.

Pot heads are perfectly happy smoking their pot without giving any money to organised crime.

As Mick Palmer is trying to tell you: prohibition doesn’t work. At all.
Prohibition funds organised crime.
Busting drug users and cannabis growers, in Mick Palmer’s own words, “makes no difference.

Not sure you’re quite grasping the concept that enforcing laws that don’t achieve anything is a waste of time and money.

troutfisher 5:59 pm 02 Jun 12

Hey basketofcat if you are still on here, it’s been a couple of ays now since I asked you what laws you thought were being broken by the helicopter. you know the part when you said :

“Do you have any idea of the number of laws and tests must be used in the generalised searches? Do you have full confidence that they’re all being respected and enforced? I sure don’t”

I will ask again in a couple of days just in case you forget. Just let us all know if you were just writing without thinking and hoping we would take you on your word by turning it into a question based on your opinion.


Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site