US ‘Public Use’ aviation – what are the airworthiness implications?

[Chas Edwards]

OK, I understand that when government entities operate helicopters they can operate under “public use” rules.

As I read it these effectively mean that as long as the government entity in question is not using the aircraft for commercial purposes and is not competing with commercial operators - eg carrying persons or property for hire or reward (is ‘compensation or hire’ the favoured US wwording?), they don’t fall under the normal rules of civil aviation and do not require an FAA Airworthiness Certificate (FAA form 8130-7). This is what allows them to use ex military types (Forest Service Cobras, Police OH-58s, Sheriff’s SH-3s, Border Patrol OH-6s, etc) which may have no FAA certification.

Right so far?

Like military aircraft these government helicopters don’t fall under FAA oversight (except with regard to certain air traffic rules), they do not have Airworthiness Certificates and they answer only to their own internal airworthiness authorities. So they don’t need the piece of paper that gives a civilian aircraft its legal authority to fly, and which guarantees that the aircraft currently meets relevant and applicable maintenance and airworthiness standards?

Why would that matter? We all know that the military branches have their own robust airworthiness authorities and procedures - in some ways more stringent and more useful than the FAA’s.

But is the same true of other Government agencies, Police aviation departments and the like, which, as government entities, national, state, county and city aviation units are able to operate under the same public use laws as the military?

I know that some (perhaps even most) Police Departments have always been commendably professional and extremely rigorous – but because they are not compelled to be, some are not - or do not have to be. Is even the very existence of such a loophole acceptable?

Do they have the same expertise and/or infrastructure to develop their own training, maintenance and airworthiness oversight departments that the military take for granted? And even if capable, are they required to do so?

I know that an Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP) was formed about ten years ago specifically to address the maintenance issues surrounding the various aircraft being operated by non-military government entities. I know that this ICAP drew up a credible and respected maintenance programme for such aircraft.

But I believe that ICAP has no authority, and that the ICAP guide remains advisory in nature and is not enforceable. I know that 15 agencies have signed up to it, but that while these cover most Federal law enforcement helicopters, plenty of more local operators could (and do?) slip between the gaps. ICAP’s goal is to ensure that government operations are as safe or safer than commercial operations. Is it succeeding? Can it succeed without compulsion?

As if this were not enough, I understand that under public use rules not only are these aircraft not required to have Airworthiness Certificates, but their pilots are not required to be licensed by the FAA nor to hold an FAA medical certificate either.

But surely no government department would allow unhealthy, unlicensed pilots to fly unairworthy aircraft on public duties?

In one case that I was told about, a particular Sheriff simply found a couple of deputies who had flown in the military, and used them to form the basis of his new flight department. The story goes that they then trained further pilots on their own authority, including a new Commanding Officer.

“The first time I met the Sergeant in charge, she was flying an OH-58 into the local heliport for maintenance. It was so scary that people were running for the hanger to get out of the way, thinking that she was going to crash. It turned out that she had only about 10 hours of instruction time from one of the other ‘flying cops’ and no formal instruction. They can just get in and go.” One horrified onlooker told me.

Tell me that it’s urban legend, and could not have happened, please!

In an advanced industrialized nation like the USA, the expectation is that public service aircraft should set the standard for safe and efficient civil air operations. But is that expectation realistic?

Are there actually good reasons for resisting tighter regulation? I know that some police aviation units believe that forcing them to obtain an airworthiness certificate for their helicopters would be cost prohibitive, and would prevent them from fully carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.

I know that some also feel that such regulation makes it more difficult to acquire useful ex-military assets which could not viably be sourced via the usual civilian market. Indeed it would be hard to see how the LA County Sheriff’s department (for example) could viably replace the capability offered by its SAR-roled US Navy surplus H-3 Sea Kings using a fully FAA-certificated platform.

[Gordy]

Long post for someone who is in another country--Chas--what is your agenda?

[Chas Edwards]

What's my agenda?

I've been dealing with people who are obviously passionate and worried about this, and I need to understand what they tell me more clearly, and to assess whether I'm getting a one-sided or skewed view from people who may have their own agenda. I have a sincere desire to educate myself, and there's nothing better than PPRuNe for getting the operator's perspective, and the perspective of the wider rotorcraft community.

And the whole way in which Government aviation is organised in the USA is very foreign to a Brit - the plethora of Government Departments and the bewildering array of Federal/State/County/City agencies (which differ from state to state) all make it very hard to follow.

Talking to State Troopers at Heli Expo it became clear that one state might have all Law Enforcement air organised at state level, while its neighbour might have a State Police air unit, augmented by county or city units, or both, or just 'local level' units. I didn't feel too bad about not knowing how it was organised, as the guys I was speaking to only knew how it was done in their state!

But I'd like to feel less woefully ignorant.

Over here, it's pretty simple - law enforcement agencies fly civilian aircraft, with the CAA certificating aircraft, maintenance and crewing, and the pilots (many of whom are ex-Mil) are all properly licenced CPLs or ATPLs.

The idea of plucking a Police Sergeant from the force and training him to fly on the air unit would not 'fly' here, and is therefore alien and interesting.

[Gomer Pylot]

The UK and the US have different governments, indeed different systems of government, and there is no reason for anything to be the same in the two countries. It is true that public use aircraft are not regulated by the FAA, and their pilots are not required to be licensed by it. That's the law here, like it or not. Most agencies require an FAA license, and maintain their aircraft in accordance with FAA practices, and the aircraft mostly have a standard airworthiness certificate. But none of this is required by law, and not all agencies abide by all, or indeed any, of these things. Surplus military aircraft are common in police agencies, and cost-cutting is not that unusual. If this frightens you, then by all means stay across the pond.

[No_7DAD]

Public Aircraft are operated by or for a government. The aircraft are operated and controlled by the public agency. In the US, the FAA does not have regulatory authority over the aircraft with two exceptions. The flight operations must still adhere to the Part 91 requirements, calling the tower, airspace, etc. and if the agency accepts compensation from another government agency for transport, that is FAA-controlled. The rest is as was noted by the earlier author. Just a small nit - there is no definition of Public Use that is codified. The only term is Pulic Aircraft as noted in the Law.

[jab]

I have no idea about the standard of training and I am sure it varies by agency and state. The issue of pilots not having FAA licences is no different to the military pilots of most countries who go through their system and earn a military qualification. These qualifications are normally obtained through hard work, sacrifice and dedication just like the civil guys and the standard of training is generally higher and more varied since there is more money available, does not mean civil instruction is inferior. They fly in the same airspace and conform to the civil rules to do so, just because they do not have a CAA issued piece of paper does not make them any less qualified or less safe.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that there is no formal training system for these agencies, simply because of US liability laws. Can you imagine the lawsuit if an agency helicopter crashes, for any reason, and injures or kills people on the ground? The pilot could sue the agency, even if it was blatant pilot error, and blame the accident on insufficient training.

Since the only pilots I know flying for a police agency are highly qualified with FAA licences, I am very curious to hear more about these rumours.

[SASless]

A short while back, we decided the Crown's way of doing things just didn't suit us....after a try at making salt water tea and some rather intense discourse....we kicked off a new approach to governance. It was founded on freedom and separation of powers so that inbred idiot offspring can not take power by mere rights of birth. We have to elect our idiots but at least it is the majority rule that does so.

Ours is a simple system if you understand it.....but one thing foreigners must understand....we don't care how you do it in Picadilly. We happen to like our own way of doing business.

One of the facets of our way of life here is we seek ways to make things happen....rather than seeking ways to frustrate progress.

Public Use operators generally exceed the requirements of the law and thus provide good value for cost in a safe manner. But then we see the law as being the minimum standard rather than try to write laws to cover every possible event.

Nick and I have had arguments about the role public use agencies should play but then he is in the business of selling helicopters where I see it from a taxpayers perspective.

[Gordy]

Nice answer Sasless.

Others have mentioned the liability aspect. This is what drives the system. I flew for a county SO and as such we were "public use"--having said that, I was flying a brand new 407 and myself and the other 2 pilots were all FAA licensed with more than enough hours. I do not know of any agency using non-FAA licensed pilots.

[Chas Edwards]

Yes SASless. (I can't seem to insert a rolleyes here!)

Of course the concept of democracy is entirely foreign to us here in Blighty.

When was it that you gave women the vote? 1920? (Two years after we did).

And how about extending suffrage to 18 year olds? 1971 (Two years after we did).

As to inbred idiot offspring, I thought that was a perfect description of GWB......

I wasn't criticising the US way of doing things, I was seeking to understand it.

I have some sympathy with those who resist the 'dead hand of bureaucracy' because of its stultifying effect on progress, though when it comes to aviation, I am a firm believer in the need for legislation and enforcement to cater for the 'bad apples', however rare they may be.

Cowboy methods are great if you're rounding up cows, but maybe the FAA is the right organisation for looking after aviation?

And if the law is a 'minimum standard' then where is the argument against the ICAP guide on maintenance being compulsory and enforceable?

Why shouldn't it be an absolute requirement that pilots flying public aircraft should have a CPL and a specified number of hours P1, perhaps with exemptions for military trained pilots?

Why not lay down minimum training standards?

[rick1128]

Having flown public use in the past, I have found that much of the misunderstanding is caused by urban legends. All the agencies I dealt with had much stricter requirements than the FAA. A great number of the 'public use' aircraft are not even owned or operated by government agencies. They are owned by private companies and operated under contract to various government agencies. And they still fall under Public Use. The agencies that do the contracting have strict requirements for maintenance, pilot qualifications, crew rest, etc.

As for bring police officers off the street into the aviation division, it makes much more sense to do that than try to teach a pilot all the streets, back streets and alleys. Plus they have their police experience to fall back on when on patrol. The police departments I have talked with do all their training in house and fell they maintain better control that way. And how each geographical area sets up their aviation sections depends on what works for them. And that is the way it should be.

[Gomer Pylot]

The short answer is that in the US, anything that isn't specifically prohibited is permitted, while in many locations it's the opposite, and anything that isn't specifically permitted is prohibited. It's a matter of philosophy, and each country decides its own philosophy. Brits shouldn't be questioning US laws, just as we shouldn't be questioning British laws. Things are the way they are here, and won't likely change anytime soon. We do have a constitution, which prohibits the federal government from exercising all the powers it might like, and many of us support that constitution. I've been relieved of my sworn duty to support and defend it, but I will still do so, as long as I have breath.

[Chas Edwards]

The idea that questioning this is somehow unacceptable is a mite disturbing.

Even constructive criticism should not be 'off limits'.

Because the lessons of how organisational arrangements affect safety transcend national boundaries - and those lessons need to be learned by everyone.

Safety is everyone's business, as they say.

And it's not as though I'm campaigning to change things in the USA, though I'm interested in the view that 'limiting the powers of the Federal Government' seems a more important aim to some than does maximising safety and professional standards.

This is a particularly interesting issue, as it is clear that the hands-off approach, relying on voluntary participation, works a lot of the time, and that many of these agencies do have much stricter requirements than are required by the FAA.

But not all, and there are clearly some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.

And I would question that the idea that the best way of recruiting Police pilots is from the ranks of beat policemen. The standards, skillsets and competences required for the two occupations are very different, and while I would not wish to disrespect Police officers nor put down the value of what they do, I would suggest that while anyone with the intelligence and skills to be an above average commercial helicopter pilot could probably learn the Policeman's job, the reverse is not necessarily true.

I am fascinated that people are reacting with anger and irritation to the fact that a foreigner is questioning the way things are done, and that almost no-one is answering any of the questions I've raised.

We're all aviators, and isn't safety the most fundamental issue that should unite us?

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
I used to favor the 'train pilots to be policemen' theory, until I actually flew with some policemen trained to be pilots. To make sure the scenario is set - they weren't doing anything more than patrolling from the air - no SWAT team insertions or Search and Rescue. The local knowledge of the area they worked, and the knowledge of police procedures and more importantly the radios and their methods of communication were far more valuable than any stick time. The helicopter was pretty simple to fly in comparison.
But if you're doing anything other than aerial patrolling, this needs to be re-thought.

[Chas Edwards]

Thanks, Shawn,

In the UK, Police helicopters routinely fly with a professional pilot and two trained Police observers who handle the police specific procedural and comms stuff.

The system seems to work very well.

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
Yes, but who is paying for it? The operation I saw was a joint venture by 5 communities who had two R-44s in the air Thursday thru Sunday night from 5 pm to 3 am, and one in the air other times. The additional cost for the aircraft (not the officers who were going to be doing something anyway) was paltry and never an issue for the community's budgets.
The salary for an additional professional pilot is not inconsequential, and someone has to pay that.
The helicopter, likewise was only as complicated as it needed to be (a Police version of the R-44) and it did the job very well (FLIR, Searchlight, specialist navigation system, all the radios).
By the way, these folks were very close to the Robinson factory and the aircraft were in the factory quite regularly for periodic maintenance.
The point is that taxpayers are paying for all this stuff -one turbine engine costs more than a police R-44, and salaries aren't small.
This is slightly off topic, but hopefully does shed some light on the subject.

[rudestuff]

Unfortunately in the UK the campaign agaist aviation - lets call it CAA for short - wouldn't dream of allowing the police to use anything with less than 7 engines that cost $5000 an hour to run... no matter what kind of reliabiliy/safety arguments you throw at them. No common sense. And the police are just as bad - they lock their police cars up at night...

[Chas Edwards]

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Police pilot.

I have, however, flown with Police pilots on operational sorties, and am entirely familiar with the very demanding nature of the job.

There may be circumstances where the use of a light, single piston helicopter is appropriate for police/law enforcement support, but I would suggest that such circumstances would be unusual.

I would further suggest that a professional pilot is worth his salary in this environment, and that someone with PPL levels of skill and experience would be unlikely to be able to undertake the role effectively or safely.

It would be cheaper for Southwest to employ PPLs as pilots, but no-one in their right mind would suggest that they should do so. Flying an airliner is beyond the competence of a PPL. The same holds true of police aviation - the job demands a professional pilot. And yes, you have to pay for that. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

I would always prioritise operational effectiveness and safety (both for the crew and for the public on the ground) over minimising cost to the taxpayer.

I would suggest that US attitudes to taxation and central government may be mitigating against giving airborne law enforcement the tools that it needs to do the job, and may be forcing some operators into sub-optimal practises and procedures, in a misguided attempt to pare spending to the bone.

[Chas Edwards]

For Police ops, you may be operating at night, in foul weather, hot and high, often over built up areas. You probably want to carry FLIR, Nitesun, loudspeakers, and perhaps a winch or fast rope system. You might want to be able to evacuate a casualty, or transport a police dog and handler.

Do you want a PPL doing that?

Are the more go-ahead air support units wrong in opting mainly for turbine twins?

Yes an R-22 or an R-44 is cheap but can it do the job, and can it do the job adequately and safely?

[rick1128]

Charles,

The other evening I attended the Eastern Region Helicopter Council meeting. The members are helicopter pilots from all over the eastern Mid coastal area of the USA. NY, NJ, CT, PA. While there I talked with several pilots for NY State Police, NYPD and NJ State police. First of all, none of these departments and no other that I have heard of uses private pilots. They are have Commercial or better. The requirements are strict. In many cases there is a waiting list. The officer must get his/her private on their own. Most get it in a fixed wing aircraft. When accepted into the program they fly as an observer and receive helicopter training. During this time period they are evaluated. Usually by several different training pilots. If they are deemed acceptable, they are then trained to commercial standards and certificated. After they have their commercial certificate they continue to fly with an instructor pilot and they swap 'legs' until the department is ready to turn them loose with an observer, usually an experienced observer.

For SWAT, rescue or similar assignments, they departments generally require certain levels of experience and ratings. Law enforcement aviation is a tough job, with little respect from anyone, they are proud of the job they do and work very hard to keep it as safe as possible. In fact, they formed an association to help in that. Considering that they fly a lot a night and over congested areas, their safety record is very good.

As for kicking the FAA around, I can do that, I pay part of their salaries. You don't see me kicking Britch CAA around, even though I believe that flying a 747 on a revenue trip from LAX to London with an engine out is not a smart or safe thing to do.

[Chas Edwards]

Good points, well made.

I absolutely concur with you re the 747 Trimotor incident.

However, I would violently disagree with your inference that only the taxpayers in a particular jurisdiction have the right to question or kick a particular airworthiness or safety body.

Safety is EVERYBODY's business, and where the CAA deserve criticism, someone's nationality should not prevent them from raising a concern.

We are all professional aviators, after all.

I also hear what you say with regard to the Law Enforcement pilots to whom you spoke. The problem does not come with those agencies who rigorously follow good practise without being compelled to do so. Minimum standards are there to legislate for the less scrupulous agencies who do not do the job properly. A Police Department that requires pilots to fly under supervision until they have a CPL and have completed adequate role training is 'doing it right' - but anecdotally it seems that there are a small number of air support units that do not.

Nor does a State Trooper office that uses new, fully certificated 412s and 407s, maintained 'regardless of expense' need to learn the lessons of operating helicopters with marginal performance in this challenging role. But a Sheriff's department operating an R44 or an Enstrom might well need stern and robust 'guidance', if not legislation.

[Gomer Pylot]

While this discussion may be interesting, it will have no effect on any government agency on any continent. The US will continue doing things the way they are, regardless of what any European, or American, or anyone else, may say on an internet forum. I'm not sure I see the point of the exercise.

[SASless]

Chas,

Perhaps you might find more fertile ground to growl at the UK CAA and the British way of aviation rather than looking at US Public Use aviation.

There are heaps of topics that spring to mind when we bring the CAA to the court of public opinion.

Such silly things as having to telephone an airport to "book in"....vice just showing up and calling on the aircraft radio as we do in the backwards US and A.

Or.....having to pass your "details" to every station you call during a flight....if all I am doing is passing through or by an airport and wish to advise them of my presence why must I rattle on about all the other things they ask for?

Or...why does the CAA charge so bloody much to stamp a piece of paper....and take two weeks to do so....then cock it up by making a mistake which prevents you from using your license and then take two more weeks to make the correction....all the while you sit idly tweedlying your thumbs?

Lets chew on the CAA system for a while and see which one is friendlier to the user!

[Shawn Coyle]

SASless:
I never could quite understand why there didn't seem to be any flight plans in the UK for low-level, non IFR civil aircraft. Would have saved a whole lot of bother.
Isn't there some kind of ICAO requirement for this?

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
The police operation that I saw, and a great majority of police operations in the USA are aerial patrol cars. They have FLIR and nightsun, and the observer operates those, not the pilot. They don't carry SWAT teams or pick up injured people. They also don't fly in bad weather. (And why should a professional pilot flying a police helicopter fly in less-than-legal weather, as you suggest might be the case?)
The helicopters they operate are very reliable, easier to fly than a Jetranger, and do an excellent job.
The local knowledge of the pilots is far more worthwhile than thousands of hours of flight time. The work seldom demands exceptional piloting skills or experience - it's set up that way.
For the majority of police operations, the standard of airworthiness is as high as any civil operator. Unfortunately, the bad apples make a bad name for all the rest. Given the size of the US and the number of cities, counties and states that operate public use aircraft, there are bound to be bad apples.

[rjsquirrel]

Charles,

Before you get down from the soapbox (Hyde Park rumor network, eh?) try to see it as it really is, instead of inserting bumper sticker thoughts at regular intervals ("safety is everybody's business..." :ugh:)

Before tinkering with another system, try finding out a few things about the one that you think works so well - your British one.

You have:

Half the number of aircraft, as a percent of the population

Half the number of pilots, as a percent of the population

Half the number of hours flown per year, as a percent of the population

Twice the cost per flight hour in any type of flying machine.

Twice the cost to get a flight license of any type.

Slightly greater percentage of accidents of every type

A greater percentage of students leaving the country to get training than staying to pay the high fees.

A great percentage of the owners leaving the airworthiness system and using N reg to operate due to the onerous rules layered on the owner.

In short, your system has quite well managed to properly squelch aviation en masse.

Now please be concise, what do you have to teach the United States about aviation?

[SASless]

Shawn,

There being no Flight Service Stations (FSS), that kinda puts paid to flight plans from the gitgo! Of course one has to call every Tom Dick and Harry to get the QFE setting.

I bet some of these guys go "Radio call, Radio call......GO!" too!

[darrenphughes]

Why can't you guys stick to the topic of Chas' first post?

Why does it have to be about; "you Brits better stop talking s**t about us Americans"?

I think that Chas has brought up some very important questions, and they should be even more important to the Americans in the forum, especially when you have live under these "police pilots" flying around above you.

What difference does it make if it was a Brit that posed the questions, it doesn't make them any less valid.

On a side note; I have to agree with the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" statement. Take the NYPD for example. Their whopping $33K starting salary is certainly reflected by the caliber of most of their Officers and PPO's, not all but the majority.
Lets hope that most of the other agencies around the country pick from the best in their ranks and not the NYPD way of needing to know someone high up to get into the likes of the aviation unit.

[Chas Edwards]

Gomer,

What's the point of discussing the issue? As I say, I want to be better informed. Not to do something about it, necessarily, but to gain an understanding.

Y'know, I read a good newspaper every day, and watch the TV news, and I read lots of magazines. I can't affect the outcome of any of the issues that I read about, but I'm still interested in knowing what's going on, and how the world works outside my own little bubble.

SASless/RJ,

Where have I once praised the CAA? I actually agree with many of your points (I'm a user of UK airspace, so I can almost guarantee that I care more passionately about the CAA and its failings, the f***ing BAA, NATS et al than you do - though I'd suggest that while the CAA's failings, the lack of air mindedness and government support for aviation are all great topics for discussion, they warrant a separate thread).

But why is your reaction to my questions that I should stick to what directly affects me? Why should it be 'none of my business' as to how police/law enforcement aviation works in a country which I visit and work in frequently? Aerospace is my living, and airworthiness and safety are my business. Not all lessons from the US are applicable in my jurisdiction, but some are. Why do you seem to want to suppress my freedom of speech and my ability to educate myself?

Which bit of:

"I would violently disagree with your inference that only the taxpayers in a particular jurisdiction have the right to question or kick a particular airworthiness or safety body.

Safety is EVERYBODY's business, and where the CAA deserve criticism, someone's nationality should not prevent them from raising a concern.

We are all professional aviators, after all."

do you object to or have a problem understanding?

Shawn,

I don't suggest or condone CPLs (or anyone else) flying in non legal conditions, but I do suggest that while a CPL is prepared to operate closer to the margins and limits, a PPL should stay far away from them.

I realise that most Air Support Units are very good, very rigorous and very professional, but it is the exceptions - the bad apples, if you will - that make the difference between 'perfection' and 'room for improvement'.

And for as long as there are bad apples who aren't being picked up and disciplined then where's the incentive for operators to "do it right"?

Doing it properly always costs more, and I'm not sure that you can rely on people to 'do the right thing' without compulsion - especially if economic imperatives drive them to cut corners.

[Chas Edwards]

And I'm a 'right Charlie' so when you refer to me as Charles, I have trouble realising who you're talking too!

[jab]

Chas

It may help if you can find out and mention who the bad apples are, I get the feeling nobody knows any specifics on who, where and what public use entities are being referred to. Public use covers a lot of ground and painting all with the same brush will generate angry and unhelpful responses so try and narrow the field down a tad.

[Chas Edwards]

Really? I thought that leaving the criticism as being non-specific might be easier for some to stomach than being specific. One doesn't want a witch-hunt.

[SASless]

Chas dear lad,

there are clearly some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.


As you clearly know the identities of some operators whose standards fall below that acceptable to a commercial operator.....perhaps you might care to put a name on them for us.

Make it easy on yourself....name just one and explain how you came to make that judgement you allude to in your statement I have quoted.

[Shawn Coyle]

Chas:
The problem with trying to sort out the bad apples from the public use operators is that there is no guarantee that they wouldn't do the same thing if they were regulated by the authority.
The oversight by the authorities in most countries is that they do not have the manpower to tightly regulate the industry. Canada and the US are both woefully short of authority manpower to oversee their industries.
So putting public use into the 'normal' way of doing things would not likely deter those who would skirt around the law.

[Chas Edwards]

In these litigious times, why would I name and shame a specific operator?

Are you trying to suggest that without my doing so you'll be forced to conclude that I am lying, or that my contentions are mistaken?

Are you saying that you believe that everyone's squeaky clean and that everything's peachy?

[SASless]

Chas,

One can quote accident reports, newspaper articles, and other sources without risking them pesky lawsuits.

In most debates one must be prepared to base statements upon some definable fact or facts.

Merely stating there are rotten apples in a barrel without examining the first apple is merely chin music and not founded upon any logical precept.

[Chas Edwards]

SASless,

Unless you’re disputing that there are any problems, then I don’t need to name names.

If you do dispute that, I’m interested, as that doesn’t seem to be the general view, even here, where most seem to think that there is a problem, but that it’s not widespread, not common, not significant, and not worth spending money on solving.

I don’t have newspaper articles to quote, my evidence is anecdotal – from private or confidential conversations with long-standing members of the community – from helicopter maintenance, support, service and manufacturing conversations.

That is anecdotal evidence, and should not be enough to convict anyone in a court of law. It’s partly for that reason (as well as fear of litigation) that I don’t want to name and shame and drag anybody in front of the court of public opinion. There’s also the consideration that confidentiality (as we use in CHIRPS) might usefully highlight the true nature and extent of the problem.

And anecdotal evidence should be quite sufficient to justify examining, thinking about and discussing the problem.

Some posts ago, someone asked what was the point of discussing the issue. Someone else questioned my motivation for asking questions. Others chose to try to steer the conversation towards the manifold failings of the UK CAA. (That would be a bad idea, as it’s really not much of a debate when everyone agrees!)

Let me turn the question around. What is your motivation for wanting to silence these questions and to pour scorn on the anecdotal evidence I offer? What is the point of keeping silent on this issue? Why are people so unwilling to discuss this?

[rick1128]

Just about every law enforcement agency in the USA that operates aircraft are members of the Airborne Law Enforcement Assoc. They have some very strict standards. The agencies that don't belong from what I have been able to find out also have strict requirements. The helicopter is a very expensive asset for these departments and they understand that. It is not easily replaced. Even surplus OH58's and OH6's are expensive to operate and maintain, without having an inexperienced pilot operate them.

As for twins being safer than singles, I have been told by a well respected member of this board that the Twin Squirrel is not as safe as the BH206. Interesting.

As for piston helicopters, they are no more or less safe as turbines, if they are operated within limits and properly maintained. One department on the west coast (I believe it was Long Beach) operated Enstroms for many years without any major problems. I was told their Enstrom fleet had over 17,000 hours on each unit.

Public Safety clause covers much more than police. They also cover fire fighting aircraft also. The airborne officers have the same goal as the ground officers, to go home at the end of each shift.

[SASless]

Chas,

You seem to be a majority of one that insists there is a problem and there are problem agencies extant.

Hearsay evidence is useless in proving the existence of a problem.

I fear you are just like Chicken Little running around sayiing the Sky is falling.....as you cannot or will not provide any substantive information whereby the rest of us can be convinced of a "problem" with the Law Enforcement Agencies in the USA that operate aircraft.

Give us a for instance....point out one accident...one serious mishap....one investigation that has shown a problem....just one please.

[HeliMark]

Chas, first off, yes there are bad apples. Luckily very very few.

Something that you may, or may not know. When the military "gives" away surplus aircraft to public entities, it really makes a number of people in the industry mad. It does not matter that the aircraft is put into as good or better shape then it was in the military. Gosh, how dangerous is this aircraft flying over the city, but not so if the military is flying it. You have to buy from us. It is the only safe thing to do, just forget that it is almost identical to what I sell the military. A money thing.

And I know of no agency that does not use rated, experienced mechanics to maintain their aircraft(s). Instead of using the civilian checklist, they use the military version for military aircraft.

And show me any agency that does not use rated pilots. The ones that get in-house training are trained as any pilot would, except most of the time more advanced, and all get their FAA license. Otherwise they get kicked out of the program. And like what someone said earlier, the normal path is ground pounder, then picked as an observer and work as an observer for several years. Then a pilot position and after passing what is required, that person is watched over very closely until they get a good amount of experience.

And like what Shawn said, a Police helicopter that both the pilot and observer who are policeman(women) make a more effective team. And this does not mean that the pilot is any less professional then you are.

And yes, I am a current police pilot flying a single engine turbine helicopter over a major city at night.

[Gomer Pylot]

Chas, the fact remains that the US federal government simply does not have the constitutional power to enforce what you seem to want enforced. Whether or not it's a good idea has no bearing on the situation, because legality and safety are not the same thing. I can assure you that there will be no constitutional amendment concerning this in our lifetimes.

[Heli-phile]

Post deleted.


Why involve the Bush family in a rotorhead debateExactly: this is Rotorheads, not Jetblast :rolleyes:

Senior Pilot
Rotorheads Moderator

[Jackonicko]

Senior Pilot,

Thanks!


Helimark,

Wouldn't it be safer if you were flying a twin with Class 1 performance?

Of course some object to the Police/Border Patrol/Forest Service use of ex-military helicopters for commercial reasons - the agencies aren't buying sparkly new helicopters which help (say) Bell's bottom line, and give business to a dealer, etc. That's not what I'd call a good reason.

But others object for more 'high minded' reasons. The airworthiness of (inevitably very old) ex-military aircraft, once they're being outside the military airworthiness and engineering environment is sometimes questionable, otherwise there'd be fewer restrictions on civilian operators using them.



Incidentally, I understand that one organisation which does not require CPLs in all of its flying 'billets' is the Border Patrol.

I believe that there have been questions about pilot quality in some areas of the Forest Service and some of its associated state-level bodies.

I quoted a report about one Sheriff's Department.

Some here acknowledge that there are a very, very few bad apples.

[MightyGem]

And like what Shawn said, a Police helicopter that both the pilot and observer who are policeman(women) make a more effective team.
Helimark, you can say that, because that's how you operate and it works for you, but you can't state it as a fact.

Consider: you have two Police officers in the aircraft one of whom is the pilot. When on scene searching for an offender, you have one officer who can devote nearly 100% of his time looking for that offender while the other could be using nearly 100% of his time being the pilot, depending on the circumstances, giving an effectivity rating of well under 200%

When we are on scene searching for an offender, I have two officers in the aircraft who can devote 100% of their time looking for the offender while I fly the aircraft. When the situation allows, I can also give some of my time, putting our effectivity rating well above the 200% mark.

Jackonicko.

In answer to your question about UK ASUs with one observer, unless they've changed recently, Devon and Cornwall are the only ones who fly with a single observer. How they manage a pursuit operating the camera, reading the map, doing the commentary, etc etc, only they could tell you.

[HeliMark]

Jackonicko, yes you are correct, and boy would I love that. Lets just not get into that time honored argument of the statistics on single vs. twin:ugh: .

But reality of the budget game is that most departments do not want to spend the extra money for the twin helicopter and associated expenses. I know of one department that the budget for the helicopter division is over 30%. Not so sure the big wigs are willing to jack that up. Unless the federal government implements rules for twins, I doubt we will see it in our lifetime. Although I have heard some limited talk of wanting twins.

One thing that some people fail to realize is that the departments that receive these ex-military helicopters need to buy parts for them. And employ mechanics. Without the ability to get these helicopters, they would not have a helicopter division.

And yes, I agree that age does play a factor. Hard to regulate when to put the aircraft out to pasture. I know of one department that has ex-military aircrafts that have spent considerable amount of time on the ground due to mechanical issue's. And this department will not fly them unless all safety issue's are dealt with.

I think any civilian could operate an ex-military helicopter just as well as the government. My only explanation to that is you and I know that the government hates to give something to us. They only know how to take away:{ .

Could not comment on the Forrest service. I am "carded" to work and fly them. Couldn't say what the requirements are, they have just come in and say ok for our experienced pilots.

MightyGem, yes it does work for us, but also consider this. Since I do not have the luxury of having a third person, my being a police officer gives us maybe a 105-140% effective unit. I know this is an ongoing disagreement, but knowing what my observer is looking for because I also know what is happening on the ground due to my experience only makes us a better unit.

[MightyGem]

but knowing what my observer is looking for because I also know what is happening on the ground due to my experience only makes us a better unit.
Agreed, but it didn't take me too long to figure out what was going on on the ground when I started this job. Just different ways of doing the same job.

[rick1128]

One other note about using a civilian pilot is liability. Police helicopters have been shot at numerous times. What is the department's liability if a civilian contract gets shot doing a police officer's job?

[darrenphughes]

Alright, so I know that this topic has been almost argued to death but I just got this headline in Vertical Magazine's daily news and thought it might give a good example of some of Chas' concerns in his initial post.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080602/VIDEO01/806020661/1661

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080602/BREAKING/331190322/1661

I know this is probably just 1 or 2 jackass' at work(it does take a jackass pilot to shine a searchlight at another pilot on a night flight, doesn't it?) and everyone shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, but it might also highlight the need for some sort of better regulation. At least in the Sarasota Sheriff's Aviation Department.

[SASless]

Rick,

Good question....but ask Bristow and CHC what their liability is if a pilot gets shot in Nigeria!

Perhaps Chuks can give us some insight as he was very close to such an incident in Lagos one fine morning.