Who gives a rat

[teufler]

Listening to Troop C aviation TG 3, I hear the read back from the arresting officer. Once in a while the officer says , "or they were radar equipped". Course the airplane could not see the "radar equipped car", and there no law in Missouri for cars and radar detectors, so why is it important to pass the information to the airplane, so and so car was radar equipped. As for using a radar detector for an airplane, that technique does not work. And the chase cars are out of sight so they are not emitting a radar signature. You don't hear them say, so and so car had a cell phone, or they were texting...Sounds like useless information. Next thing we will hear , so and so car had a dog in the front seat and the dog had no seat belt on....

 

[wtp]

just a thought

there are radar units that transmit radar to confuse the cops. it puts out pulses that give a slower speed on their units. could this be what they mean ? the air unit calls out a true speed but the ground unit gets a legal speed. and as you could guess they are illegal.

 

[iMONITOR]

Are radar detectors legal there? Maybe they're just going harder (no breaks, or lesser charge) on those with detectors?

 

[teufler]

radar jammers were not used. A helo or airplane is the check device and the cars just go after the car when the air unit advises "you got a blue car, 82" then the car pulls out and the air unit says, "your behind the right car". So radar has nothing to do with stopping or evading the airplane or helicopter> No radar on the highway , just timing through the blocks. The ground units are not in a position to detect any speeds.

 

[kruser]

It's all about statistics plain and simple.

They use the info to determine what method of speed enforcement is more effective.

Why they need to relay the info back to the aircraft is unknown unless it is noted in their reports as well.

Sometimes it seems like just plain humor from the ground unit for those in the aircraft judging from my years of monitoring MOHP. This type chatter has existed since they started using aircraft or other non-radar methods for speed enforcement around our area.

Mainly statistical info though.

You will often hear seat belt violations as well. I assume that goes in the reports.

 

[Ensnared]

VASCAR

I've encountered Missouri Highway Patrol using Vascar on many occasions while traveling on IH35 and IH44. One such hot spot used to be in Lebanon, MO on IH44. I also used to hear ground units talking to aircraft near Springfield on IH44 as well. When I did intercept said traffic, it was on the old low band, not trunking. I'm pretty sure they were using Vascar and not radar.

 

[teufler]

I can understand seat belt violations as that is something the vehicle officer can see, and not the airplane. Thisa would be a violation but just having a radar detector that can not pick up an airplane, is just silly.

 

[wtp]

stats are i the numbers

i would agree that they want to justify the plane catching the guys with a detector.
the pilot would keep the stats because he is the main guy catching them, the old "how many i caught" and with a detector how many would have gotten away.

meant to say stats are in the numbers

 

[teufler]

A dectector means nothing as a deterent to the airplane. A meaningless statistic. A scanner is a better deterent, but I have never heard the troop say, "oh he had a scanner". Years ago, when I lived in Kansas , you could monitor the airplane from 50 miles away. They flew at 5000' and would clock, through the blocks for along way. Then they would say, "such and such car at 85 at mile post something". Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out an airplane is ahead. The airplane does not emit a radar signal, so adding to his report so many cars with dectectors means nothing.

 

[kruser]

A dectector means nothing as a deterent to the airplane. A meaningless statistic. A scanner is a better deterent, but I have never heard the troop say, "oh he had a scanner". Years ago, when I lived in Kansas , you could monitor the airplane from 50 miles away. They flew at 5000' and would clock, through the blocks for along way. Then they would say, "such and such car at 85 at mile post something". Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out an airplane is ahead. The airplane does not emit a radar signal, so adding to his report so many cars with dectectors means nothing.

That's what the so called "Bear Tracker" series attempted to detect!
They were programmed with known aircraft freqs as well as extenders and if they broke the higher squelch setting, they sounded an alert that there could be air speed enforcement in the area.
I owned a few but can't say I ever used one. At least not for evading speed traps!

 

[Citywide173]

A dectector means nothing as a deterent to the airplane. A meaningless statistic. ..... The airplane does not emit a radar signal, so adding to his report so many cars with dectectors means nothing.

You're not seeing the point here. It is a VERY important statistic, as it indicates the number of cars that could have potentially evaded the ground units. This statistic goes hand in hand with the revenue generated by the citations when compared to the efficacy of the use of the planes. It is a statistic that justifies the pilot's (and any other plane staff) job.

 

[teufler]

I see that now. I am surprised that they don't pass to the airplane, "they had a scanner ", because this too is a potentially a tool to evade a airplane, and some ground units. I don't drive anymore as a stroke did me in for driving though I used to drive 60,000 miles a year. I enjoyed listening to the states enforcement officers, in pretty much central time zone. I admit that I drove , on cruise control, usually 7-8 over. Never got stopped at those speeds. I did when I got 10 or more over. Over the years I just stayed below 10 and listened to the radios. But the statistic of "potentially evading ground units makes sense. Thanks.....

 

[iamhere300]

The other thing than justifying the method of using an aircraft and timing, is troopers are usually pretty good about giving no breaks or warnings to anyone using a radar detector.

If you are just driving along and you get pulled over that is one thing, but if you are pre-disposed to speed as some many consider a radar detector for, then 9 is fine 10 your mine does not play into things as much.

 

[canav844]

Does anyone have a recording?

Just speculating if the context were a little different:
Could the Officer be denoting if the squad car was radar equipped? In some jurisdictions airplane tickets require both officers to show up in court, but if the plane talked in the car and the Trooper in the car could confirm the speed with radar, may make fewer court dates or stronger court cases.

 

[teufler]

no the cars lay in wait on the ramps then get called, "its show time, got one at XX, blue one going by right now". Radar detectors are helpful to remind you of the speed. Scanners can remind you of the eyes in the sky. Never have heard officers that so and so had a scanner though. Citywide173 best explained that why noting that a car had a radar detector was important .

 

[iamhere300]

no the cars lay in wait on the ramps then get called, "its show time, got one at XX, blue one going by right now". Radar detectors are helpful to remind you of the speed. Scanners can remind you of the eyes in the sky. Never have heard officers that so and so had a scanner though. Citywide173 best explained that why noting that a car had a radar detector was important .

Notice I agree with Citywide - but it is also about the radar detector and any chance at a break.

And in most cases if a scanner is in the car, they officer won't say "he has a scanner" but he may say
that the person or vehicle is "equipped".

As in, "cars be advised subject is equipped".

or, "yeah, he is equipped"

 

[teufler]

Adds to "he's packing" I guess.

 

[flhays]

If they mentioned anything about a seat belt they are keeping track of the seat belt verbal warnings. Still could have been a ticket also, but hey some body got a break, instead of two tickets.