UK Police helicopter budget cuts [Archive]

Senior Pilot

2nd Dec 2009, 17:13

More from the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6710922/Police-should-patrol-alone-to-save-money.html)

Police should patrol alone to save money
Officers should patrol alone to help save more than £500 million a year from police budgets, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 4:15PM GMT 02 Dec 2009

The number of police helicopters will also be cut by a fifth while overtime and back room staff will be slashed, the Policing White Paper revealed.

The measures sparked fresh fears among senior officers than police numbers could eventually fall as a result of the drive to cut costs.

The Home Office document on police reform, Protecting the Public, said the initiatives could lead to annual savings of £545 million by 2014, starting with a saving of £100 million next year.

The paper said "single patrols can be useful in engaging communities" but also referred to it as increasing "efficient and effective deployment".

Earlier this year, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ordered his officers to walk the beat on their own, rather than in pairs, in a return to more traditional policing.

Other measures will see the police helicopter fleet reduce from 33 to 26, and a cut in overtime of £70 million a year within four years. Forces will pool forensic work and procurement of uniforms and patrol cars and be given incentives to merge.

A reduction in back room staff would also save £75 million a year by 2013.

Mr Johnson insisted front line policing remained a priority, adding: "We didn't get to this level of 16,000 more police officers and the introduction of PCSOs for the first time only to see that evaporate.

"In straightened economic times you should be looking at how you can make savings, not cuts and how you can dedicate more resources to the front line."

But Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston QPM, President of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said: ‘We are broadly supportive of the measures featured in this document although we also harbour some serious fears about certain aspects.

"The Service needs to know just what Home Office officials consider to be ‘back-office’ and at what stage police officer numbers and significant numbers of police staff jobs will be threatened in order to achieve such swingeing cuts."

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said: "It is important that any cuts do not impinge on front line policing services or public safety.

"The public cannot pay the price of political decision-making.

And Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), warned: "Overtime reflects the realities of modern policing, including its unpredictability.

"The police service is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week organisation and has to be able to respond flexibly to any event or crime at any time."

I thought Police helicopters are part of "Front Line Policing" :confused:

Fortyodd2

2nd Dec 2009, 17:43

Yet another expensive cost cutting exercise from New Liarbore :ugh:
Why is this government so desperate to learn everything the hard way??

XXPLOD

2nd Dec 2009, 17:55

Speaking as a serving police officer this will be interesting. I'm not saying the service couldn't be more efficient with procurement, but it will take more than slightly better deals on vehicles and uniforms to make £545BN savings within 5 years.

The reality is that large parts of police budgets are fixed e.g. wages & pensions. Other significant costs leave very little room for trimming without affecting frontline service delivery: vehicles, buildings, training.

Forces are already bolstering resources through recruiting more Special Constables and police staff volunteers. I see radical workforce modernisation as the only way in which these sort of savings will be met. E.g. the model in Surrey of having what in effect are PCSOs within response policing teams. We'll see more civilians in CID and major crime teams.

And not forgetting this is PPRUNE - air support is definately in for a tough time. Regionalisation is the way things will go, which will almost without doubt lead to fewer airframes. This is a slippery slope - the USP of air support is rapid response within the 'golden hour' of a critical incident. If the aircraft has a 30+ minute flight to be overhead the incident, then it won't take long before people start to question the value added.

handysnaks

2nd Dec 2009, 19:16

I think we've all been expecting it. It's just a question of when and who!:(

minigundiplomat

2nd Dec 2009, 19:34

I bet speed cameras stay.

jayteeto

2nd Dec 2009, 20:11

Dead interesting!! I have just quit Merseyside for a new horizon, partly because of the threat of our unit closing. It is more complicated than it seems here. Each force (in general terms) decides on the need for a helicopter and then allocates funding. It is ok saying that 5 helicopters will go, but no single entity is in charge of air support at the moment. There is no current way of saying, 'ok, you, you you and you are to close'. It sounds like we lock 43 Chief Cons in a room and when they decide who is to go, they will produce coloured smoke from a chimney and we can let them out!!

ShyTorque

2nd Dec 2009, 20:19

Some made themselves famous by introducing Police aviation, by proving it could save man-hours and money. Now someone else is to try to save money by getting rid?

What goes around will come around; but I reckon it will be a brave CC who is first in the line to reduce the effectiveness of his own force when the only way to get it back is to increase other manpower (and womanpower) at a time when they are proposing to shed police numbers and use more contractors (read civilians) instead.

= Boom time for crime!

Sky Sports

2nd Dec 2009, 20:41

5 aircraft to go? Can't see it myself. No C.C. is going to agree to a smaller train set without a massive fight.

Fortyodd2

2nd Dec 2009, 21:01

"a brave CC"

What's one of them?? Once they get past Inspector, the majority turn into spineless politicians hence the current crop of managers where once there were leaders.

"= Boom time for crime!"

When you are up to your @rse in alligators it will be difficult to remind yourself that the original task was to drain the swamp.

Skidkid

2nd Dec 2009, 21:58

Let's bring in the elected Sheriffs.

Hopefully they will publicly fight the case for their train set before we vote them out again!

mickjoebill

2nd Dec 2009, 23:09

Some made themselves famous by introducing Police aviation, by proving it could save man-hours and money.

There doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence that police helicopters save money.
Paul Whitehead's 2001 report, from Ontario University
"The Eye in the Sky,Evaluation of Police Helicopter Patrols" is worth a read, it revisits past research.

Paul's stated objectives were;
"1) to evaluate whether helicopter patrols have a suppression effect on the incidence of various
types of crime and occurrences (residential break and enter, commercial break and enter, auto
theft, theft from auto, robbery, property damage, trespass by night, suspicious person and
suspicious vehicle); and
2) evaluate whether a helicopter increases the operational effectiveness and/or efficiency of the police service."

To get your attention one of his conclusions states;
"The results of our quasi-experimental tests are consistent with our conclusions from the review of past research. Specifically, the available evidence does not support the view that police helicopter patrols have
an independent impact on the incidence of crime."

In general he says more research is needed, but also that the public are disposed to having police helicopters (perhaps) regardless of their efficiency or effectiveness.

In respect to UK cutbacks, politicians, more than anyone should ask, "what price the feel good factor"?

Mickjoebill

Lord Mount

3rd Dec 2009, 08:27

Its all going to Hell in a handbag.

I'm just glad I can retire from the job in 200 days.

LM

ShyTorque

3rd Dec 2009, 09:06

Mickjoebill,

I don't see how a study from Canada can be considered directly relevant to UK, particularly in view of the title and your highlighted conclusion.

UK police helicopters don't fly "patrols", as it's too expensive on flying hours and largely ineffective.

They are a reactive asset.

Thud_and_Blunder

3rd Dec 2009, 09:09

mickjoebill,

Interesting, but which part of that response covers the cost savings to a force carrying out a large-area search for a missing child/Alzheimer's patient? A task which happens several times a week on some units. The "person"-hours saved by using a heli to cover large areas which would otherwise need large numbers of police to carry out/co-ordinate the search aren't covered by an Evaluation of Police Helicopter patrols.

Hughes500

3rd Dec 2009, 09:11

Brilliant Stuff

3rd Dec 2009, 09:47

I say let the bobbies on the front line where the money should be saved, you would be amazed at the cost savings coupled with a phenomenal crime reduction .

Case in point by buying a Volvo T5 instead of a Vauxhaul Vectra the forces would save £45.000 over the working life of the car this includes all costs (fuel maintenance etc) but because the Vauxhaul is cheaper to buy by some £5000 the beancounters of course buy the Vauxhaul. My three year old would be able to work out what the right decision is.

We actually need more helicopters not less after all what's the point in turning up over scene 15 minutes after the event???

And I could go on what other areas there are you can save money but I leave that for another day.

In the end the Police is a Service not a Business.

Joe Bloggs moans at the cost of the Helicopter but when it's them or their relatives who are missing hurt or subject to crime they want everything including the kitchen sink throwing at the incident.
The double standards need realigning.

I better stop now or this might turn into a rant.

Maybe it's time to write to the MP.

Of course all of the above is my humble opinion.

zorab64

3rd Dec 2009, 10:12

T&B has a valid point - how do you calculate the benefit of "clearance searching", where the aircraft can search vast open areas very quickly and efficiently, and target the ground troops to specific small areas that can't be easily searched from the air, saving masses of ground-officer time. Similarly, there's a hearts & minds, or public re-assurance, element that every effort is being made to search for a vulnerable/suicidal/violent person - although "Care in the Community" so often turns into, get the Police to find them so that we can let them go again!! :ugh:

As with any large organisation, there are invariably likely to be massive efficiency savings - the whole budget business of "using up, in March, what hasn't been used, or you'll lose it" attitude should be addressed too. Lots to be saved there, I'd opine! :ok:

bolkow

3rd Dec 2009, 10:32

in my humble opinion I always did wonder about the efficiency of sending a chopper after illegal bikers, but where searches of other natures take place that would require a huge amount of land man hours I have no doubt they are indeed effiecient.

stringfellow

3rd Dec 2009, 10:58

in my humble opinion what annoys me from watching the tv shows is how often the ac is dispatched..... looking for a depressed woman in a public park.... come on... it seems,, again in my humble opinion the ac is dispatched willy nilly when it should be reserved purely for incidents with clear danger to the public. wonderful service great detterent but should be used sparingly.

ShyTorque

3rd Dec 2009, 11:03

in my humble opinion I always did wonder about the efficiency of sending a chopper after illegal bikers,

What other or better way can you think of to catch them? The average, adrenaline pumped teenager, desperate to get away, riding off-road over terrain he is well used to, can usually run rings round police on road equipped motorcycles. Even the bobbies given off-road bikes have to be in exactly the right place, right time, to even have a decent fighting chance of getting anywhere near them.

We used to be made aware where an ongoing illegal off-roading problem existed and would keep an eye out for them so the aircraft's return transit time was made good use of.

---------------

Stringfellow, you wouldn't say that if it was your mother, sister, wife or daughter in danger.

Fortyodd2

3rd Dec 2009, 14:38

Stringfellow, the problem is this - once you have reported your depressed relative/granny with alzheimer's/autistic child to the police, they have a duty to make enquires and go looking for said relative. How much effort and how urgently it is applied depends on your relative's history and the information that you supply. The helicopter is not launched to a search without some basic checks and questions asked. In life or death cases it is usual to wait until some mobile phone checks have been completed to ensure that the helicopter is tasked to the correct area.
If the police send the helicopter/dogs/officers/etc, and your relative is found then all is well. If however, the police do not send the above resources and the following day, the body of your missing relative is found dead in the middle of a large open area - something the helicopter would have spotted - there is now a post mortem, an inquiry and you and your family sue the police for failing to find the said relative. Given the propensity for the modern day UK police force to roll over and pay up then your "Savings" rapidly disappear. The "average cost" of an un-natural/untimely death to the UK public purse is in the region of £1.2 million, (Home Office/NHS figure from 2008).
When it comes to searching large open areas or contained urban areas, especially at night, nothing comes close to the helicopter in terms of efficiency. See here for more detail:

http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/HOSearchL.pdf

The helicopter only works when it is airborne. It is a sad fact, as recent attacks on police helicopters have shown, that the only people who really appreciate how effective a police helicopter can be - are the criminals.

nodrama

3rd Dec 2009, 15:44

Let me see, D & C 's helicopter has 2 engineers full time looking after their helicopter ( recently have to help with the air ambulance as well) Please tell me how that works, when the maintenance company I use has 2 engineers and looks after 17 helicopters, got to be some cost savings there !http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

Independent/ vital point inspections, critical maintenance tasks, sick leave, weekend cover, holidays and one of the engineers is the Manager & Post Holder......2 engineers seems perfectly sensible for a self-contained unit.

You're misinformed about the Devon AA to date.

Your maintenance company has 2 engineers (licensed I'm assuming) and how many fitters? Do the 17 helicopters operate every day and do the 2 engineers never take holiday?

rotorboater

3rd Dec 2009, 16:02

Shame we dont use the same type of air as in the US, they seem to manage with police single turbines and, god forbid, even R44's! I am sure that must save a shed load of cash.

Hughes500

3rd Dec 2009, 16:15

Nodrama
Let me see, when engineer goes on holiday then somone else used to be called in to help cover, this goes right back to the BO 105 days. Personally have no gripe with the engineers just the system ( as a tax payer and someone who wants the heli) that puts 2 engineers with 1 helicopter, dont see too many air ambulances with 2 personal engineers to each ship, oh no wait a minute that has to be funded from a tightly controlled budget, so you wont. Alternativly the BK 117 must be so unreliable that it needs 2 engineers to help it fly 600 hours a year, come on lets get into the real world here.
Another case in point, I can give a few examples of the force machine being used as a taxi, no names no pack drill but why did the machine need to go to Birmingham International airport for on ?? July ??, stay about an hour and then return ? Perhaps it was a long pursuit up the M5 across the M42, with the badies turning round and fighting their way back through the M5 summer traffic to the West Country.
Dont get me wrong I fully support the force helicopter but when one runs their own business and it is you that signs the cheques you get away from " The big Company Syndrome" Remember it is bean counters who run things these days, so if savings arent made with efficiency savings then the big stick is wielded that may start by cutting helicopters as they are a big expense !

Hughes500

3rd Dec 2009, 16:24

Nodrama

Sorry rude of me not to answer the rest of your question

1 of the 17 machines ( one of mine ) flies half the hours the BK flies every year. Most of the other machines average 100 to 150 hours. So that is 17 annuals, in the region of 10 x 100 hour checks another 30 x 50 hour checks plus unscheduled maintence.
As to helicopters working every day, I would imagine so across the fleet
Done by 2 engineers and no fitters. Freelance guys do work there but not often. Avionics done by freelance guy.
I know where you are coming from but when push comes to shove what do you want, no helicopter or a helicopter on a very tight budget as normal civilian companies have to ?

Thud_and_Blunder

3rd Dec 2009, 16:35

[rant mode on]
er, nodrama, does the Exeter police helicopter work every day? Note I say "Exeter" - the BK is rarely sighted in our part of W Devon, and police friends in Cornwall think I'm having a laugh when I refer to it as "their" hecillopiter too. Colleagues in other forces give a wry smile when asked about single-observer ops, and I suspect Exeter probably do as many pursuits in one year as some forces do in a week. As for my council tax precept funding a commercial AOC to run an Air Transport operation (the Air Amb) - boggles the mind. Unless of course the funding came from somewhere other than the public purse, in which case I happily sit corrected.

However, I'm sure that the unit (is that 5 Instrument Rated pilots including the UEO, for a non-24-hour operation?) will have its defence fully prepared when the cuts are due. It'll probably even claim some kind of regional primacy in view of its history of using NVGs... (in the cruise).

Biased? Yes, I am. In a previous job I flew 3 mutual-support trips into Devon from neighbouring forces in 18 months (D&C offline again) with little evidence of support t'other way. It annoys me to think that our expensive precept goes toward a low-hour, high-expense operation that isn't even based near the geographical OR crime OR population centre of its patch. When forces around the country are having to consider cuts to air cover costs, I'd like to think that the Home Office would send someone with a clear idea of what to look for down to Middlemoor.

[rant mode off]!

nodrama

3rd Dec 2009, 17:11

I'd like to think that the Home Office would send someone with a clear idea of what to look for down to Middlemoor.

Rumour has it that might just happen.....

All points from T & B and 500 are valid one's.

As an engineer myself, I was just expressing my opinion that 2 engineers/ 1 aircraft (for a self-contained operation) is a good set up. I personally work 1 engineer/ 1 aircraft but I have the support of a large-ish company that can cover my absence.....and I cover others.

Look at East Anglia Consortium and the Met.....both self-contained and you don't see 1 engineer/ 1 aircraft there either.

Haven't seen you in ages T & B, don't you fly closer to home anymore?

Thud_and_Blunder

3rd Dec 2009, 17:21

I won't be local for a while, nodrama - Northern Lighthouse Board have the dubious delights of my company 'til the contract is announced next Feb. Then they can get a real pilot, and I'll be back to spreading myself thinly around the British Isles.

I suppose that in a way I shouldn't complain about the lack of police air cover over W Devon - as I've mentioned in a previous post, on a still-air day you can hear that BK in the cruise over 4 minutes before it reaches you and the row it makes in the hover is enough to put any decent burglar off his house-breaking!

stringfellow

3rd Dec 2009, 17:22

thanks fortyodd2 for a really well balanced informative reply to what was as i said anunsubstantiated rant from one with no background other than what i see on tv!!! im just old school i guess and i cant begin to get my head around why someone would sue the police if they failed to find a relative.. they would try their best and that should be the end of it....i watch the police tv shows with dread because its clear the ac is being tasked unnecessarily and the bill payers it seems are getting fed up.

and all this in case someone sues them. those who seek to claim should be grateful they have a police force at all and stop being a parasite on society. rant over thanks for the reply i now have a more detailed understanding on the ac dispatch criteria. cheers.

nodrama

3rd Dec 2009, 17:34

and the row it makes in the hover is enough to put any decent burglar off his house-breaking!

T & B, you've got to stop missing that 902...

tigerfish

4th Dec 2009, 13:04

I really fear for the future of UK Police Aviation.

By 2004 it could be argued that we led the world in the efficient use of Police Aircraft. 32 Helicopters and 3 fixed wing all operating from 27 bases. The entire fleet comprising modern twin engined machines all less than 10 years old. Flown by professional pilots and crewed by experienced dedicated & well motivated Police observers.

Co-operation between units was first class with units covering for each other when maintenance was required and sharing intelligence etc etc.

Vehicle pursuits became much shorter as the criminal realised that once the a/c was overhead, escape was almost impossible.
Ram Raiding the scourge of the 80's and early 90's became a thing of the past.

But by 2007 our Senior Police Officers were usually men & women who had never experienced the frustration of trying to catch mobile criminals without the assistance of air support. So when the Politicians and bean counters started to worry about saving money Air Support featured highly.

The bean counter and the Chief Officer tasked with saving money had never heard of the 15-20 minute rule! That rule that we learned in the early days which showed that unless you could get the a/c overhead the incident within 15-20 minutes of its commencement its effectiveness was limited.

The same bean counter and Chief Officer thinks that the countryside, like his map is always flat, never suffers from cloud or bad weather over high ground, and so the drawing of range circles on the map to indicate that you can save on the numbers of a/c might just be badly flawed.

The same bean counter and Chief Officer does not understand that both helicopters and fixed wiing aircraft need maintenance, - quite a lot of it!
So if your circles show that you can make 3 aircraft cover a large region, in reality most of the time you will be struggling with two!

Neither do the clowns realise that in the North West for example where there appear to be several machines in a cluster, there is actually quite a lot of crime up there!

Rural areas,- where the Police helicopter is very often the first resource on the scene, have in the past seen incidents where the aircraft has landed and effected arrests which otherwise would have gone undetected. What now if distances are to be increased?

The real danger is this. There will inevitably be more and more occasions when the a/c is late on scene - because it has had further to come. Because it is late it will be none effective,- the criminal has long gone. How long then before some bright spark starts to say "Air Support is a waste of time, lets save more money & do away with it all together".

Recent events have shown that the criminal now has a healthy respect for the Police Helicopter. Several attacks have been carried out in order to remove the threat. Ironic isn't it that the Bean Counter, the Politician and the green Police Chief might do the job for them!

How long before the poor oppressed criminal of today realises that his tormentor has had its teeth pulled? Whoopee! Open House! -Back to the 80's and 90's again!

Some of the proposals however are very good. Regional Groupings will save money on the need for several UEO's. One PAOC instead of 3 or 4, will save even more. Economies of scale should make fuel and maintenence contracts cheaper. But please,please, - for the reasons above do not reduce the numbers of aircraft. Why not use the less busy ones as Regional spares to lessen down time?

There is one area though that I would argue we need to re-visit and that is the use of Single engined machines.
The single turbine is now far more reliable than in years gone by. Why cannot we use such a machine for Rural areas? The checking of vulnerable but key strategic locations? Photographic work etc etc.

I DO NOT advocate abandoning our twin engined policy for the majority of our work, certainly never for the urban and night time conditions which comprise the majority of our time. BUT there are significant savings to be made on some tasks by a single turbine machine.

Tigerfish

(Old grumpy is getting even grumpier )

Fortyodd2

4th Dec 2009, 13:43

Tigerfish,
Grumpy or not - mostly spot on :ok: I'll be sending the first part of your post to the Chief Constable.
The problem as I see it with the singles is that, unless there is a huge change of mind at the CAA then it is unlikely. Remember that all police work is still classed as public transport - hence the need for twins. If the police are being forced to work with fewer aircraft it does not make sense to have some of the fleet that cannot operate over the urban areas. If you can afford to only have one aircraft then that aircraft must be capable of doing everything that you have decided you want to do with it - otherwise you are reducing your capability and along with it your effectiveness. The driving factor behind this review was the need to be able to either do more with the same or the same for less - but as everyone else who has already tried it has discovered - you end up doing less with less.

chopper2004

4th Dec 2009, 14:12

So I guess the proposal that Essex and Kent ASU to use BAe Herti UAV for coastal patrol and general surveillance might be put on the back burner?

Police to launch military-style spy planes - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3776150.ece)

And supposedly it does go ahead hope the UK forces still get to keep their aircraft and that the police helicopter is not doomed?

morris1

4th Dec 2009, 17:11

Hate it when im proved right..!!

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/315926-north-east-uk-police-helicopter-might-closed-post3958163.html#post3958163

This was always going to happen..

And whilst im under no illusions that i will end up driving a police car again, and earning more money in the process from overtime/spp/bank hols etc.. it will be a crying shame that we will have lost an invaluable resource.

Response time from neighbouring unit (if/when available) will be about 15-20mins...
Pretty useless for pursuits which rarely that last no longer than 4 or 5 mins.

Be interesting when the first protracted pursuit kills someone, and no a/c overhead.. IPCC and civil courts will have a field day..

Helinut

4th Dec 2009, 21:58

I thought the idea was to save money.

Aside from the not inconsiderable problems of operating them in UK airspace, they are NOT cheap to operate. Have a look at those links; it is clear that the military aerospace companies see a cash-cow.

I am certainly no expert in UAVs, but if they are to be used for police work, I am not sure they will be able to do the same things that existing helicopter ASUs do.

jayteeto

5th Dec 2009, 10:24

The UAV argument is the same one as the military has over and over again. Do they need pilots? Answer is always yes!! A UAV can look at one thing at a time, it does not have peripheral vision, it cannot 'look over its shoulder' and see a car making off outside the camera field of view. A crew makes the aircraft FLEXIBLE. Never ever forget this simple fact.

Bravo73

5th Dec 2009, 10:55

The UAV argument is the same one as the military has over and over again. Do they need pilots? Answer is always yes!!

Indeed. And also not forgetting that UAVs aren't autonomous. Most* still need pilots - the only difference being that the pilot isn't sat in a cockpit, he/she is sat in a ground station.

*The Yamaha crop spraying UAVs that are used in Japan and Korea don't seem to need a pilot because they run to a pre-programmed course. But they still need an operator to set that course in the first place.

bolkow

5th Dec 2009, 14:08

The illegal bikers around our neck of the woods are all known to me, and I did not use a helicopter to get that intelligence.
I am no enemy of police helicopters but if the public do not see them being used to good effect then they are doomed.

tigerfish

5th Dec 2009, 15:39

Bolkow,

You have raised an important point and one that units do need to take heed of.

I maintain that they are doing an important and valuable job. The evidence is there, the old problems of Ram raiding and extended vehicle chases are almost a thing of the past, but that's also the problem, the evidence is easily overlooked if its not actually causing such a problem anymore.

In addition, the units themselves have forgotten the importance of publicising their successes. They did in the early days, but as the Air support Unit became just another part of operational Policing they forgot the need to keep reminding people just how effective they are and what a deterent they are.

Still, - if the bean counters and politicians get their way, we will all soon find out what an effective deterrant to street crime they have been.

Whoopee! Open house for the joy rider, ram raider and mugger. Pity too the poor old copper getting a beating on the street and no low light camera and Flir to finger the offender with.

Thats the problem with being an effective deterrant. Its all quiet now so the bean counter decides your not needed any more, you're a luxury that can be done away with. - Just what the criminal wants!

Dammit, Bolkow you got me Grumpy again!

Tigerfish

Rigga

5th Dec 2009, 21:59

So who will find the Laser Pointers if the Heli's go?
UAV's cant do it until the law of overflying built up areas is changed.

Helinut

6th Dec 2009, 09:04

Bolkow,

Policing is now driven by the expressed views of the local population. Neighbourhood policing involves asking what locals want the police to do in endless consultation. Off-road biking is often very high in the priorities set by the public in that process. If, like me, you think it is not such a high priority you could always express your views locally. If the police ask their "customers" what they should concentrate on, they would be foolish not to act on those priorities.

I don't doubt you "know" who your local off-roaders are. The problem is that is not enough to persuade a court. Aerial video evidence and being caught red-handed not only convinces a court, but usually means a court is not involved cos the scrotes plead. It also often means the legal confiscation of the bikes.

Taking up a comment made previously, I agree that UK Police Air Support has been pretty poor at demonstrating its value. To this day, no one has sat down and simply listed all the positive effects and benefits of police air support in any sort of public or semi-public document. Those of us who have had the privilege of being involved know, but we have been poor at telling others. The benefits are not just what you see on the telly. Others have mentioned the deterrent effect and the way it changes scrote behaviour for the better.

Air support also cuts the costs of all sorts of other parts of the police operation. For instance, the timely nature and quality of video evidence from air support frequently avoids the need for a full trial. The last thing a defence brief wants is to have his client's behaviour shown to the court in black and white (or colour). If you thought that helicopters and a couple of plods were expensive, you should see how much it costs to run a court full of barristers and solicitors for weeks on end.

In other cases, the attendance of an aircraft brings an incident to a prompt end. This saves lots of time of all the ground resources that have been involved. This enables them to go and do other things. The missing person searches that are reported in the media are just the tip of the iceberg - there are hundreds of them. When a misper is reported to the police, VAST amounts of police resources are used to try and find the person. In my experience, a developed misper search can involve most of the on-duty police in a non-metropolitan area for days. Bringing that to an early conclusion saves a fortune, and allows them to go back to preventing and detecting crime.

This lack of understanding is often demonstrated on PPRUNE, when interested but uninformed posters post about police ops. It applies equally well to most senior police officers who often don't really understand what they are responsible for. This is a criticism of both them and air support too, IMHO.

Air support is a high profile activity. It should not be a surprise, if we are asked to justify it.

Recent activity against several ASUs is a most eloquent demonstration of the criminal view though. Perhaps we should get them to write a report for us.

nodrama

6th Dec 2009, 10:34

Cuts in UK Police Air Support mooted
December 03, 2009
Plans to cut the number of Police helicopters around the UK have been revealed by the Home Office.
A White Paper - Protecting the public: supporting the police to succeed - sets outs a series of cost-cutting measures which the Home Office say will make British Police forces leaner and more efficient, and sets out options for a national approach to air support.
The White Paper also discusses a wide range of issues from nation-wide rather than constabulary or region-led procurement and wider collaboration between police forces.
The White Paper says that England and Wales currently has 28 Police Air Support Units, operating 33 aircraft costing around £45 million per year to run and about £12.5m per year in capital costs for new aircraft. The Home Office pays 40% of capital costs; Police Authorities have to find the rest of the capital costs and all the running costs.
In a case study, the document says: "ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) has conducted an extensive review of air support.
"The conclusion of the review is that a national approach is needed to fund and organise police aviation, in a more coherent way, to deliver greater operational effectiveness. National governance would mean that funding and management of police aviation assets would be undertaken nationally, while operations would be agreed locally with forces, under a regional construct."
The White Paper says the national approach would enable the size of the active aircraft fleet to be reduced from 33 aircraft to around 26, saving nearly £18m per year in running costs and over £5m per year in capital costs and at the same time provide better overall air support coverage in England and Wales.
The document adds: "We expect rapid progress to be made over the next 18 months to take forward the review and to establish a nationally managed air support service.
"The Home Office will part fund an ACPO and NPIA project team to develop the national management structure."
By Tony Osborne

Cuts in UK Police Air Support mooted | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/4719/cuts-in-uk-police-air-support-mooted/)

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 11:37

Are the police ASU's classed as public transport or aerial work? Why don't they just use R44's and get an exemption from the ANO ?
If they do this the police could end up with more helicopter coverage and less costs, surely? Keep the twins for London though.

Fortyodd2

6th Dec 2009, 13:29

Chopjock,
UK Police ops are classed as single pilot, public transport - hence the observers are "CAA agreed passengers" and not "crew". It also means that the aircraft have to perform to performance category A - hence the twin engine requirement. It didn't start out that way and very soon descended into something far worse than the current US medical flight situation with all sorts of "Unauthorised" mods to aircraft and single engined heli's bumping into blocks of flats in extreme weather conditions. Cap 612 will tell you most of what you want to know about current regulations. Unlikely to change unless the Home Office change the status of the aircraft.

morris1

6th Dec 2009, 14:00

The White Paper says the national approach would enable the size of the active aircraft fleet to be reduced from 33 aircraft to around 26, saving nearly £18m per year in running costs and over £5m per year in capital costs and at the same time provide better overall air support coverage in England and Wales.

Ah i see... we must have been sat with our fingers up are a*se all this time then. Seems we can do a better job with fewer a/c..!!
Maybe they can turn their efforts to the energy market next and make more electricity with fewer power stations..

"The Home Office will part fund an ACPO and NPIA project team to develop the national management structure."

Ooooh thats okay then, we're in safe hands.
They made such a good job of AIRWAVE..!!
(around 3 billion spent)

in fact maybe someone should propose we bin airwave, go back to VHF/UHF
and keep ALL the a/c, with enough left over to replace the ENTIRE fleet..!!!

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 15:34

UK Police ops are classed as single pilot, public transport - hence the observers are "CAA agreed passengers" and not "crew".

So the ASU's operate under an AOC then? Surely the police observers should be classed as crew and do away with the AOC all together.:confused:
Infact if money is not paid for the purpose of the flight, and the aircraft is undertaking "company" business, then it's not even "aerial work" either.
Sounds to me like they have their set up all wrong. Should be "corporate use" in my opinion.

Fortyodd2

6th Dec 2009, 16:25

Chopjock,
The Police ASU's operate under a Police Air Operations Certificate, (PAOC). Again, CAP612 - The Police Air Operations Manual - will tell you most of what you want to know.

Mr_G_Box

6th Dec 2009, 16:53

and get an exemption from the ANO....that's the way it used to to be done. Then we grew up, and now work to a professional document, CAP 612, for all it's faults.
And why only twins over London.....are the lives of the people who live there more valuable than those that live elsewhere?

And for all those who suggest the use of singles over cities, I know the stats say they are reliable,but I sit over incidents above a city a lot, and two engines give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 17:14

And why only twins over London...

I believe London is the only UK city with a specified area? And with heli routes? Any other city you can fly over with only one engine. How many police helicopters (twins) have had an engine failure?
No wonder they cost so much to run.:rolleyes:

Droopy

6th Dec 2009, 17:36

Chopjock...

The legal side: the Home Office requires that police aircraft are operated under the CAA, not as state aircraft, and that means that for all practical situations twins are required; if you wish to operate low level congested area with no suitable engine failure site you need a twin.

The practical side: you can fly around on police work with one cop and a pair of binoculars but you will mostly achieve the square root of, err, a well known saying. Modern police ops need an equipment fit of about 250kg in addition to the empty aircraft plus a disposable load which allows pilot plus two and about two hours endurance. How many singles with proper maintenance support in the UK can achieve that?

tigerfish

6th Dec 2009, 17:42

Chopjock. You do ask some stupid questions!

UK Police Air Support provides a 24hr service 365 days a year in some of the worst weather that Europe can fling at us. Why?

Because we are there to provide a service to the public in preventing and detecting crime. Incase you have lead a very sheltered life I will explain that the criminal does not restrict themselves do committing crime in fine weather and in daylight.

How long do you think an R44 would last in heavy rain and gusty conditions at 0330? How much equipment would it carry? We need FLIR stabilized cameras moving map etc etc. Most of our a/c are already operating at max weight now! And above all it has only a single piston engine. I will not even mention the question of safety.

Under the PAOC, - The Police Air Operators Certificate TWIN ENGINED machines are mandatory for all operations both fixed and Rotary wing.

What makes you think that you know better than all of the proffesionals that have been conducting UK Police air ops for the past twenty five years.

Just look at the facts 33 machines averaging about 1,000 hours per year each have had a huge impact on serious crime. Yet despite the fact that those operations have been conducted around the clock in poor weather we have had very few accidents. In twenty Five years less than five!

And you want us to use R44's BAH!

Tigerfish.

Now old Grumpys blood pressure is really getting high!

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 18:41

How long do you think an R44 would last in heavy rain and gusty conditions at 0330? How much equipment would it carry? We need FLIR stabilized cameras moving map etc etc.R44's work well for the police in other countries I believe and are available with flirs.

Robinson Helicopter Company Newscopter Page (http://www.robinsonheli.com/r44police.htm)

Most of our a/c are already operating at max weight now! And above all it has only a single piston engine. I will not even mention the question of safety.An R44 has flown around the world, is there any evidence that turbines are more reliable than the R44?
What makes you think that you know better than all of the proffesionals that have been conducting UK Police air ops for the past twenty five years.I don't think that, this is a forum and I am only discussing the other point of view, however other countries get by fine with singles.:ok:

Droopy,
Modern police ops need an equipment fit of about 250kg in addition to the empty aircraft plus a disposable load which allows pilot plus two and about two hours endurance. How many singles with proper maintenance support in the UK can achieve that?An AS350B2 for one.:ok: Or an Enstrom 480? or a S333?

jayteeto

6th Dec 2009, 19:05

When I was taught to operate a single in the military, I was taught to have an LS available as much as is humanly possible. My current role over Liverpool would not be possible without regularly placing the aircraft in a situation where engine failure would potentially cause a major disaster. Changing the regulating authority may make singles 'legal', but unwise. The sweeping statement that other countries get away with it is absolute tosh. What you mean is that other than the many YouTube engine fail videos, they have got away with it SO FAR. Why do I need to wear a seatbelt in my car?? The law says so, but I have never had a major accident SO FAR. Motorcycle helmet?? Driving Licence?? B747 performance calculations?? 1.6mm tread on my tyres?? MOT?? Holiday Innoculations?? Use a condom??
All these things reduce risk, a helicopter crashing on a city ONCE would destroy police aviation.

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 19:10

All these things reduce risk, a helicopter crashing on a city ONCE would destroy police aviation. It's already happened. To a twin. (in Wales). Nothing to do with having two engines though.(having two engines could not safe it) Might have something to do with all that extra weight of having to carry a spare engine and all that fuel for it too.:rolleyes:

BBC News | WALES | Rotor failure caused helicopter crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/722180.stm)

Tuesday, 25 April, 2000, 18:10 GMT 19:10 UK Rotor failure caused helicopter crash

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/725000/images/_726132_truck300.jpg
The wreckage is moved for further investigation

An initial report suggests mechanical failure caused a police helicopter to crash in to the roof of a house in Cardiff. A leaked report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) says the helicopter was tracking a vehicle when the tail rotor drive - which stops the aircraft from spinning - failed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_722909_video150.jpg
An amateur video caught the helicopter in flight

Initial findings by the crash investigators, following an examination of the wreckage at RAF St Athan, say the helicopter then rotated before crashing into the roof of the house.
A family and three aircrew escaped unhurt after the aircraft - which was following a stolen car - plummeted on to the two-storey semi on Good Friday.
Air accident investigators have been moving the remains of the twin-engined squirrel helicopter from south Wales to a base at Farnborough, where they will build up a picture of exactly what went wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_723961_mgas150.jpg
Investigator Margaret Dean

The French-built twin-engined Squirrel has a good safety record. The Civil Aviation Authority says 62 others are in service across Britain with nearly 600 in service across the world.
"We are carrying out a full investigation into all aspects of the accident," said Margaret Dean of AAIB.
"Once we've completed that investigation, we will produce a report which will be in the public domain."
Video footage of the last air-borne moments of the helicopter shot by a resident, will also be studied as part of the major inquiry which could take months.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/725000/images/_726132_house150.jpg
Damage to the house is being assessed

South Wales Police also says the aircraft had a good safety record.
Since it began flying in 1995, it has completed 2,073 hours of operational police duties without serious incident.
In the past year alone, it has been responsible for 200 arrests and the recovery of over £200,000 worth of property.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/720000/images/_722243_diane150.jpg
Diane Patterson: Very lucky

Around 60 residents who had been evacuated from their homes have now been allowed to return.
But the occupants of the damaged property - Diane and Colin Patterson and their three sons - have been told their house remains structurally unstable.
They are staying in temporary accommodation while the damage is assessed.

Fortyodd2

6th Dec 2009, 19:23

Chopjock,
Tonight, I've got an EC135T2 with 2 observers, 64 Kgs of "Carry on" role kit and 400 kgs of fuel and I'm 10 Kgs off max all up weight. The 400 Kgs will give me about an hour and 30 mins - (1 Hour & 40 by day). You want me to put that into a Single Squirrel, an S333 or an Enstrom 480 and achieve what exactly? R44's do work well in other countries but have no stabilisation, nowhere to carry or fit a stretcher, no room for a paramedic to treat a casualty en route, no ILS/coupled autopilot to get you out of the poop when it all goes pear shaped and they generally have to make a choice between a camera or a nitesun.
UK Police Aviation did not arrive at the current solution overnight, it's taken many years to get where we are and as soon as the latest aircraft enters service the next generation peice of kit hits the market. The police in the US do manage with their singles but most of those that I have talked to over the years would love to operate the aircraft that we do instead. The Germans do it, the Spansh do it and the French are now an almost exclusively twin engined fleet.
I know you would love to replace us all with a UAV but, unless and until you fully understand our existing capabilities and the job we currently do then that is not going to happen. Your latest post merely demonstrates your poor understanding of the subject.

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 19:28

Your latest post merely demonstrates your poor understanding of the subject.
Perhaps, that's why I am asking questions. However I DO understand that the current situation may be the best, but apparently un affordable. If it costs too much, then why not look at the cheaper alternative, that's all I am suggesting.:)

Fortyodd2

6th Dec 2009, 19:42

Because the "Cheaper alternative" is where we came from 20 odd years ago and it proved to be inadequate and incapable. The Skeeter was a great helicopter for it's time but I doubt that the Army Air Corps would find much use for it in Afghanistan.
The 3 most expensive things in Police Aviation are:
No 3 - Buying an aircraft.
No 2 - Buying the wrong aircraft.
No 1 - By a very big margin - an accident.
Getting number 3 right, can help you to avoid numbers 2 & 1.

ShyTorque

6th Dec 2009, 19:43

Single engined helicopters are not allowed to carry out Public Transport by night or IFR in UK. Full stop.

It's not just the number of engines, but a lack of IFR kit, duplicated generators, autopilot systems etc.

TeeS

6th Dec 2009, 19:49

Hi JT2

Whilst I agree with the general theme of your last post, I don't see why you need to spend so much time - "regularly placing the aircraft in a situation where engine failure would potentially cause a major disaster."

Is that really how we are operating modern machines?

Chopjock, can't really see your point. If you had taken one engine and half the fuel off that helicopter, the outcome would have still been the same; salvaged by some good piloting from the guy in the machine :ok:

Cheers

TeeS

zorab64

6th Dec 2009, 19:50

I clicked on "reply" to concur with tigerfish and his valid comments, only to find that chopjock had replied in that milisecond . . . pause for 2 marching paces to read another load of guff, from someone who obviously needs to understand a little more about the difference in ability between the aircraft he proposes and those that currently do the job. Then we get called for a job & everybody else replies!!

If chopjock can seriously find a single turbine (for goodness sake keep away from the idea that a Robbo can do more than 10% of even the daytime job) that will stay in the air for 1hr30 plus at night, with pilot & two Observers, TI, camera, ANPR and multiple radios, the ability to provide casevac at all times, and get to a job in a reasonable time into a 50kt headwind, I'd eat my helmet - the one I normally put on my head, before you snigger!

With the way the bean counters seem to be thinking they can stretch the budgets by reducing numbers, what's going to happen to the 15 minute reactionary cover with a Robbo - it'll shrink from 35 nm to about 20 & you'll need loads of extra aircraft, not to mention more (secure) bases to fly from, dotted all over the country . . . and that's just to cover the metropolitan areas, which no sane Police pilot would go near in a single anyway. With the planning laws the way they are, it'd take an age to get permission, due to all the nimbys complaining!!:ugh:

Other countries invariably have nothing like the range of weather, jobs, equipment or tasking - seldom a comparable situation to such a densly populated country as the UK.

You only need to have shut down an engine once, over a built-up area, in your police career to realise that you'd probably have died in a single. Yes, single turbines are fantastically reliable, as are twins, but in this risk averse society, with potential for litigation overseeing everything public bodies do, you'd throw significantly more dosh down the pan paying out for one accident than you'd pay out for overlapping (twin heli) coverage of every square mile of the UK! :ok: Correct about South Wales: skilled piloting with a large splash of luck but ultimately caused by maintenance error. You can't cut out risk completely but you can mitigate by having redundant engines and modern aircraft which are professionally maintained & operated.

chopjock - please do us all a favour & follow the advice already proffered of reading the PAOM and learning a little more about the differing capabilities of singles vs twins in the Police role.

chopjock

6th Dec 2009, 20:14

If chopjock can seriously find a single turbine (for goodness sake keep away from the idea that a Robbo can do more than 10% of even the daytime job) that will stay in the air for 1hr30 plus at night, with pilot & two Observers, TI, camera, ANPR and multiple radios, the ability to provide casevac at all times, and get to a job in a reasonable time into a 50kt headwind, I'd eat my helmet

AW119 :ok:

XV666

6th Dec 2009, 20:36

500e

6th Dec 2009, 20:40

Morris1
Good point
Ooooh thats okay then, we're in safe hands.
They made such a good job of AIRWAVE..!! (around 3 billion spent)
Tetrapol covers's France at aprox 50% of the cost I was told, but it is a French design
link is worth a read.

Tetrapol and TETRA: a briefing from the national research-based TETRA Airwave (http://www.tetrawatch.net/national/tetrapol.php)
safety campaign (http://www.tetrawatch.net/national/tetrapol.php)

Tetrapol networks: Some European profiles from the national research-based TETRA Airwave safety campaign (http://www.tetrawatch.net/national/tetrapolprofiles.php)

Retro Coupe

6th Dec 2009, 20:50

Funny how the British government can pump billions and billions of pounds into the banking system to prop it up, but can't find the money to at least sustain the present level of police air support. :=

Hughes500

6th Dec 2009, 21:51

Not trying to defend chopjock but those who fly police machines you may have to live in the real world. If your budget is going to be cut in half lets say, what are you going to do fly a single or nothing ?
Why do you need Hsi's coupled to glide slopes etc etc. If you cant see to fly vfr then you cant really observe anything on the ground can you ? Yes I know the argument for being caught out, but do you have IFR fuel reserve ?
I think where chop jock is coming from is we have a Rolls Royce system that perhaps a broken economy cant afford, so savings either have to be made or we lose the asset completely.

tigerfish

6th Dec 2009, 23:30

UK Police Aviation has been doing a great job over the past 25 years and as I said earlier by 2004 pretty well led the world. Many are now following us.

Yes I do accept that in the states and in some other countries with better weather than we have, - some small Police units use R44's but the bigger and busier units use turbines, - agreed some are singles.

But chopjock, I challenge you to come up with anywhere that puts in the hours that we do, in the weather that we have, 24 hours a day, have the effect on vehicle crime and street crime that we have had, - and yet can count the number of real accidents that we have had in the low single numbers.

In any event, Its no good going on saying that we should change to singles we simply cannot. In the UK aviation is Governed by the Air Navigation Order which is effected under the auspices of the CAA. We are regulated by CAP 612 which dictates Twin Engined operations only.

Now whatever you think of that regulation is of very little consequence, but despite the fact that in an earlier post I raised the question of very limited rural only surveillance using singles, I still maintain that the combination of the ANO, the CAA and our adherence to the PAOC has kept us safe for 25 years, and has forged an effective weapon against crime.

I am seriously starting to think that Chopjock might just be a journo, - he or she appears to have ready access to media records.

Chopjock, Do you really want crime to return to the levels of the 80's & 90's? What has been built up over the years might be relatively easy to dismantle, but once you realise the awful mistake that you and the bean counters have made, it will take decades to get back to the level of 2004.

I have been involved in Police Aviation since 1984. There is only one way of doing it and that is the right way. You simply cannot cut costs on maintenance, Pilot expertise, aircraft or operational proffesionalism. Down that road comes disaster we are talking of lives here.

Yes you can save money by Regionalisation, and infrastructure costs. But not on the aircraft, training or Pilot experience.

Tigerfish

Fortyodd2

6th Dec 2009, 23:44

What we have is not a “Rolls Royce system” – if we did, there would have been a National Police Air Support Unit founded many years ago. It would have a fleet of a common aircraft type, fully role equipped – including NVG compatibility, including spare airframes that could be deployed either as maintenance reserves or where extra cover was required 24/7/365. There would have been a national training centre for pilots and observers, a national pool of pilots and observers and a National Police Aviation Maintenance Centre. This would have benefited from economy of scale, a single PAOC, less management, more flexibility, commonality, greater coverage and capability and been far more cost effective than the piecemeal system that has grown up in the last 20 years.
(And then I woke up).

What we actually have now is probably the cheapest possible solution that remains legal in accordance with current CAA requirements for both operations and maintenance - and that, in the “real world” means Public Transport, Performance Category A, Twin Engine etc, etc. There are savings to be made in becoming a National Police Air Support Unit but not by reducing the number of aircraft or by moving to bases that do not yet exist. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, you can’t generate more electricity by knocking down power stations.

If our “broken economy” cannot afford what it has and the regulators will not change the requirements then our “broken economy” will soon find out the value of what it had as opposed to the cost of it.

ShyTorque

6th Dec 2009, 23:46

so savings either have to be made or we lose the asset completely.

So to save money, we buy a whole new fleet? Where would this money come from? Who would buy the redundant airframes, in this economic climate?

Again, as I already pointed out and others have re-iterated, in UK, singles are not allowed to be used for night public transport. That was stoppped twenty years or so ago, after accidents involving night flights in inadequately equipped singles. A lesson still not learned over the Atlantic, judging by the poor safety record for night operations.

zorab64

7th Dec 2009, 00:31

heli - let's get real & ignore antique aircaft, however well they've served in the past, so I'm rejecting your offer of sauce.

chockjock, on the other hand, has me nibbling on my visor with a splash of Lea & Perrins, while I check the AW119 figures! Possibly your first valid point to date?

Hughes500 - whilst we'd all like a Rolls Royce service, it isn't, as has been pointed out eloquently by 40odd2. If you looked closer, I think you'd find that most ASUs are quite efficient, effective and not bad value for money, as has already been mentioned, and certainly if they're tasked properly.

It's interesting that the Armed Forces, well certainly the Navy & Air Force (who'd ever have thought that I'd put those two in a sentence of agreement?), wear a uniform uniform, whichever of Her Majesty's Ships or Squadrons they serve in; pilots of all forces wear the same flying overalls - well, certainly the ones flying operational aircraft! There are massive cost savings in that one small area alone for the Police, should they go down that route, which they should, IMHO, and many other areas where joint working, (leading to a national force?) would reduce expenditure and increase efficiency.

At the moment, however, we have a system of Air Support that does exactly that, supports the Police on the Ground to help them do their job more efficiently & effectively, and controlled by Laws. Without changing the Laws, the ONLY way to maintain service and reduce aircraft would be to increase speed - your 15 minutes covers a bigger area but your Tilt Rotor or ABC machine (that isn't available yet) will cost even more millions! ;)

XV666

7th Dec 2009, 04:38

tigerfish,

Include me out: I'm on the side of the Good Guys, but how could I resist the offer of watching zorab64 eat his helmet? ;)

zorab64,

If you want antique aircraft, I could have included the venerable HAS3: complete with 600lb Bomb to sort out the scrotes with a bucket of instant sunshine :p

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-wessex-edited.jpg

Or a similar vintage to the A119: the B407 should tick all your boxes?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/HP650.jpg

Another bottle of Lee & Perrins, Guv? :p

Hughes500

7th Dec 2009, 07:26

Z64

If everyone is so efficient please tell me why
1.My local police have 2 engineers soley looking after 1 helicopter ?
2.The helicopter is based at one extreme end of the police area, takes more than an hour to reach one part of the county and 15 to 20 mins flying time to the areas biggest city ?
3.has been used as a taxi on occassions
4.Spent a fortune going solely down NVG route.

What I am getting at is in hard times hard decisions have to be made. It is up to each ASU to shout their case and make their operation as efficient as possible. Dont get me wrong I think the heli's are great, but someone has to pay for it, perhaps you want to look at it as the law of diminishing returns. Yes it is great to have every piece of kit on a machine that does this that and the other but and it is a big but what would you prefer to have the all seeing dancing machine and fewer of them or maybe less sophisticated machines and more of them. There is an adage " quantity has a quality all of its own"
I would dearly love to see the machines under one umbrella so you get the economies of scale on purchase, maintenance and crewing. However I think each chief constable would not wish to loose part of his train set. Perhaps the Govt would be better off having it almost as a para military asset, I am sure that would probably save the money thay are looking for

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 09:41

The White Paper says the national approach would enable the size of the active aircraft fleet to be reduced from 33 aircraft to around 26, saving nearly £18m per year in running costs and over £5m per year in capital costs and at the same time provide better overall air support coverage in England and Wales.If we go the way of the white paper, Seven current aircraft and how many crews will go? If anyone on here is one of the ones to go, would you then wish we had cheaper aircraft and could have kept your job?
I still can't get my head around ASU's being classed as public transport. Just who are the fare paying pax?:ugh: If they could change that bit a whole new rule book could be written and cheaper, wider coverage would be the result, in my opinion. :)

Fortyodd2

7th Dec 2009, 11:34

Chopjock,
you also can't get your head around the fact that if 7 aircraft go, the level of service will fall, the effectiveness will be lessened and the cost of the whole exercise will eat up all the proposed "savings". The document the White Paper is based upon also requires for the building of 3 new bases with associated infrastructure - fuel, comms, security, etc - if planning permission for these new 24 hour bases can be got in the first place - would you want one on your doorstep? Drawing convenient circles on a map may theoretically improve your coverage but in reality, if your aircraft are not based close to where the centres of need are then efficiency and effectiveness goes out of the window. There are clusters of aircraft around the North West, the Midlands and London because that's where the crime is.
To answer your question, would I want to be in a cheaper, less well equipped and capable, single engined aircraft? On a dark winters night in the Peak District - no thank you.

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 12:31

To answer your question, would I want to be in a cheaper, less well equipped and capable, single engined aircraft? On a dark winters night in the Peak District - no thank you.So you would rather not fly a lesser equipped aircraft with reduced limitations then? All or nothing huh?

Seems you are being spoiled with the best now and nothing less will do.:rolleyes: The tax payer may think differently though and you could end up with nothing.

Non-PC Plod

7th Dec 2009, 12:35

Thankfully, in the service of the public there is the expectation that you will be equipped to a standard that gives you a good expectation of completing the job required at a minimum level of risk to yourself.

Yes, you could have a simple single-engined aircraft, which might do the job fine 99% of the time....but if you use that argument, you could use a Daewoo Matiz patrol car on the motorway, and you could use cardboard body armour in Afghanistan, and you could buy 1000 Cessna 150s instead of a squadron of Eurofighters.

The thing is, if you want to employ people with the expectation that they will be flexible enough to take on difficult and highly unpredictable tasks, the public has to make their part of the bargain - that they will give the public servants whether that be police, military, medical staff or whoever the right tools for the job.

In the past I've spent lots of time in the hover at night over (Hostile) built up areas in a single-engined aircraft. I knew then that if something went wrong it was a 90% probability that I would be toast. I wouldnt do it again, 'cos its not big or clever!

ShyTorque

7th Dec 2009, 13:18

So you would rather not fly a lesser equipped aircraft with reduced limitations then? All or nothing huh?
Seems you are being spoiled with the best now and nothing less will do. The tax payer may think differently though and you could end up with nothing.

Chopjock,

For the third time:

In the UK, Public Transport by night or under IFR is not allowed in single engined helicopters.

Your beligerence is now starting to have the look of the green eyed monster about it.

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 13:27

In the UK, Public Transport by night or under IFR is not allowed in single engined helicopters.

Well I am aware of that, However would you care to explain the definition of Public Transport? My point is I can not see where the fare paying pax are?

ShyTorque

7th Dec 2009, 13:32

Police ops are public transport.

tbc

7th Dec 2009, 13:33

Looks like I might need to find that job as a fluffer after all!!:E

nodrama

7th Dec 2009, 13:43

Chopjock

You need to ask the people who wrote this:

Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred on Her by sections 60 (other than subsection (3)(r)), 61 and 102 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982[1] (http://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930607_en_1.htm#tfnf001) and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Air Navigation (Fourth Amendment) Order 1993 and shall come into force on 1st April 1993.Amendment of the Air Navigation Order 1989
2. The Air Navigation Order 1989[2] (http://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930607_en_1.htm#tfnf002) shall be amended as follows:

(1) At the beginning of article 6(1) there shall be inserted "Subject to article 6A of this Order,".

(2) After article 6 there shall be inserted:
"Issue of police air operator's certificate
6A.—(1) A flight by an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom in the service of a chief officer of police for any area of the United Kingdom (in this Order called "a police authority") shall, for the purposes of this Order, be deemed to be a flight for the purpose of public transport and if any passenger is carried the flight shall be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport of passengers, and save as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this Order and of any regulations made thereunder shall be complied with in relation to any such flight as if that flight was for the purpose of public transport or public transport of passengers as the case may be.

morris1

7th Dec 2009, 16:14

Frankly, I cant believe the arrogance of the home office and ACPO. To think that they actualy believe that drawing circles on maps and erasing the units that are overlapped by other circles, is in any way sensible, beggars belief.

As far i can tell they are working on 15 min response times as being the "superior" cover proposed.
But as usual this is half a*rsed. They're working on 15 mins FLYING time.. ie already airborne. With the best will in the world, you can add on at least 5 mins onto that for dragging it out the hanger, flashing up and actually getting airborne. Then throw in a headwind to further slow things down. So those unlucky enough to be victims of the "chop" will be lucky to average 20 mins to get an a/c overhead..

Of course thats only if the said a/c is available for deployment, not currently on task, or already at the other side of the 15 min circle to where its needed next..

Sadly the work that will suffur will be the quality air support jobs where having the a/c close by and available makes all the difference.
We get so much work by simply "being there".. that regionalisation is going to kill everything we worked for. Listening into to the cops where your currently flying gets us all the nice little quick jobs we would otherwise miss.
The "intruders on" calls, cop with a suspect running, suspicious car cruising a housing estate, driver out and running from a traffic stop, even chasing down shoplifters running through a retail park.. and of course vehicle pursuits which last for 4 or 5 mins tops.. and these are all jobs where the a/c makes the difference between someone getting arrested or getting away.

What will be left when all this goes away.?
Regionalised a/c will spend ALL their time looking for mispers (that never get found) firearms tasks that plod on for ages and ages while someone decides to knock on a door, looking for drunk drivers that legged it from their car crash, (after ten years ive yet to find one laid out in a field..!!) and public order events which would manage quite easily without the a/c.

I can only imagine the comments the beat boys and girls are going to say, when they are told by dispatch that the helicopter they asked for to come and search for the car thieves that have just legged it from them, is 30 minutes away at best and 2 counties away...!
I know what i would say.!!

zorab64

7th Dec 2009, 16:37

heli - feel free to gloat, this ear-seal is delicious! However, it's not relevant in the scheme of things - what is relevant is that the law doesn't permit single engine machines at the moment and, as I've said before, the job we do (over 50% of the time) involves hovering over built up areas such that you remain VFR, and can also recover from a SEF before your MSD. Most of the time, especially at night, the weather only allows a very small height band and would completely preclude these operations in a single engined machine, of any capability. I could certainly suggest a few locations in our area for your 600ld dustbin, however! :ok:

hughes500 - I did not say that everybody is efficient and would completely agree that, in your area, the placement, aircraft type, equipment, apparent tasking etc don't seem to make complete sense - and not just from your comments either. But it's not my area and I don't pay my Council taxes in that neck of the woods - but I do care about my area, and how my taxes are spent, and also do my best to ensure that the money we spend in operating our machine is used as efficiently & effectively as we can. Waste, of any sort, is completely unaccceptable, IMHO.

chopjock - I still can't get my head around ASU's being classed as public transport. Just who are the fare paying pax? If they could change that bit a whole new rule book could be written and cheaper, wider coverage would be the result, in my opinion. There are a number of reasons for this - with Police as Pax, they can still be policemen, be used to patrol the streets when the aircraft is down for maintenance, and be generally stuffed around with, as far as shift patterns go. If they were "Crew", they'd be stuck on a roster, minimum flexibility, especially to their employer, and would require expensive medicals etc. etc. The Police hierarchy already resent having to kow-tow to another organisation (don't we all?) but the CAA do, at least, protect our interests, whether you agree with their methods or not.
Flying lesser equiped aircraft with worse limitations will reduce the effectiveness of aerial policing. How much cheaper it will be, when bases and salaries are unlikely to change significantly (unless, in your view, they're in the firing line too), I'm not sure, but I don't expect you'd see much "cost-benefit". And yes, you'd have a number of the current crop of Police pilots, some who have argued here because they know what they're talking about, pulling the plug; only to bring in some single-engine wanabees who, sure as eggs is eggs, will . . . :mad: I'm not continuing this one, the results are too expensive to contemplate!

I know you started the (silly) question part of this thread, but the possilby valid suggestion/question you origially raised has been more than answered if you actually read the posts which have been made clearly by the many professionals on this thread, most of whom are, or have been, doing the job for some while. On the other hand, as has been hinted at by 40odd2, tigerfish, nodrama, morris, shytorque, non-PC et al, feel free to pull your own plug from this thread :ugh:

jayteeto

7th Dec 2009, 16:47

My last posting was miles back, but I was asked why a single engine failure would mean disaster. When a buck goes garden hopping in somewhere like Anfield/Bootle/Kensington/City Centre and you are over an area with no open spaces in the hover, you are only going straight down in a single engined helicopter. Bringing up the Wales incident shows your ignorance. If you fly high enough you can just about get away with a tail rotor fail in an EC135. It is practiced in the simulator and involves getting into autorotation VV quickly and getting the nose down. I managed it from 800ft in the sim (only just). The aerofoil design of the 135 tail allows it to fly (only just) if you maintain fwd speed and allows you to position for an EOL in a safe area. I guess thats ANOTHER reason why we use these expensive helicopters. Playing devils advocate is ok when you accept answers that disprove your theory. I accept that we COULD do things with these simpler aircraft, but we would also have to accept that we would just have to let people go if they went into built up areas. The criminals would NEVER soon catch on to that one!!:rolleyes:
Cutting numbers is going to happen, the country is skint. The problem is one that some career bosses are saying that service will not suffer. Circles have been drawn on a map in the NW, the bosses didn't notice that at night we go around liverpool bay, not over it. As mentioned earlier, the country is not flat, hills mean weather and we have to go around, not over. The service WILL suffer, if the management admit that and then ACCEPT it, then fair enough. Decisions should be made with facts not projections. Sadly, these days you can only prove some ideas as bad by letting the idiots implement them first and noting the results.
Final answer to another question, would I prefer to have no job than to use an inferior helicopter? At night in a february snow storm heading into the hills......... Actually I would prefer no job :(

morris1

7th Dec 2009, 17:18

And the other element to all this.. is that one can expect, as part of the cost cutting exercise, the new "National Air Support" organisation will crew its' aircraft with civilian air observers.. ie not cops.
Thus further eroding the quality of the service provided..!

B.U.D.G.I.E

7th Dec 2009, 17:22

Doubt it....last study that was done this year states they are only cheaper in year 10...so if its cost cutting were after thats not the way to do it.

Glad to see chopjock has got the hint and stopped posting such rubbish.

morris1

7th Dec 2009, 17:36

yes i know..

but the trend now for the police is to civilianise as much as possible. Any post where police powers are not used is ripe for the chop.
Its not just salary costs but things like pension contributions to factor in. Plus of course the old "public perception" wild card..

If some bright spark at ACPO comes up with the idea that public favour will be won by showing how they have put cops "back on the street" rather than in the air, then it will more than likely happen.. Even if it costs more.!!

and the formation of national air support is prime time for it to happen..

Bertie Thruster

7th Dec 2009, 17:56

Thank goodness the UK air ambulances are locally funded by local charities.
...otherwise the threat of imminent government cuts would now be hanging over them as well.

Hang on!...........local police helicopters, funded by the local community.....

The charity copper chopper..........Don't think so, somehow.

But compared to police flying, its amazing not having to justify the costs of a helicopter, almost daily, to grumbling bean counters.

timex

7th Dec 2009, 18:01

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 18:55

Whirlygig

7th Dec 2009, 19:01

Looks like I might need to find that job as a fluffer after all!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifStill not convinced you know what a fluffer is :}

Cheers

Whirls

morris1

7th Dec 2009, 19:04

is it something to do with hoovering..? :confused:

Whirlygig

7th Dec 2009, 19:06

Only in that it tends to be women who do it :}

Cheers

Whirls

tigerfish

7th Dec 2009, 19:19

What it seems impossible to get through that thick scull of yours is that we are talking about lives here! When timex commented about not wanting to fly in a single in bad weather at night, and wanting the right equipment, the best that you could do was to make some smart comment like "OF course you would when someone else is paying for it"

That proves to me a number of things (A) You are just an armchair theorist and have never actually had to risk your neck doing it. And (B) From the basic lack of aviation law and knowledge you know jack all about the subject.
(c) As you are so against providing people with the right equipment, - perhaps you work for MOD procurement?

I note that you have never denied my challenge that you might be a journo!

Remember " Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

I suspect that you know very little of this subject at all.

Tigerfish

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 19:39

I suspect that you know very little of this subject at all.

TigerfishYou suspect right, that's why I have been asking questions. I'm learning as I go.:)
I have flown P1 plenty of times over various city's at night in a single, yes I wish too it was a twin, however can not justify the extra expense.

I'm not a journo either.

peterprobe

7th Dec 2009, 19:45

Your bang on there tiger!!!!

Chopping police aircraft what bollocks!!! They need more in UK not less, look at USA and other countries don't see them cutting. Yes fairly expensive but then the police as the military are doing, really need to have a good hard look at where their budget goes, overtime, clothing, crap procurement procedures that senior blokes and blokesses wrote!!! O and a good hard look at all those 1000 s of HQ office jobs filled with serving bobbies. Thats where all the ones who should be doubling up with their collegues on the beat are. Plus the PC bollocks that ties up a busy copper for about an hour when nicking someone for some minor crap. Of the bobbies I have met they rely on having an eye in the sky for tons of different situations.
Surely even those bean counters who I would assume (yes I know thats the mother of all f. ups ) are good with money, must realise that when people start to burn and damage your aircraft it is having a massive effect on the activities that they are trying to get away with. So buy robbing peter to pay paul that saved money will be burnt elsewhere........... o of course not in THEIR budget so they give not a toss, they look good.:ugh:

timex

7th Dec 2009, 20:08

Chopjock, some of us on here have flown singles at Night in all sorts of cruddy weather, its not nice. Would I prefer to do it in a twin with a comprehensive AP and nav system to help take the load off me? Oh yes, every time.

Of course you would, so would all of us when someone else is paying for it.

You obviously missed the whole point...which is safer?

(I guess in your heart of hearts it must have been disappointing to discover you're actually a bean counter..)

zerosum

7th Dec 2009, 20:31

This is the reason why just about all UK Air Ambulances are run by charities. If they were run by the NHS, just imagine where the blue pencil would fall when the inevitable budget cuts had to be made.

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 20:48

You obviously missed the whole point...which is safer? Now someone else is asking questions. I don't know. Is there any evidence that twins are more reliable or safer than singles? Which has the most accidents? Singles are much more practical and would give more mission time when compared to an equivalent twin. Most accidents are caused through pilot error, not engine failure. Where do you stop? two engines did not help the Cardiff incident, or G-SPAU. Perhaps two tail rotors next or a co-axial helicopter would be safer?

ShyTorque

7th Dec 2009, 21:25

Singles are much more practical and would give more mission time when compared to an equivilent twin.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.

tigerfish

7th Dec 2009, 21:51

Ah,so there's the answer! A little knowlege is a very dangerous thing! quote "Ive flown as P1 in a single at night over many cities"

Then you must have been doing it as a volunteer, because no proffessional Pilot would have done that, not at the height and in the conditions that we are required to operate at. Thats the difference!

Police Air Support in the UK has to operate 24/7 365 days a year, in all weathers. Our job is the prevention and detection crime and the protection of life and property. Not swanning about for the sheer hell of it.

What we have now, is the result of a constant desire over the past 25 years to provide the best service we could. We did, and it worked! Serious crime was really hampered. Many Police Officers on the street were saved from serious injury because of the presence of the heli above recording everything.
For once it was the criminals turn to be on the defensive, - to be scared.

Now because we have been largely successful the bean counter says " Job Done, lets dismantle it all now, and spend the money elsewhere" Don't they understand that as soon as the criminal realises that we have gone away or are so far away as to be always too late, that its going to be free pickings for all?

One of the first things that I learned as a young bobby on the street was
"Never be kind to criminals, - to them kindness is weakness and weakness is to be exploited" Now we are going to be kind to them all over again. Freedom to steal cars, freedom to mug and freedom to start up ram raiding again.

Why did we bother to stop them in the first place? Chopjock and his mates want to save money, to keep it in their pocket. Until the time comes when their car is stolen or they get mugged. Might be a different storey then!

There is only one way to safe aviation and that is the right way. No cutting of corners.

Tigerfish

Tired, fed up and totally demoralised that people can be of so short memories.

doublesix

7th Dec 2009, 22:03

During my time as a police officer, I was privileged to spend my last 12yrs of service as an observer with a major UK metropolitan force. During that time I have lost count of the number of jobs, pursuits or whatever I went on in marginal but legal weather conditions to fulfill our role. What was always comforting to know was, one, I felt safe in the hands of a competent pilot with a lot of experience behind him and, two, we had two engines.
Believe me if you are engaged in a pursuit over a major city during the night and you get a chip light or a fire warning in an engine as I have experienced, it's nice to know you can lose that engine if necessary and still FLY.
Would I like to have experienced that in a single or be prepared to do so? No Thanks and I don't think I am alone.

chopjock

7th Dec 2009, 22:39

Singles are much more practical and would give more mission time when compared to an equivilent twin.
Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.

Sure, only in as much as if you have an extra engine, presumably that makes the aircraft heavier, then you need to carry all the extra fuel for that extra engine, then there's the extra drag around the fatter fusalage. Then there's the extra cost of the extra engine (almost double), then the cost of the extra maintenance of the extra engine.
That equates to the single being cheaper, lighter, faster, probably more useful load, longer endurance, cheaper to run. I would say that makes it more practical, in my opinion.

ShyTorque

7th Dec 2009, 23:01

Which singles fit your decription and how many are certified for night IFR public transport work?

peterprobe

8th Dec 2009, 00:58

Hmm chop jock, unless you live in LA or some where with sunshine all year round. You are barking sunshine!!! or I must think a single engined guy hoping for a job. Night /day tons of wind, rain blah blah blah is NOT a happy place in a single.. Throw in the fact your over a city, open blackness ( country stuff) sea or whatever and acutally for once the CAA are right and the Police are right! There has not been an accident for years with a twin ( touch wood) that has killed people..... but of course thats not in the budget!!!!!!!

Hughes500

8th Dec 2009, 06:36

I think I have the solution to the costs here. I have just discovered that in the military ( UK strength about 200k ) there are 84k civil servants in the MOD, that is 1 civil servant to 2.5 " soldiers", what the f... are they doing ?
Now if that ratio is the same in all Govt departments then there must be an awful lot of civil servants looking after the police ( sorry guys dont know how many not ex plod) lets get rid of them and spend the money on helis. ( how am I doing so far ?)
BUT
Now what worries me as a taxpayer is that 52% of the taxpayers work for the Govt, there are another 3% unemployed, another 5 % who are on incapacity benefit and another 10% odd who choose not to work ( housewives etc etc). That leaves 30% of us paying taxes to keep all this going, not surprising the country is stuffed !

jayteeto

8th Dec 2009, 06:58

Chopjock, did you choose to ignore my post? You can fly a 135 (just) with a TR failure. You dont need two. Doesn't work for engines though.......

B.U.D.G.I.E

8th Dec 2009, 07:56

Guys don't bite chopchop is winding you up. Hes got no idea what hes talking about and quite obviously is not taking in anything he is reading. Which means he probably works in the NIPA. ( No Point In Asking):ugh:

tigerfish

8th Dec 2009, 08:40

I agree totally with your message! By the way I think you mean NPIA. For those interested that stands for the National Police Improvement Agency !!!!!!?????
Tigerfish

chopjock

8th Dec 2009, 10:59

Which singles fit your decription and how many are certified for night IFR public transport work?You guys are all too sharp for me, I know when I'm beaten.:ouch: I was loosely referring to older frames like the AS350 evolving into an AS355, and becoming heaver, slower, more thirsty and more expensive, and like when the B 206L grew another engine etc.
Obviously singles are not rated for public transport at night/IFR in the uk, my point was whether it should be public transport in the first place. Anyway, I've stated my opinion, it is a forum after all.:) I just like to be the odd one out putting the other side of the story across.

Sulley

8th Dec 2009, 11:06

odd would probably cover it :E

B.U.D.G.I.E

8th Dec 2009, 11:58

your right tiger it was a typo. But it still stands for No Point In Asking......
:ugh:
They are a little slow on the up take....bit like chopchop was but he seems to be getting the point now

headcorn harry

8th Dec 2009, 20:40

This really is important stuff ! Please allow the Police to do their job. Harry

sunnywa

9th Dec 2009, 07:21

At the risk of being shot down,

One would hope that the type of aircraft (light twin SPIFR etc) is not open for discussion (due to CAA etc).

That leaves the 15 minute rule and whether adequate coverage can be obtained by reducing the aircraft numbers. I would think that it would be a pretty easy argument for any Chief Constable to point out that if the air support did not meet the 15 min rule then he is not playing.

That said, it is practically impossible (unless you have limitless resources) to have 15 mins from everywhere, so what is the ruling - 15 mins from 80% of the population and 60 mins to 100%?

Cheers.

[email protected]

9th Dec 2009, 07:40

Hughes 500 - if you want to see profligate waste on civil servants - have a look at those serving in Afghanistan some of whom are earning £8K a MONTH extra pay for shining their asses abroad - not patrolling like the £15K a year private - just deskwork!!

fkelly

9th Dec 2009, 09:19

They're not all H24 either.

jayteeto

9th Dec 2009, 10:30

Do me a favour!! The weather conditions we are legal to fly in are bloody challenging. Read the CAP document on the CAA website, I think most pilots would accept that visual flying in those conditions (1 km by day/2km by night) are near enough all weather!! When it gets like that, the camera performance is the limitation, not the weather.
True, some are not H24, but many of us are!! It doesn't happen often, but when you launch in these conditions, you suddenly realise that you should be paid a lot more!!

JimBall

9th Dec 2009, 11:10

Come on. Calm down all of you. The Govt has at least got a plan for the future of police flying. And it is available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TBndcBjQFM&feature=fvw).

morris1

9th Dec 2009, 14:02

That said, it is practically impossible (unless you have limitless resources) to have 15 mins from everywhere, so what is the ruling - 15 mins from 80% of the population and 60 mins to 100%?

Trust me, having seen the document last year, they havent put even that much thought into it. Its purely "primary school" level, circles on maps..

Fortyodd2

9th Dec 2009, 15:40

Jimball,
The words "Government" and "Plan" in the same sentence should have everyone worried.
Some of the basic schoolboy errors and omissions from the document that I saw and was asked to comment on last year indicated insufficient aviation knowledge on behalf of some of the contributors and that the drive to do the "Same with less" was clearly more important than doing "more with the same".
The "Government Plan" that I saw will cost more to implement than it will save in 5 years.

Non-PC Plod

10th Dec 2009, 14:00

I saw Lancs police ASU getting some good PR on the local news last night. Its got to be the way ahead - there will be a mad rush for good PR stories from all the Units if they have any sense!

PANews

23rd Dec 2009, 12:09

For those of you that can access it the recent Home Office report on saving £500M across police budgets received some air time via BBC Radio 4 last week and its still available on i-player.

A 30-minute programme fronted by former Assistant Commissioner Andy Heyman explored ways to save public purse money among contributors largely consisting of his former ACPO associates rather than grass-roots practitioners. From this limited perspective it appears clear that there is a will to save money but no-one has any clear ideas on how.
Air support got short shrift and it was the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary that talked on pushing air support into ‘collaboration.’ That fits nicely into the ACPO led ‘National Air Support’ agenda but to the knowledgable the short item came across as being poorly researched. To the unknowing majority it was very damaging to police air support.

He spoke of '42 forces' with air support being too much and even said that British Transport Police [BTP] did not need an aircraft. No-one seems to have warned him that 33 aircraft used by 42 forces underlines collaboration.

Radio 4 Policing Britain the air support bit is at 22minutes 15 seconds.

BBC iPlayer - Policing Britain: The Justice We Deserve (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pbw1q/Policing_Britain_The_Justice_We_Deserve/)

chopjock

19th May 2010, 09:07

The "lets save money, - to hell with preventing crime" brigade now have command. Merseyside had already been identified as an early casualty. By 2008 UK Police Air support led the world. By 2012 ??

I don't think the "let's save money" brigade are saying "to hell with preventing crime".
But we do have to save money and I think the ASU's are way over the top by operating what appears to be the most expensive helicopters available.
Quite right to make cuts and become more efficient. As to why they are getting trashed, well the cops do have an advantage over the crooks, so the crooks are only trying to even the scales. Maybe if the crooks got themselves a helicopter support unit too then they wouldn't have to trash plod's, that would even the score a little.
Just the other point of view.

Mr_G_Box

19th May 2010, 11:03

Chop Jock. So if you believe we are operating the most expensive aircraft available, considering the current rules, what aircraft you would suggest we operate?

SilsoeSid

19th May 2010, 11:25

Mr G-BoxChop Jock. So if you believe we are operating the most expensive aircraft available, considering the current rules, what aircraft you would suggest we operate?

I think you'll find chopjock to be an upset UAV operator trying to get into the UK law enforcement market!

I feel another chopjock 'the troll' feeding session coming on.
Don't do it chasps.

:rolleyes:

toptobottom

19th May 2010, 13:16

All over the world, there are a lot of news-copters and police forces that use R44s too, at a tenth of the price of an EC135. Trouble is, all the time the UK has restrictions with single engined machines flying over congested areas (where a lot of the crime happens), you're into twins with respectively higher operating costs? That immediately rules out all of the above: Hillers, hughes, Gazelles, 206, R44s...

chopjock

19th May 2010, 13:21

Trouble is, all the time the UK has restrictions with single engined machines flying over congested areas (where a lot of the crime happens)I fly a single engined machine in the UK, day and night, over congested areas (not the City of London though) with an observer whenever I like. If I can do it why can't the police get an exemption to to it as well?

TeeS

19th May 2010, 13:47

Chopjock

Sorry for this being a rather personal question but do you find girls (and everyone else!) drift out of the bar when you walk in?

TeeS

Thomas coupling

19th May 2010, 14:17

chopjock: whats the lowest you can fly over a congested area in a single?

toptobottom

19th May 2010, 14:29

Sorry for this being a rather personal question but do you find girls (and everyone else!) drift out of the bar when you walk in?
Best post so far :D

chopjock

19th May 2010, 14:37

TC
chopjock: whats the lowest you can fly over a congested area in a single?Other than the notified area in London, 1,000 ft above the tallest structure. Still plenty low enough to zoom in and read number plates and look for scrotes hiding under trees.
I'm aware that police operate under a special AOC. My point though is you can apply for an exemption to the ANO. Police aviation could be run much more cheaply and effectively than at present.

Mr_G_Box

19th May 2010, 15:59

Chop Jock. I assume you are just looking for some sport here, trying to bait those that are out there doing this 24 hours a day. You probably need to find a new hobby. Could we apply for exemptions etc, historically that's what we did do,but the CAA decided that it was getting a bit out of hand and made us work to a single professional standard, public transport. I did lots of daft things in single engine helicopters in the Army, which on reflection were just fine... as long as the donk kept turning. Now I'm much happier with two engines sat over a major city at any time day or night, and I do do a lot of that, knowing that in the event of one of them failing I can fly away. Single engine failure in a single engine aircraft means you are going one way and one way only. I know that the failure rate is small but there is an interesting video of police aircraft making an arrival into a carpark at night when his only engine quit. What's price a life? Remember it's not just the crew could be everyone in Tesco's when you pop in through the roof having got it wrong. As for your comment about we can do it cheaper and more effectively.. longer transits to the scene of an incident is not more effective, and I think what we do is pretty effective and there are thousands, literally, at Her Majesty's Pleasure who would agree. There is scope to change the way we operate, sweeping away the boundaries and that is already being done in some areas.

SilsoeSid

19th May 2010, 17:22

chopjockI fly a single engined machine in the UK, day and night, over congested areas (not the City of London though) with an observer whenever I like.

Yes, but it is a UAV and as you say, you have to be supervised when you do it.

SilsoeSid

19th May 2010, 17:32

airpoliceThe RAF allow people to fly without having a CPL or even a PPL, so why not the Police?
and the Army & RN

Jeez, there are enough gripes and bad feeling of, 'Why do all the Air Ambo/Police jobs go to ex-military pilots' already, we surely don't need another. (By the way, out unit is 50/50 mil/civ line pilot split)

However, looking at the quote, who in their right mind is going to pay for 1500hrs tt, 500 hours twin, 50+ night etc 'under instruction and then realise that they don't have the required PIC hours for these jobs?
Kind of narrows the application profile!

there will be no shortage of ppl(h) applicants prepared to operate an R44 with a PCSO sitting beside them. All this for £12,500 a year and pay your own pension.
And here's me thinking I knew what that first 'P' stood for!

SilsoeSid

19th May 2010, 17:58

Lets not kid ourselves about how much money we could save if we went US AirOps style.

Police Helicopter Pilot - NYPD Aviation Unit (http://www.policehelicopterpilot.com/nypd-aviation-unit/)

The New York Police Department's Aviation Division is staffed with approximately 57 sworn police officers. Even the NYPD helicopter mechanics are sworn police officers.

NYPD operates a total of 4 Agusta A119 Koalas, and 3 Bell 412s. They fly out of Floyd Bennet Field in Brooklyn NY.

To be elligible for transfer into the NYPD air unit you not only must be a sworn officer, but you must have a commercial pilots license, either fixed wing or rotor wing, and/or an A&P (airframe & powerplant) license.

Five (5) years of experience as a NYPD Officer is preferred before being elligible for the unit, however, an outstanding candidate with excellent credentials can make it in 3-5 years.

Desired qualities are: Aviation experience, excellent evaluations, good sick time record and excellent record of police service.

In addition to supporting patrol officers on the ground, the unit takes on numerous homeland security missions in and around New York City and it's waterways.

Other links;
In 2008 MD Helicopters and the Houston Police Department announced that the department would be purchasing 8 new MD500E helicopters. In addition to the new MD 500s, the department also recently ordered 3 new Schweizer 300 helicopters for training. When all the aircraft are delivered the unit will stand at 16 total helicopters and 1- fixed wing.

LAPD stands at 17 helicopters

At 300 PIC (pilot in command) hours, the officer is given their PIC sign off and can function as a junior patrol pilot. Further training continues IE: instrument rating, CT182RG commercial & instrument, out of valley sign offs day 500 hours, night 1000 hours, Bell 407 transition training 500 hours, night vision goggle PIC sign off 1000 hours, HH1H transition training 1000 hours, rescue pilot training minimum 2000 hours, CFI minimum 1000 hours, sling, hoist, live load etc. …….each continuing or advanced training is set by minimum required PIC hours of experience as well as capability.

Where are all those pesky cost cutting R22 units?

B.U.D.G.I.E

20th May 2010, 11:19

you fed him....why did you expect anything else but pure rubbish from chopchop :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

SilsoeSid

21st May 2010, 10:51

I shouldn't think chopchops ideas for change will be much of a reassuring alternative after this little incident;

I spy £20k lost copter on Capital church roof
Owner's prayers answered as craft turns up at long last

Published Date: 21 May 2010
By LAURA CUMMINGS

http://www.scotsman.com/getEdFrontImage.aspx?ImageID=460415

IT MYSTERIOUSLY vanished on its first outing in the Capital after the owner lost sight of it in the skies above the city centre.

Now – around three months after it disappeared – the highly sophisticated Draganflyer X6 "spy" helicopter has been reunited with owner John Wallbank after being found on the roof of a church, around 800 metres from where it went missing.

Mr Wallbank, who lives in Marchmont, lost track of the £20,000 state-of-the-art craft after it took off for the first time from Princes Street Gardens one afternoon in January.

He has been searching for the satellite-guided helicopter, which is battery-powered and operated by a custom controller, ever since and even offered a £500 reward for its safe return through the Evening News.

Today, Mr Wallbank, 38, has been reunited with the craft after it was discovered on the roof of St Cuthbert's Church on Lothian Road by church officer Euan Romanis .

Mr Wallbank said: "I was delighted to be reunited with it. It was very fortuitous.

"It had landed on the roof with one leg in the gutter and one jammed in behind a chimney stack, which was the reason why it didn't get blown off the roof and smash into a million pieces on the ground.

"It was difficult to predict exactly where it had come down. I had a fair idea that it could be around that area and I asked Mr Romanis to have a look on the church roof and left him my business card."

Mr Romanis discovered the machine after going on to the roof to clear a blocked gutter last month. He said: "My first thought was 'what is that', it looked like a black bag but when I got nearer, I knew exactly what it was because Mr Wallbank had described it to me."

Despite being exposed to the elements for around three months, the helicopter only required some minor repair work, which was carried out by Canadian manufacturer Draganfly Innovations.

Mr Wallbank, who owns a photocopying and design company , was the first person in Scotland to get his hands on the new kit and is using it to set up an aerial video and photography company.

The six-rotor aerial vehicle was declassified more than a year ago by the US military, who devised the product and are believed to have used it for covert operations.

And it seems Mr Wallbank was reunited with his Draganflyer X6 just in time. Just two days before it was discovered he had decided that if it hadn't been found by the end of that week, he would order another one.

He said: "I had a few hoax calls and time wasters and the trail had gone cold. I think I had given fliers out to every shop on Princes Street asking the head of security to have a look on the roof. I was running out of ideas and it was getting a bit frustrating."

Mr Wallbank, who donated the £500 reward to the church, has been asked to use the helicopter to film aerial shots for a three-part BBC documentary on archaeology.

I spy £20k lost copter on Capital church roof - Scotsman.com (http://www.scotsman.com/news/I-spy-20k--lost.6311104.jp)

:rolleyes:

chopjock

21st May 2010, 18:07

Silso,
Yes, but it is a UAV and as you say, you have to be supervised when you do it.Completely wrong.:p And I am not suggesting the use of UAV's either.

chopjock

21st May 2010, 18:15

Mr G
longer transits to the scene of an incident is not more effective,I don't understand your point there. Who said anything about longer transits?

But compare the aquisition cost of an EC135 to a 130, now that's what I call more cost effective.

zorab64

28th May 2010, 14:51

I really can't see where chopcop is coming from.
US style airborne law enforcement seems to revolve around many small flies buzzing about assisting the myriad ants, all armed to the teeth. The UK style has been to utilise an airborne command post to direct the limited, un-armed (mostly), ground assets to the best effect.

The latter approach has made use of one capable aircraft - that's one with the capability to fly in most weathers (IFR by default); get-out-of-cloud training & instrumentation & AP; pilotage to deal with the above; capacity to carry two police (or equivalent) operators; a capable police multi-radio system; a comprehensive camera/TI turret; evidence recording equipment & other extras as may be deemed useful to each operator.

Despite the suggestion of an EC130, for instance, I can't see a single-engine airframe that could support the combination of CAA requirements or operator needs? Yes, DOCs would be lower with just one engine but fuel costs would be similar (EC130 vs EC135 uses just 10% less fuel, and with police equipment strapped on would likely give a similar fuel burn and result in 10% less speed).

The only real way to improve Police Ops worldwide is getting to the scene faster, but the only light on the (distant) horizon would be an ABC/X2 type machine - then we could reduce the number of units to cover a given area . . . but I can't imagine that'll be cheaper!:eek:

It's probably true that there are cost savings to be made in the UK, but buying less capable machines, (probably more) pilots, observers & equipment . . . and operating from more bases, maybe, . . . would not seem to be as effective as maintaining the current quality, safety & associated public reassurance.:ok:

timex

28th May 2010, 18:55

Chopjock, can you get a paramedic, stretcher borne casualty, Pilot and Observer into a 130 with about 30 mins fuel?

MightyGem

28th May 2010, 21:47

I really can't see where chopcop is coming from.
zorab, you're not the first to reach that conclusion.

handysnaks

29th May 2010, 13:25

Yet y'all keep responding to him!!:D

Hughes500

29th May 2010, 17:07

While everyone seems to give chopjock a hard time all he has been saying is you have to cut your cloth. Lets be honest when times are hard you have to cut something somewhere. I think it would be fairly safe to assume that most on this website dont actually write out the cheques for the machine sthey fly in, they only get cheques from those that run them.
There are some forces out there that run around in Volvos and Range Rovers when perhaps a Ford will do. Perhaps the answer would be to keep the fancy machines and cut pilots pay !!!!!!! Then the budget would add up !

tbc

29th May 2010, 19:55

He is in the very long queue!!:}

STANDTO

30th May 2010, 08:16

this is one of the few threads I have ever read from start to finish. It is a subject close to my heart, having been up in them on jobs, and had them above me on numerous jobs as a patrol officer, firearms officer and traffic cop.

I am personally of the opinion that in some areas, a good percentage of mission requirements could be carried out with light singles. I am also a fervent supporter of light UAV's. Readily available, deployable out of the back of a car, equipped with IR equipment, they could carry out a great deal of urban search requirements after say, a decamp and go to ground after a pursuit.

The other area which I think would be worthy of research is the potential to combine HEMS operations and Police Air Support. Medical is always going to take primacy, and there may have to be some reconsideration of mission equipment to meet both roles, but this could solve both funding issues of HEMS, and the perception that resources are expensive to maintain compared to the hours flown. It is far from an ideal situation, but as any bobby will tell you, the helo isn't always there when you ask for it. You log the request, then adapt and solve the job another way. It might take longer, it might cost more in staff hours, but you do get it done. And if someone dies as a direct result of the helo not being available, you can show that you considered it and weren't able to deploy that tactical option. We don't have a helo on the Isle of Man - there are lots of times when it would be really useful, but we manage.

The CAA stance on the Merseyside Microdrone as a licenseable UAV is a prime example of where the regs also get in the way of getting the job done. A microdrone weighs about the same as a packet of fags. A seagull taking a heart attack and falling out of the sky would do more damage.

Like most things these days, there is a compromise out there. It is just having time to take a big step back finding the solution and accepting that the world is a different place to what it was:(

fkelly

30th May 2010, 09:07

A microdrone weighs about the same as a packet of fags. A seagull taking a heart attack and falling out of the sky would do more damage.

Well, not really. The microdrone website gives the -200 model at 1kg, the -1000 model at 5.5kg. A spot of dimly remembered calculating puts the speed of fall from 100m height at 44m/sec.

In old money, that's a 2.2lb [or 11lb] piece of spiky metal hitting you in the back of the neck at 99mph :ouch:

Coconutty

31st May 2010, 08:54

What are these 11lb metal spiky things powered by ?

Electric motors or model aircraft glow plug type things ?

So - do they get HOT - If they do it adds a whole new dimension to what might happen if / when they crash ( in the back of your neck or elsewhere such as a church roof ), as compared to the effect of a seagull throwing a 7 in flight.

Seagull's are definitely a lot lighter, and although they will undoubtedly make a mess if they fall out of the sky, ( looking outside at car roof and window to prove the point ), I don't think they will burn if the limy stuff is wiped off quick enough :ooh:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

chopjock

31st May 2010, 15:05

zorab64

I really can't see where chopcop is coming from.I'm suggesting the Police talk to the CAA and get an exemption from the rules forcing the police ASU's to operate under an AOC. If this was achieved, the ASU's could operate with a lot less twins. I believe for the cost of operating 4 twins, you could operate 5 singles. That represents a saving of about 20%.

Or consider this, if a corporate company can operate a single engined helicopter, at night, carrying it's employees as pax (observers) and not have to follow AOC proceedures, then why can't the Police do the same?

Hopefully now you all understand my point. In my opinion, the government could save lots of money without loosing numbers of aircraft and crews.:ok:

TeeS

31st May 2010, 15:37

Hi STANDTO

The other area which I think would be worthy of research is the potential to combine HEMS operations and Police Air Support. Medical is always going to take primacy

There are a few combined units operating which do sterling work. However I have always felt this should be a starting point from which two separate units form. Take a Hungerford type scenario, or a hit and run, armed bankraid with injured bystanders etc. Is it really an option to stop chasing the gunman/driver hoping that he won't do any more damage while the helicopter crew deals with the injured? They are two totally separate jobs and should be tasked separately. The exception to this under present restrictions is for night HEMS.

Cheers

TeeS

B.U.D.G.I.E

31st May 2010, 17:39

Or consider this, if a corporate company can operate a single engined helicopter, at night, carrying it's employees as pax (observers) and not have to follow AOC proceedures, then why can't the Police do the same?

how many fatal crashes have there been with said corporate choppers compared to police units???? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Can't put a price on that can you.

Oh bu**er I fed him:=

chopjock

31st May 2010, 19:06

BUDGIE
how many fatal crashes have there been with said corporate choppers compared to police units????

Don't know about fatal corporate numbers, but I do know about these ...
And whether they had one or two engines made no difference

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200330.pdf

No-one hurt as Police helicopter crashes through roof - This Britain, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/noone-hurt-as-police-helicopter-crashes-through-roof-721311.html)

Rules for police helicopter flights changed - Herald Scotland | Sport | SPL | Aberdeen (http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/rules-for-police-helicopter-flights-changed-1.566322)

SilsoeSid

31st May 2010, 20:23

Here choppy choppy, who's a good boy then, tea time!

Nice links. :rolleyes:

One about protective clothing and 2 incidents involving twin engined UK police helicopters, spanning 2 years. Not bad in the 20+ years of operating.

Now do the same google search for US police helicopter incidents :ooh:

B.U.D.G.I.E

1st Jun 2010, 09:50

Nice one chopchop. comes to some thing if you have to span back to 1990 to try and prove your point. I'm still unsure exactly what that is.

So the other issues I think you have missed which is proved by your lovely links. Take away the number of engines, the crash protection offered by these "twin" aircraft is still far better than a little aircraft.

Now if you google the amount of small aircraft that have crashed, sids idea was a good one. Then work out the number of hours they fly. I think you will find that police ops are very very safe. Alot of which is done to the helicopter which comes at a price.

Do you in your little chopper still think that its a great idea to hover at between 300-500 feet over a town for 2 hours at a time. Or 50 feet flying sideways over a river to find a missing person.

chopjock

1st Jun 2010, 10:14

SILSO BUDGIE
The Home Secretary Alan Johnson has published a White Paper which anticipates that the police helicopter fleet will be reduced by a fifth, and overtime cut by £70m a year within four years.Would you prefer to loose a fifth of your helicopters and crews then? Somewhere, 6 or more helicopters will have to go. I have a suggestion where by we keep the numbers and safety and save money.

I think you will find that police ops are very very safe.Yes, agreed they are. But that's not down to the number of engines now is it?

B.U.D.G.I.E

1st Jun 2010, 10:23

But whats the point paying the same or similar amount of money for smaller aircraft that are not up to the job, against what is out there now. Yes a reduction of aircraft would work and save money but not if its a small helicopter that can stay in the air for very long, can't carry a team, can't carry a decent camera or light.

But above all that the point that runs through this thread that your still not getting the CAA WILL NOT....thats WILL NOT (cause you seem a little slow at getting this point) allow police ops with single engine helicopters..get it:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yes, agreed they are. But that's not down to the number of engines now is it?

did you not read what I said.......crash protection of a 135 hello is there any one in there..:ugh::ugh::ugh:

chopjock

1st Jun 2010, 10:49

But whats the point paying the same or similar amount of money for smaller aircraft that are not up to the job,who said pay same or similar for smaller?

The EC130 is larger and cheaper than an AS355. So is the AW119. Are you saying these do not have crash protection?

toptobottom

1st Jun 2010, 11:00

The EC130 is larger and cheaper than an AS355. So is the AW119.

Haven't we already established that... the CAA WILL NOT....thats WILL NOT
...allow police ops in single engined machines? How many engines does the Koala and EC130 have (each, i mean :E)

chopjock

1st Jun 2010, 13:08

But above all that the point that runs through this thread that your still not getting the CAA WILL NOT....thats WILL NOT (cause you seem a little slow at getting this point) allow police ops with single engine helicopters..get it

Actually I'm not sure the CAA are saying that. The Opps manual states that requirement when flying IFR opps. So if the ASU's dropped out of IFR opps all together, or we could have a base with singles and twins. The singles do the VFR opps and the twins do the IFR jobs (or better still get an exemption to fly single engine IFR). That could save loads of money. The amount of times I see an expensive twin chasing an off road biker during the day on Dartmoor is ludicrous and wast full.

B.U.D.G.I.E

1st Jun 2010, 14:56

ok that proves it....

airband radio + spotters log book + google = chopchop :D

SilsoeSid

1st Jun 2010, 16:13

Yet another small flaw in your posts choppy old chap.

Last time I checked, Alan Johnson was in the Labour party and they aren't in Government in the UK.

Well I guess it is tea-time.

chopjock

1st Jun 2010, 16:46

Yet another small flaw in your posts choppy old chap.

Last time I checked, Alan Johnson was in the Labour party and they aren't in Government in the UK.

Oh so the cut backs will all be canceled and money will continue to be wasted away on expensive over the top toys. That's all right then.

SilsoeSid

1st Jun 2010, 20:38

Oh so the cut backs will all be canceled and money will continue to be wasted away on expensive over the top toys. That's all right then.

Ok then, lets have it your way.
In the meantime, until issued something else, I shall continue to climb into my 2 engined machine, Serving our Communities, Protecting Them From Harm.

I shall later wonder, over a brew and chocolate mini roll, how I would deal with that nightime casevac we nearly just went on, looking at the EMS fit...

EMS Fit (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Missions_77-324.html)
http://www.eurocopter.com/site/docs_wsw/RUB_77/EC130B4_missions-EMS-1_286px.jpg

... especially with all the hi-tech kit we have on board these days.

Bertie Thruster

2nd Jun 2010, 05:22

No tandem paramotors?

(Police Aviation News, issue Jun 10)

B.U.D.G.I.E

2nd Jun 2010, 09:13

Sid

Where do the screens go??? or the rear observer with the seat pushed so far back???

chopjock

2nd Jun 2010, 09:21

Where do the screens go??? or the rear observer with the seat pushed so far back???

Where did they go in the AS355's ?

Prawn2king4

2nd Jun 2010, 09:38

1. Centralise the system; including medevac aircraft.

2. Retain TE capability.

3. Recoup some costs by allocating a percentage of flight time for commercial use. TV/photography etc.

4. Stop responding to Chopjock.

jayteeto

2nd Jun 2010, 11:01

Thats why we don't want/use 355's these days. It's more than just engines. Many twin engine ac are not ideal for the job.

tigerfish

2nd Jun 2010, 12:25

The current EC135's and the Explorer evolved out of need. By the early 80's and through to the early 90's, the UK suffered an appalling level of vehicle crime, Ram raiding and street crime in general. The evolution of Police air support brought a lot of that to a halt. Ram raiding is dramatically down on what it was. Vehicle pursuits used to be extended, going on sometimes for over an hour. Today the scroat knows that once spotted he has only a short time to dump the car before the heli is overhead & he is stuffed. Street robberies are also down.

But today we have chief officers who have never experienced what policing was like before the advent of air support. They will soon learn if they cut back. Nothing will free up criminal activities more than the absence of air support to the poor police officer on the ground, usually up to his neck in it.

Sadly in some ways the ASU's are the architects of their own downfall. They stopped telling everyone how good they were, and of their successes. The job had become routine, so they forgot that people need to be constantly reminded of how effective air support really was. People really do have short memories! How many lives will be put at risk as vehicle pursuits become extended again. I suppose that we will just let them go each time.

On the question of single versus twin:- I have been involved with Police Air support since 1984 and believe that the twin engined rule has kept as very safe in comparison to Police air support in the rest of the developed world. Chop Jock, its not just a question how many engines that you have, its about an attitude of mind that takes all factors into consideration. The fact that we only use the best trained pilots in the world. Why? because we expect our Police aircraft to fly at night and in all weathers. Do not forget that UK weather in the winter can produce some of the worst conditions in Europe, yet our machines carry on. So its Pilots, its twin engined reliabilty, and its proffesionalism. Thats what keeps us safe!

However, it is true that the world does move on, and turbine reliabilty today is such that some rural and photography tasks could be acheived by a less expensive A/C such as an EC120. BUT I stress, only for such minor tasks and never over urban locations. And never in a piston engined machine.

Sadly I shall soon retire from this field. By 2004 UK Police Air Support was argueably the best in the world. It was co-ordinated, it was organised and it was efficient. But then a combination of short memories and the hated bean counters took charge. So by 2012 what was once the best in the world could become a mere shadow of its former self.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, - I fully support the concept of Regional delivery of a National Strategy. It had to come and will bring with it significant economies of scale. What worries me is the intended reduction in the total numbers of aircraft. If, - just suppose, that as a result of those clever people drawing range rings on a map, they get it wrong, those units that were closed cannot be brought back into service quickly. It could take years to put it all back. What would be safer surely, would be to mothball the odd base, but retain the ability to bring it back into service should the need arise. The so called "surplus to requirement" aircraft, should not be sold but retained as Regional spares. Helicopters do require quite a bit of maintenance so any region having four helicopters allocated to cover the area, will actually be operating with only three for most of the time. The industry no longer retains spare aircraft, so that in order to retain a constant response the service needs to be able to have its own reserves. My fear is that this re organisation is being driven by the wrong aim i.e. to save money, and not as it should be, to provide a better and more efficient service for the same money.

Only the scroats appear to appreciate just how good our existing system is. The attacks at fairoakes, Birmingham and Merseyside an indication of how much the criminal fears that effectiveness. It seems now that Short Memories and bean counters will assist the criminal to get back the upper hand.

Tigerfish.

Old Grumpy is not so grumpy now, - just sad.

PANews

2nd Jun 2010, 17:57

Someone knocked on my door, Bertie. Tandem Paramotors.

Horses for courses. And this tends to underscore what Tigerfish wrote.

Lethargy has entered the UK air support industry through believing their own PR. Top middle and bottom.

They are now so sure they are the best they are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and very soon hopefully they will notice that the baby and their jobs are missing.

Cross to small town USA and they are back where the UK was two decades ago... keen... if not desperate to get on board aviation. OK so its a parachute with a motor but it gives them what they want and they retain passion. Anyone remember passion?

I have just got back from Prague and a meeting with a group who generally acknowledge the superiority of the UK system ... or do I mean the former superiority? Across Europe there is a lot of copycat activity going on as they aspire to reach UK standards and meet up as Europeans to talk through their craft. Not one complaint about one engine or two... their aspiration is to go for two as soon as they can.

Police officers from Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, and Romania along with industry from across the globe were there, often at their own cost time and passion. Add some imported US officers on their own time and plenty of passion.

Only one nation was missing from this mix.

Any guesses?

B.U.D.G.I.E

2nd Jun 2010, 19:10

nice post tigerfish:D:D:D

Hughes500

2nd Jun 2010, 21:24

I have just noted that no one from the "Police" has answered my questions on The Devon and Cornwall machine
1. Why does it take 2 full time engineers to look after 1 machine ?
2. Why is it based at one end of the force area ? Range rings ! 10 miles 1 direction 100 plus the other !!!!!!!!!!
3. Why do they need a 145 with nvg capability ? When everyone else uses a 135 ( I know the Met uses 145's)

Now if you changed the 3 above I bet you would save a fortune !Bear in mind this is the area chopjock lives in

dieseldo

2nd Jun 2010, 22:22

D&C carry out their maintenance in house. Dedicated engineering provides cost benefits, cost control, maintenance flexability as well as having staff fully conversant with the the aircraft type and it's role equipment.

Duplicate inspection are a regular requirement for control and critical part disturbance.

A north sea operator of an S76 would have 4-5 engineers per aircraft to maintain a seven day a week service. Not so disimilar work wise to an
EC 145.

You can't work one guy 7 days a week 24 hours a day.

Seems to me that 2 engineers is the minimum to provide cover for scheduled maintenance, defects and weekend cover.

If you contract your maintenance out you are probably still paying for one permanent engineer plus big bills for maintenance.

The cost of one extra guy on a well used machine is more than covered.

The value of a dedicated workforce should not be underestimated as anyone who has sat waiting for an engineer stuck in a traffic jam on the M5 or M6 will tell you!!!!!.

Experience shows that the police aren't happy to be told that the engineer they expect to come and fix their aircraft is a 100 miles away carrying out a duplicate inspection on another forces aircraft.!!!!!

STANDTO

3rd Jun 2010, 07:19

Quote:
The other area which I think would be worthy of research is the potential to combine HEMS operations and Police Air Support. Medical is always going to take primacy
There are a few combined units operating which do sterling work. However I have always felt this should be a starting point from which two separate units form. Take a Hungerford type scenario, or a hit and run, armed bankraid with injured bystanders etc. Is it really an option to stop chasing the gunman/driver hoping that he won't do any more damage while the helicopter crew deals with the injured? They are two totally separate jobs and should be tasked separately. The exception to this under present restrictions is for night HEMS.

Cheers

TeeS

There will always be conflicts, and decisions to be made. That is where senior officers earn their pay. Although the roles are different, there were, I understand, several air assets available as the tragic events in Cumbria unfolded. What do you use them for? - transporting armed officers to try and get ahead of the subject and therefore prevent more death, or use them to ferry the injured to the most appropriate hospital. A very tough call. And of course, Cumbria, despite its topography lending itself to rotary ops, has no air support and used to operate a plank. Would having had one readily available made a difference?

- thoughts with everyone who lost their life or was injured, and those who were involved in the job in whatever capacity. A really bad day.

tigerfish

3rd Jun 2010, 08:39

Standto: Your idea of combined air ops has some merit and has been tried, but sadly there are a number of significant drawbacks which always follow with a compromise. Weight limitations mean that a dual roled aircraft can never carry the full range of equipment that a dedicated machine can.

Now you may say that this is an acceptable result of the need to save money, but sadly we are now in the age of litigation. For example your child is critically injured in an accident. He/She is collected from the scene by a dual roled helicopter but sadly dies en route to hospital. The next day you hear about the very high standard of kit carried by the dedicated machines and the fact that many of them are now carrying trauma Doctors. You reach for the number of your solicitor........

But, and this is where your idea has merit, People should not allow themselves to concentrate on the aircraft as the only avenue of making significant savings. One of the greatest eaters of cash is the air base itself, and the infrastructure that surrounds it.

So why not combine bases? Keep the specialist aircraft and crewmembers (are you going to spend big bucks on the best kit and not get the best out of it?) but combine eveything else. Buildings, ops room, locker rooms, training suite, managers, fuel, maintenance etc etc. Savings made in that way would be significant, efficiency increased but no compromise on ability to deliver results.

That scenario exists and does work. It needs to become the norm. In the main the basic aircraft are of similar or known types so combined maintenance and training would not be an issue.

Tigerfish

Hughes500

3rd Jun 2010, 09:04

Dieseldo

Yes but what do they do all day ? Are EC 145's that unreliable they need to have something done everyday ? In which case wrong machine for the job. I am a commerical operator i certainly couldnt afford to have 2 engineers on the payrole for one aircraft that flies between 400 and 600 hours a year. Most of my machines ( yes they are not as complicated as a 145, but arent new machines supposedly very relaible) fly between 300 and 400 hours a year. Never been down due to engineering not being able to get to me, usually having to wait for parts. Just looked over the last 18 months, only one unscheduled input due to a starter motor going down, fixed same day.
Still no one wants to answer other questions though

STANDTO

3rd Jun 2010, 09:06

Good points TF - however, the litigation argument fails insofar as you can only work with what you have got. If a dual role machine is what you have, and it doesn't work out on the day, but you can show by proper policy decisions that you made the best choices you could, with the resources available, no lawsuit will ever succeed.

At the moment, here on the Isle of Man, we have a HEMS machine for the TT. It was brought about after they realised they had built the £112m hospital inside the course so you couldn't get to it during racing. Now it would be nice to have one all year round, but we don't. So does the lawsuit succeed for the chap that has a heart attack in the North of the Island that it takes a land ambulance 25 minutes to get to, then 40 minutes to get to the hospital, which could all have been done inside half an hour with a chopper, but he dies because it wasn't TT and we don't have one?

Likewise, when the clinical director in the control room is faced with two simultaneous trauma cases this week, at opposite ends of the Island. He only has one air asset - which one does he launch to, and which one gets the land ambulance? does the family of the one who dies because of the land ambulance delay then have a legal argument?

I totally agree with you regarding economies of scale with crews, op bases and a myriad of other areas. However, nothing should be off the table for discussion.

STANDTO

Thomas coupling

3rd Jun 2010, 09:10

This new government is going to run with the new police national strategy, big time and with bells on. It suits their M.O. to a 't'.
It will mean massive streamlining as it takes shape and some units are going to get taken out of commission big time (Liverpool has been suggested!). Over 20% will cease to exist.
There will be mistakes as the new strategy beds in, but it is inevitable, if the system is to become more "efficient".
In my 14yrs with ASU's and as one of the instigators of the new generation a/c - I have seen the wheel reinvented time and time again. One police force embraces an air support unit and does it liaise with its neighbour to maximise its potential - does it hell! Of course there is a community spirit with some forces, but the bottom line is - "we know how to run an ASU better than our colleagues".
Examples:
3 different types of a/c [135 / 902 / 145]. Different crew concepts, different maintenance arrangements; even different tactics. Why does D and C need a 145???? Why on earth did the Met buy 145's??? Why does one unit have directly employed pilots and their neighbour have contract pilots?
The Chief Constables have devolved an awful amount of power to the UEO and this has affected the strategy nationally.
This new policy will address most of this and do away with the surpluses caused by all of the above. It will make for a more focussed entity eventually, but en route it will upset quite a few people.
The "cull" shouldn't stop here however - it should go that little bit further and remove ACPO - a dinosaur department which is self perpetuating and extremely expensive to maintain. Regional business men (Captains of Industry)should run the police and run it like a corporate business.
Ultimately - the perfect model has to be a national police air force, run centrally with one type of helo and one type of FW. The maintenance and pilotage should either be civil servants or commercially under one authority.
We are just messing around the edges at the moment.........
Let's see how the new strategy manifests itself over the next 2 yrs. :ok:

Hughes500

3rd Jun 2010, 19:29

TC
With a post like that would you like to borrow a spare tin helmet !!!! But I have to agree with what you say

tigerfish

3rd Jun 2010, 23:54

TC,

Whilst I can agree with much of what you say, you seem to be implying that the service that you were so happy to work for until not so very long ago, got it so terribly wrong! So how come until very recently we were far ahead of the game?
I would submit that if we had left it to your service to organise, we would still be trying to catch high speed vehicle pursuits over our cities in Sea Kings with little modern kit and not able to speak to individual officers on the ground!
Yes, I agree things could be improved, and the service is trying to do that, but remember who pays the piper! Never try to remove the Police from Police Air support. At the end of the day Policing is what its all about, never forget that!

Tigerfish! - Bugger, I'm getting grumpy again!

B.U.D.G.I.E

4th Jun 2010, 05:39

As every one has to tighten their belts over the next few years you got to admit the new broom has got it right stopping fat cat bosses getting massive pay deals. Which would easily run an ASU for a year and the NPIA is not safe either :eek: which may make for a better police service.:E

zorab64

4th Jun 2010, 07:15

As is so often the case, TC hits the nail on the head typing, with more experience than most, of the job, aircraft, individuals & politics involved.

Actually, Tigerfish, whilst I agree with most of your posts, from your latest one, I suggest the Police are more often part of the problem - too many petty attitudes towards "their own patch" to realise that their next-door-neighbour's being burgled whilst they're on the other side of the fence - metaphorically & literally! In some areas different forces actually talk to, and work with, their neighbours, either in a formal or less formal manner, but both offering a service when one force would recieve none, if their aircraft was down for maintenance, and sometimes when one is rushed off its feet & the other's at a loose end!:ok:

There are efficiencies to be made but, if they include re-locating in the current threat environment it will be frighteningly expensive, I predict. As I've also previously posted, moving bases on the grounds that a 25 min service is as acceptable as a 15 min one, will make for very uneven provision in numerous areas - although why D&C are at one end of their huge patch, I've never understood! :suspect:

Those who continue to advocate significantly lesser-equipped aircraft, or believe that the Police can "change CAA policy" on operations in marginal weather at night, really need to smell the roses. It's not been the Police who've insisted on the latest crop of SPIFR machines being rushed in - in fact many of the forces were more than happy with thier old cabs - it was the CAA & lawyers worried about litigation if the aircraft crashed ! ! ! :ugh:

tigerfish

4th Jun 2010, 12:11

Zorab. If I gave the impression that I was against change that was very wrong. I fully support the concept of what is proposed, just a bit worried about what is driving it (Cost saving versus efficiency) thats all.

Change is vital if things are to move forward. I was just a bit irked because TC appeared to be saying that everything that has been acheved over the past 25 years was no good. I would submit that what was achieved from a standing start was pretty damn good.

TC also appeared to be wanting to remove the Police element from "Police Air Support" which quite frankly I find amazing. Yes there are faults but the service has grown significantly over the past 25 years and there are a number of people involved today who could quite easily step up to the mark of running the National Organisation. ( And I do not count myself in that body, as I am now well past retirement age ) There seems to be an element that believe that the Police should have no part in Police Air Support, and that it should only be the province of the professional Aviator. NO there must always be a Police involvement in such a Police centered activity.

It has been my impression over the years that individual Police ASU's were the most effective of all the specialised elements of Policing in co-operating with their neighbours. Mutual cover etc has been commonplace for years.

Regional working must come and the sooner the better. Some bases are in the wrong place and do need to be moved, but overall there is not much wrong with the system in comparison with what other counties have.

In short that was the cause of my perhaps terse response to TC. Just look at what has been achieved and compare. Who is more co-ordinated? Who is better organised nationally? Who has a better accident record? Who has a better record of effectiveness?

We can do better but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Tigerfish

jayteeto

4th Jun 2010, 12:36

Interesting interview on Radio 5 Live this morning about the latest shootings. Reporter was asking why Cumbria didn't have its own helicopter and were the bosses being short-sighted by not getting one. Could 'nutter' have been caught earlier? I wonder if the newshounds realise that things are only going to get worse?

CSC 123

5th Jun 2010, 00:28

The point should be made that Cumbria does have a helicopter, they have full access to a 24 hour resource at Lancashire in a partnership that has been in place since 1997, and I believe it was Lancashire that responded first. Lancashire could be on scene before some aircraft that cover very large areas already. If Cumbria had merged with Lancashire, then the question would not have been asked. This is one area where the review would not have any impact, although interestingly, ask who covers Lancashire when they are in Cumbria.......................... that would be Merseyside, who would then relieve Lancashire when refuel is needed. So now Cumbria have access to two helicopters without really thinking about it. Then the North East can cover the north end of Cumbria, that would be three helicopters. And that's not counting for the numerous air ambulances that were mobilised and the military sea kings. What this does underline is the disjointed and individual response that would justify a fully co-ordinated response. And it also shows the very different roles and priorities for the police aircraft and air ambulances in this kind of situation, and the importance of police ownership. There could be some interesting debrief information from this tragic event, especially for those involved in air operations.

And Tigerfish is so right about Air Ops being ahead of the game in 'borderless' operations - they have been doing this ever since they started and have always been one of the most professional and able specialized section of the service to achieve this. The reality is that the top table priorities change, and economy of scale becomes attractive. The alternative is that more aircraft disappear and mergers happen by necessity of cost - that is exactly what happened to Cumbria air support in 1997.

Thomas coupling

7th Jun 2010, 14:49

Tigerfish - how are you old boy? Glad you are still as passionate now as you were when we met not so long ago!
You must have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Let me re-iterate:
The 'model' isn't bust, it is the machine which encompasses it that was never right in the first place.
I am always for "police officers" in helicopters - long may it last.
What irked me then and still does is the way one 'new' UEO seems to be averse to learning from the other more seasoned UEO across the border. They would rather bite their hand off than copy their peers SOP's. Hence a lot of time and money is wasted learning how to run an AOU.
The same goes for buying the hardware.
Finally - when you look at how C.C's run their business - they are contracted individuals, paid considerable (some say too much) money to build a bureaucratic monolith around policing - introducing schemes that they have lifted from elsewhere which simply don't fit into modern day British policing at times. Their 'leverage' over air support has stifled the Home Office's plans for the future which is to streamline air support and to do away with re-inventing the wheel. Too many bosses and not enough injuns!!
One a/c type / always a core police crew (not necessarily all police though:suspect:) and a Captain of Industry running a region.

Modern policing using modern ideas and modern equipment.

Take care.

tigerfish

7th Jun 2010, 16:05

TC, Thanks for asking, & yes I am fine. I guess I did misinterpret what you were saying, - It was late & my response was over the top. Actually there is very little water between us, and as usual I do respect your view on the subject.

Yes my passion for the subject is still as strong, I guess that you cannot be connected with something for over 25 years, watched it develop,& been proud of what it acheived, without continuing to fight its corner.

As I have said so many times, in my humble opinion the proposals are essentialy right, the devil will be in the detail though, and I am worried that the new breed of ACPO are more concerned with saving money than keeping up effectiveness.

Once the criminal realises that his chances of being caught by an a/c are diminished he WILL take advantage.

I will never forget the advice given to me by my tutor constable back in the mid 60's. He said "Never be kind to the criminal my son, because to the criminal,kindness is weakness, and weakness is to be exploited" I heeded that advice and it stood me in good stead for over 30 years.

My concern is that by thinning out the cover we might be seen to be kind to the criminal. That will be interpreted as a weakening of our resolve to lock the ******ds up!

Good luck to you TC. I hope that your new ventures are continuing to bear fruit.

Tigerfish

Fly_For_Fun

11th Jun 2010, 10:57

Rationalisation of air support is one thing, but trying to get a quart out of a pint pot is unreconcilable. The whole point of air support is a fast response, with the endurance to do what is needed when on scene. If the response times are increased by say 10 minutes, and some areas a lot more if you look at areas like East Anglia, then the offenders are going to get away. You could have one aircraft covering the whole of the UK, very cheap but a complete waste of time. So what is the point of air support? You either have an effective service that gives value for money by catching criminals, bringing pursuits to a safe conclusion, finding missing persons and finding all those hydroponic sites, or no air support at all. It is of course a no brainer given the safety issues of pursuits and the manpower needed for searching for missing persons. This can only be achieved by having the right number of assets in the right places giving an even coverage of the whole country. Chiefs need to understand that collaboration with neighbouring forces and the removal of boarders is not a threat but the answer for a better, more efficient and less expensive service.

IMHO.

tigerfish

11th Jun 2010, 11:36

Fly for Fun! - 10/10:

Its interesting that both the dreadful Hungerford, and the much more recent Cumbria shootings occured without the immediacy of Air support. Hungerford because back then, it was simply before such a resourse became available, and Cumbria, because the force did not have its own air support, & presumably whatever the arrangements were with its neighbours, it took longer to get it in.

"Fly for Fun" is 100% right when he says the whole secret of success of Air Support is in its speed of arrival, AND that arrival must be an arrival with enough fuel reserves to do something apart from seeking somewhere to refuel!

Yet it is in those very rural areas that the plans appear to accept a delay in response, as being an acceptable result of a drive to save money.

I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that, especially when you consider that for the most part they have already lost their rural Police stations.

Tigerfish

chopjock

11th Jun 2010, 14:48

Yet it is in those very rural areas that the plans appear to accept a delay in response, as being an acceptable result of a drive to save money.

I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that

Of course if the police didn't blow all their budget on expensive OTT aircraft elsewhere...

Fly_For_Fun

11th Jun 2010, 17:28

Chopjock, may I ask if you are only licensed as a PPL on singles? I say this with your obvious dislike of twins and your lack of knowledge about public transport/commercial ops.

Hughes500

11th Jun 2010, 17:46

Fly for Fun
I like your posts but why will no one tell me why Devon and Cornwall have their machine at one end of the patch, about 45 mins flyingtime to the other end, what bloody good is that, some what shoots your argument down about being effective !!!
By the way chopjock lives within that patch so probably is biased as to what he sees compared to other more populated areas !

tigerfish

11th Jun 2010, 17:58

Hughes 500. Please understand that I am not seeking to defend it, ( It is the for the force to that) But the original reason is down to history. Devon & Cornwall were the first force outside London to experiment with the use of Helicopters. (81/82).

The force HQ was -& is at Middlemoor just east of Exeter. It was not realised then that an Air Support unit should not be used for the transport of senior officers, so it was natural that the new concept in Policing should be based at HQ.

I am not party to the reasons why it remains there to this day, but given the extensive examinations that all units have at regular intervals, I am sure that they will have their reasons.

Tigerfish

fkelly

11th Jun 2010, 18:28

Flyforfun said
The whole point of air support is a fast response

That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..

Fly_For_Fun

11th Jun 2010, 18:36

Hughes 500. It looks as though being based at Plymouth would make more sence geographicaly so I am not sure why they are at Exeter. Perhaps they could answer your question if they are on line.

SilsoeSid

11th Jun 2010, 23:14

It appears that choppyjock, H500 et al are giving the same grief to the lot over at FFRuNe (FireFighters Rumour Network)

Over there they argue that Fire appliances shouldn't be so big, as they have no need to carry so much water. There are loads of those hydrants and other water sources around, that could be used by a smaller cheaper vehicle that would and could, for all intents and purposes, be a pump and hose on wheels and would be able to do exactly the same job.

As you only need one person on the nozzle end, another at the on/off button end and no reason to carry anyone or anything else, these vehicles can be adapted cosy little things, such as the Kaa, no spare tyres need to be carried incase of puncture either. We are reminded that the Kaa is not only more efficient fuel wise, with it's smaller engine, we are told (as long as the fuel tank isn't more than quarter full), it can just about keep up with a fully laden big boy Fire appliance.

On the other side of their coin, they argue that there is also no need for this large combined Fire and Rescue appliance going out each time, as when the station is called out on a shout, they know, on being deployed, whether it is a Fire or a Rescue that they will be attending. So it makes sense to get rid of the larger appliance and have 2 smaller appliances, one being the pump/hose vehicle and the other a 'ladder and ropes' rescue vehicle.

Another thing that I noticed on that site is that they point out that fires never happen close by to the fire stations. Therefore a blue light run is always having to take place in order to achieve an 8 minute response time. Obviously they are in the wrong place and therefore a total reassessment of Fire Stations needs to taken at a national level.

The biggest reaction though from those at FFRuNe, comes from their argument that the tax payer has forked out a lot of money for all these nice and shiny all singing and dancing Fire & Rescue vehicles that spend a lot of time just sat in a station. Their own cars do more mileage in a week than their local fire appliance and therefore don't think the taxpayer is getting value for money.

Just off to the BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site) to see what they've been up to there and then to sus out KEBABs (Keep England Bright And Barmy site)

:ok:

Hughes500

12th Jun 2010, 06:01

SS

I am only giving grief as I see at first hand the waste of money.
Can you really argue that
1. you should place your asset at one end of the patch ? With 5 mins flying time to the East of your patch and more than 45 mins to the West.
2. You use the biggest most expensive machine where as the likes of you uses a cheaper and obviously just as effective machine
3. The use of 2 permenent engineers to look after one machine ( yes I know they now look after the air ambulance)

If you corrected these areas you would see cost savings. If you notice I have never gone down saying police need singles. Yes in certain circumstances they would be great, but they cant do everything a twin can. ( Before you ask I do have a twin rating and do fly them commerically)

All I have said you have to cut your cloth. It is easy to say keep this and keep that if you dont have to write out the cheques. I have to write out the cheques for 4 machines, so I know what cost saving actually means when it effects you personally. So you go down the avenue of looking very closely at all aspects of your business. If some of the police units look more closely at what they do then there are potential cost savings to be made. CC's need to stop playing with " their " train set and look at the bigger picture

MightyGem

12th Jun 2010, 07:40

Flyforfun said
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..

No. That was because the portacabins were falling apart as the Airport kept moving them around, as they couldn't decide where we could build a proper base. Plus ATC would keep us waiting for a Squeezyjet 5 minutes away when we could be clear in less than a minute, and moving to Woodvale saved us about £50000 a year in rent and landing fees.

Hughes500

12th Jun 2010, 08:05

Mightyjem, now theres sensible use of taxpayers money, savings like that can go a long way to keeping asu's

Mr_G_Box

12th Jun 2010, 08:05

Flyforfun said
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..

And further to MG's reply, the 'longest leg' in Merseyside is under 8 minutes from Woodvale. The City (Tunnel entrance) is the same distance from Woodvale and Speke and we can reach all of Merseyside in under 8 minutes from Woodvale, rather than the 15 minutes it used to take to get to Southport from Speke. It may come a surprise to you but these things were actually considered before the move happened.

SilsoeSid

12th Jun 2010, 12:35

Oh Dear!

Seems over at BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site), choppy and his mates are saying that it has been found that ambulances, in the vast majority of incidents, only carry one patient and that the average daily mileage when on emergency calls is 45 miles. Again less than choppy, H500s etc own cars.

The solution to them was simple;

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_uQ6f-nAP6os/R3Hg_IAbo0I/AAAAAAAABPM/abJ3yLTnRk8/s640/IMG_3477.jpg

With 2 (driver and medic) on board, the speed through a built up area was comparable to a Transit sized slab sided ambulance. With the patient on board, the speed decreased somewhat, however this was balanced by better patient comfort and treatment capabilities.

Relatives of the casualty, should they need to be carried, would be given transport by the lawyers at the scene as they would be going the same way anyway.
:ok:

Retro Coupe

12th Jun 2010, 23:33

It may come a surprise to you but these things were actually considered before the move happened.

Having been priced out of Liverpool Airport, where else could you have gone other than Woodvale, that wouldn't have involved the building of a purpose built complex not unlike the one that North Wales are currently operating from?

Mr_G_Box

13th Jun 2010, 11:14

Retro, that was considered and explored and a non starter. Reasons..... lets just say Police Helicopter bases are not welcomed with opened arms!:ugh:

Hughes500

13th Jun 2010, 18:51

SS

Love the picture, probably quite effective in the traffic in Delhi, brings to mind the following expresion " quantity has a quality all of its own "

SilsoeSid

13th Jun 2010, 22:05

brings to mind the following expresion " quantity has a quality all of its own"

Certainly does;

Helicopter Safety | Common Helicopter Accident Causes (http://www.helicoptersafety.org/commonaccidents.asp)
Taken from a study of the Griffin Helicopters accident database since 09 Jan 1997 the study comprises a review of 398 rotary wing accidents and incidents involving UK registered aircraft of which 379 involved helicopters and 40 were fatal.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Safety.jpg

Hughes500

14th Jun 2010, 18:24

SS

Looks like the 355 is worse than the 350 ! Better convert to 350 and chop in my 355 rating. Mind you, can make figures say whatever you want, just ask my accountant

SilsoeSid

14th Jun 2010, 18:52

Looks like the 355 is worse than the 350 !

And the 350 is worse than the 902, 117, 109 or 135. :ok:

Not bad IMHO, considering the amount of hours flown and the conditions in which they are.

Mind you, can make figures say whatever you want..

Unless of course it disagrees with some opinions on here :p

SilsoeSid

14th Jun 2010, 19:05

And before chopjock harps on about the 130;

Not YET!

B.U.D.G.I.E

16th Jun 2010, 18:37

old chopsicle has gone quiet all of a sudden.

Nice one sid :D

Coconutty

18th Jun 2010, 08:52

The whole point of air support is a fast response

Rubbish - That's just ONE point - there are very many more points to consider !

Anyone got a horse in need of some flogging ? - Please post it here :ugh:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

tigerfish

18th Jun 2010, 12:06

coconutty,

I am sure that "fly for Fun" didn't mean to imply that speed of arrival was the only important issue, - of course there are many others, but in my humble opinion, it is one of the most important. I have been closely involved with Police Air Support since 1984, - not the first by any means but nevertheless one of the longest so connected.

One of the first lessons we learned was the absolute need to get to the scene quickly (& remember I am talking about the days before FLIR ). Our role was containment, - the ability to prevent the escape of the culprit before adequate ground based resources could be got there. In the case of rural burglaries we were almost always the first on scene, and in extreemis were able to land and effect arrests if necessary.

We quickly established that as a general rule, unless we could be overhead the scene of the crime within 20 minutes from its inception, then our ability to affect the outcome declined rapidly (Because the culprit had already gone)
You will note that I said "From its inception" and not "From when we were called"

The same applies to vehicle pursuits. The huge danger to the public caused by high speed vehicle pursuits can be markedly reduced by having the pusuit taken over and managed from the air. Ground based resources can be dropped back, so as not to increase the danger to the public, BUT contact with the criminal will not be lost, as is so often the case when there is no air cover.

Vulnerable missing persons are another area where early location can & does save lives.

My concern, as I have said so many times is this:- If as a result of the planned restructuring, the jam becomes so thinly spread, then Police aircraft will routinely take more than that vital 20 mins ( And remember that is the outside figure) to getto the scene or where they are needed, and as a result its ability to help will be much reduced. Then at some point in the future someone will say " Just look at what that helicopter is costing, its always too late to do anything so we might as well do away with it all together."

Remember too, that both Cumbria and Hungerford, devoid of immediate air cover, went on too long and as a result people died.

I can recall that in the late 80's as a Chief Inspector in a busy city division remarking one night that if things didnt improve soon, the owners of Ford Escort XR3i's would be cutting notches in their car bonnets to record the numbers of times they had been stolen. Well things did improve, we got air support! That stopped ram raiding too!

So I agree speed of arrival is not the only consideration, but its a bloody important one!

Tigerfish

Coconutty

18th Jun 2010, 12:44

Easy Tigerrrrrr ! ;)

Did I say that a fast response wasn't important ? !

Of course it is important, I totally agree with that, but the post quoted stated
The whole point of air support is a fast response
which is WRONG, and people seem to be getting hung up on that one issue.

Before the horse finally keels over, if an ASU can find a cheaper place to operate from, and still maintain adequate response times, then the operating costs will be a far more important point - both to the local taxpayers, and the Police force finance manager(s) who are facing ever increasing budget cuts.

Other "important" points will include, for example, the geographical layout and demographics of the area concerned. The Force may decide to base its aircraft near to the most highly populated area, at the expense of response times to the more rural areas that are further away, where demand for Air Support is far lower.

Then there are travelling times for the crew which may impact upon Flight Time Limitations, Security ( esp. in light of recent events ) if based at remote locations.

I would have thought that the "whole point" of Air Support would be to provide a range of services, in support of Police Officers on the ground ( and "the Community" ), as efficiently and effectively as possible :ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

tigerfish

18th Jun 2010, 14:21

Ok OK ! coconutty, I have no problem with those comments whatsoever! Whilst my response might have been long, I think yours was a bit short!
But we are not far apart!

Tigerfish

zorab64

18th Jun 2010, 15:06

As Tigerfish has just admitted, Coconutty isn't that far off talking the same language - speed is important, but not to every job, where a little bit of prior planning can significantly affect performance. PPPPPP & all that :ok:
It's the message we try to get to everyone who calls for Air Support - it's not when the call came in that's important, it's when the person was actually last seen . . . such that we can calculate our chances of either catching, or just containing the task & allowing the ground officers to search for, the gone-to-ground blagger.

It's true that there could be merit in biasing the basing of ASUs towards the greatest density of population, where the cr*p tends to land more often, but it can only be a long term change, as moving bases around is an absolutely massive problem in many areas, costs likely in £1.5m - £2m bracket (before talking about adequate security) unless you've got a friendly airport or old hangar to re-vamp. Friendly airfields are becoming further apart, in case one hadn't noticed, and moving bases closer to denser :mad: populations could reduce the service the rural areas also pay for! All this is before you start talking to the planners and, worst of all, the locals who are likely to be affected by your day and (specifically) night-time activities. In the current environment, savings would take some years to achieve and juggling bases would need to be done over a relatively short period for it to work - and cost a lot in the short term.

And yes, those who question the placing of D&C have my complete sympathy - it's a question I've asked for years. If I was a taxpayer in Kernow, I'd hope that the "joint aircraft" is funded significantly more by D than C, given the limited (reactionary) service it can ever be expected to provide in the West.

Coconutty

18th Jun 2010, 18:19

... On the same side even ;)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

ARIS

19th Jun 2010, 15:42

At last, I’m driven to comment!....:)

It seems to me that we need to be concentrating more on selling our overall cost effectiveness (best value), i.e if a unit costs £X per year to run, we need to prove that we can achieve a cost saving of several times that amount.
I appreciate that in some activities this can be difficult to quantify. We often, quickly ‘clear’ search areas thereby ‘saving’ money, knowing that the more expensive alternative – using ground resources over more protracted periods – would not be practicable or logistically achievable.
However, much of our activity can be costed and savings demonstrated to our ‘bean counter’ masters and the public, e.g. involvement in life-saving missions/direct arrests of prolific criminals.
The survival of some of our units could depend on it (I’m sure some forces have already offered up their ASUs as sacrificial lambs).
We need to act now, before its too late!

jayteeto

19th Jun 2010, 16:19

There are ways to save on flying hours and I offer myself up to any forces as an aviation consultant. (For a small fee of course). If all units are tasked like my old one, I could save approx 20% of your flying hours in an instant......:ok: It would also eliminate the frustrations of crews who burn holes in the sky with zero chance of success..........;)

Coconutty

20th Jun 2010, 06:48

Quantifying the benefits is always / has always been, difficult -

Take the Met for example - they try and have an aircraft in the air as much as possible, but how do they measure the effect on preventing Crime, or the level of Public reassurance - just by being there ?

Has anyone ever looked at actual Crime figures and compared any difference between the times that a Police helicopter is present, and when they are not, to gauge any impact on Crime Prevention / Reduction ?

e.g. Last time I was in Hyde Park with a 145 circling overhead I felt very reassured that there was less chance of having my mobile phone stolen from me ( or worse ), because - I thought - the presence of the helicopter would deter anyone thinking of doing so. The crew probably weren't even looking in the park, and if I had been robbed, they might not even have noticed, but I felt safer - How do you MEASURE that for the mighty bean counters, without sending out endless ( costly and time consuming to administer ) questionnaires, which I wouldn't have received as I don't live in that area, or conducting street surveys - which I never participate in ?

Granted, the Met are a little 'different' in the way they operate, but I know they are not alone amongst ASU's in conducting airborne patrols - particularly at peak times, to increase efficiency and response times.

Here's an interesting comment I heard :
'A Police helicopter is 0% effective when it is on the ground. It therefore follows that to get the best value from the asset, which may have cost £millions to purchase, it should be on the ground as little as possible.'

Compared with the initial purchase price, the increased costs of flying for an additional 100 Hrs per year for example, are relatively minimal.
.... and at least one ASU have INCREASED their annual flying rate in recent years for this very reason !

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

ARIS

20th Jun 2010, 08:39

The point I'm trying to make is that we can all look at ways of reducing costs (reduced flying hours etc.) but this might miss the real issue which is to prove our 'profitability' to the beancounters.
If our very survival is being contemplated, they are not bothered whether we cost say £1.6M or £1.3M a year to run.
We must and can prove that it is more expensive without air support.

chopjock

20th Jun 2010, 11:04

Granted, the Met are a little 'different' in the way they operate, but I know they are not alone amongst ASU's in conducting airborne patrols - particularly at peak times, to increase efficiency and response times.

I'm not so sure an airborne patrol would increase efficiency and response times, surely we want to increase efficiency and REDUCE response times. :}
What if an incident occurs when the asset is in need of a refuel any time soon, could actually reduce efficiency and increase response times . :eek:

jayteeto

20th Jun 2010, 12:31

We know what he meant, its not a grammar test on prune :confused:
The being airborne as much as possible argument is great when finances are in good shape. They are not, so sometimes you just have to be reactive. As to the point about a job coming in just as you need refuelling...... Sometimes that happens and sometimes the job comes in just as you launch. It is one of the arguments that goes around in circles without anyone actually being correct. If you want long patrols, why not consider an aeroplane with long endurance and a helicopter to take over specific jobs after the plank does the initial reaction. Why not use a military style 24/7 UAV to loiter/initially deal then handover to a 'human' reactive crew?
I wasn't joking in my earlier post, with compensation culture UK PLC, ASUs are spending many hours searching for missing people with absolutely no justification. How does this one sound...... XXX is missing from Bradford. He has family in London, Birmingham and Liverpool. Go and search the city centre on a saturday afternoon(!!!) for a 13 year old boy with brown hair, black jacket and jeans. 0.40mins wasted. Later that day a local radio station sends out that description and a member of the public rings in and says they saw someone matching(!!!) Launch helicopter again. Why? you may ask. Because senior officers could lose their jobs if something bad happens and they have not used ALL methods available to them. They could be sued by the family. (PS, he never even left Bradford). This story is not true of course, because if it was, I may get into trouble. However if I had said Leeds, I would....................
This goes on all the time, 'he went to XYZ country park as a child and may go there'!!!!! Etc Etc.
Change the stupid elf and safety rules and we will save money :ok:

B.U.D.G.I.E

20th Jun 2010, 12:56

oh know the half wits back......

There is a model that calculates the time spent by an aircraft v the time to search on foot. Air support comes out much much cheaper.

Aircraft in the air if far more cost effective and response times are less. It will be easy and has been easy to calculate if an aircraft is making a difference. If the presence of an aircraft for a pre planned reason is properly advertised then is does reduce crime. Sorry choppy chop chop it does. Oh and the "it might run out of fuel) argument don;t work. What happens if you go to start and have a chip light. can't go any way......

The problem is the police( although they waste money on a PR department) are crap at advertising and even worse at showing what they have done. Comes from bosses hating air support blowing their own trumpets. But when blown it works.

chopjock

20th Jun 2010, 13:53

There is a model that calculates the time spent by an aircraft v the time to search on foot. Air support comes out much much cheaper.Not necessarily. Depends on search area and weather conditions. Trying to find a misper in the city centre at night in the rain and poor vis, would be a waste of time for a helicopter, plod on foot would stand a much better chance.

If the presence of an aircraft for a pre planned reason is properly advertised then is does reduce crimeSo a crook will inform when he plans to commit a crime? Or do you keep an aircraft up 24/7 to deter? Or better yet, the crook sees an asset on patrol, waits for it to go away for fuel, then commits his act, knowing the asset will be some time yet.:rolleyes:

PANews

20th Jun 2010, 14:04

This line of argument tends to trip into the thought processes of the US police and give the UK model a slight kicking, but only because the flight cost per hour of the SPIFR twin airframe is so high. Nonetheless it is the crew that are the expensive items and having them sat sitting on the ground is not necessarily economic.

The US model promotes patrol - and generally at low level so they are seen to be there and liable to scare wrongdoers - but embraces single engines. The EO/IR kit is cheaper, lighter and less capable at height and the preferred flight height is generally judged 'more dangerous' if a mechanical fault [or a few bullets] intervene. For many operations low has been too low and they are altering their behavior - for instance NYPD no longer fly over Central Park at 300 feet at night after finding that their A119s has slightly different auto-rotative characteristics to their B206s......

High Vis Patrol in the UK model tends to be at a far higher level because it uses high cost twins [and because the EO/IR equipment allows them to] but that higher level flight tends to remove the very real deterrence effect of patrol US style.

Like is not being compared with like. You need an R44 [or Bell 206] for patrol in that style.

The now vintage Home Office ODonnell report on the relative cost effectiveness of air support v's ground search was based on a different generation of aircraft [that included the ill starred Optica] and I guess that the significant cost differences between foot and a larger modern SPIFR twin may well have narrowed a little.... but not enough to negate the very positive general message that old document presents. Perhaps it should be stapled to every defensive treatise to those that seek to beat back air support forty years to when there was virtually none.

Few UK air support operations are in any way self promoting and the fruits of that lack of self promotion are coming home to roost. It is not too late even now but someone needs to get PR into their vocabulary - quick!

B.U.D.G.I.E

20th Jun 2010, 15:51

So a crook will inform when he plans to commit a crime?

No but crime patterns show when and where. They are creatures of habit.

But the way well done for making a post that does not make reference to single engine ops.. Your learning. :D

timex

20th Jun 2010, 18:27

We had a fail to stop two nights ago, we arrived in the area just as a second fail to stop occured. We concentrated on finding the first one (Motorbike), during which time the second vehicle pulled over as he thought we were there just for him.. effective?

Later that same shift reports of a crashed car, arrived on scene to see a guy either p****d or concussed staggering over the road using a mobile, we kept an eye on him until a Panda turned up. He was totally p****d and was on the phone to a mate to come and collect him before the Police turned up.

Maybe doesn't show the benefits over single or twin but does show the effectivness of early Air support arrival.

B.U.D.G.I.E

20th Jun 2010, 18:39

the simple equation to work out if air support is working in the criminal fratertity is this.

if you drive a car on a mobile phone and get caught do you torch a police car = no

if you commit a lot of crime and air support is making a difference do you try and change this = yes.

So it's making a difference and they don't like it up um (capt mannering,) got to be worth the dosh....

Hughes500

20th Jun 2010, 21:00

So BUDGIE its your train set and you have to cut the budget, at what percentage cut do you start looking at the helicopter ?
Interestingly silsoe sid has side stepped lots of the points I have put to him, as he obviously is a pilot and only receives a cheque he doesnt have to put his hand in his pocket and just comes up with the argument how good the helicopter is .
I am afraid you and all ASU's will have to defend yourselves very very well if you are to keep the toys. To lots of the public they would prefer to see a pair of size 12's on the beat. To the CC the heli is a big lump of money so is perhaps an easy target for his bean counters, as they are unlikely to ring fence you.
Basically guys welcome to the real world, doesnt matter how good something is, if you cant affod it you cant afford it.

B.U.D.G.I.E

20th Jun 2010, 21:14

nice post.......it is a costly but bloody effictive tool in the box. the full truth and how effictive it is really is not for public conception...

SilsoeSid

20th Jun 2010, 21:26

Sorry huesey, didn't realise you had directed questions specifically to me. Please refresh me on what you would like my opinion on.

I suspect others who also know what actually goes on in this real world have already answered your points though.

When we get a quiet period I will happily get back to you, for now though the public needs me, my crew and aircrafts attention!

Another 7 flying hour day ahead !

timex

20th Jun 2010, 21:58

H500, In the next year or so (2012) the National Air support Wing will come into being. Individual CC's will not (allegedly) be making the decisions about Air Support, and therefore not worrying about the pot.

SilsoeSid

20th Jun 2010, 22:55

Huesey, I can only guess the questions you refer to and you want my opinions on, are the questions you asked on page 9

I have just noted that no one from the "Police" has answered my questions on The Devon and Cornwall machine
1. Why does it take 2 full time engineers to look after 1 machine ?
2. Why is it based at one end of the force area ? Range rings ! 10 miles 1 direction 100 plus the other !!!!!!!!!!
3. Why do they need a 145 with nvg capability ? When everyone else uses a 135 ( I know the Met uses 145's)

Not being linked at all to the D&C ASU, apart from that they cover my native homeland, I can only answer from an outsiders p.o.v.

1. Well firstly, aren't there actually 2 machines on site?
I guess having engineers always available to a single unit ensures greatest serviceability and also saves on having to wait for a 'duty engineer' to travel hundreds of miles to get to them from another job he's on. In the real world, there could be occasions where ac are down all night and half a morning as the duty engineers ( 2 signatures?) can't get there any sooner)

2. I believe there are a few satellite bases in the force area that can be utilised if circumstances deem it to be necessary. You also have to look at where the bulk of jobs are taking place where the helicopter would be of use and also where other resources are located that may need to be transported to a job are based.
What sort of jobs are conducted most, or probably a better reference, what jobs are they requested to attend most?
If these are jobs on Dartmoor or Exmoor, being based in Exeter isn't a bad thing is it!
If they are motorway jobs...say no more!
Is there more crime, that would require the use of the helicopter, taking place in Plymouth or Truro than there is in Exeter?
etc

3. Perhaps a question that highlights either your lack of knowledge, research or intelligence in what you consider to be your own industry.

These answers are a only my personal opinion and if you really wanted answers to your questions, perhaps you would at least give everyone here the decency to at least take the time to visit D&C AOUs own website for a few answers.
Devon & Cornwall Police | Helicopter (air operations unit) (http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/AboutUs/SpecialistOperations/Helicopter/Pages/default.aspx)

It offers 24/7 support to all operational units, quickly reaching remote or dangerous destinations and giving access to areas which may be dangerous to terrestrial units.

With space for two crew and up to six passengers the brand new Eurocopter EC145 - which came into service in April 2010 - can get dog crews, search or diving teams and other specialised units wherever they need to be in minutes rather than hours.

If statistics alone are evidence of its value to the force, be it for tracking criminals, searching for missing people or even supporting Devon Air Ambulance when it cannot fly or when multiple casualties need transporting.

Our new helicopter is capable of:

Two and half hours flying time;
Searching an area 40 times larger than that of a ground patrol;
Searching cliff, roofs and inhospitable terrain;
Thermal imaging and scene illumination at night.

Why is the helicopter based in Exeter?

Weather conditions are better in the Exeter area; it would be more difficult to fly from a location further west in the Force area.

The Air Operations Unit is next to the motorway, which is convenient considering that crime frequently enters and exits the Force area via the motorway.

There is a mutual aid scheme with Dorset and Avon & Somerset Constabularies; Air Operations in these forces cover one another in case of emergency. If the Force’s Air Operations Unit were based in Cornwall, for example, it would be too far west to assist these two forces.

If the helicopter base were in Plymouth, it would need to stop more frequently to re-fuel each time it flew east for a job and then back west to Plymouth. The helicopter’s endurance is limited to just two hours’ flying.

The helicopter has always been based in Exeter and it would be expensive for the Air Operations Unit to move location. Air Operations staff all live locally so it is a convenient location.

Does the helicopter ever leave the Exeter area?
The engineering and administrative base is at Exeter. Satellite bases have been set up at Plymouth airport, Camborne Traffic Centre, R.N.A.S. Culdrose and RMB Chivenor. The aircraft is routinely positioned to each of these bases.

Is the helicopter a cost-effective way of policing?

The helicopter can search an area of 1 mile square in 12 minutes. When searching rural areas of the Force, the helicopter is the best resource in eliminating open ground and inaccessible areas and by far the cheapest when compared with police officers on foot (454 man hours per mile squared). It is safer to search rooftops using the helicopter. It is the only significant large area night search capable resource.

Where do you want budget cuts to stop?
Horses...!
Underwaster search teams...!
Dogs...!
Firearms...!

SilsoeSid

20th Jun 2010, 22:59

Devon & Cornwall Police | Where we have flown and why (http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/AboutUs/SpecialistOperations/Helicopter/Pages/Whereflown.aspx)

May 2010 Flights information

Date Time Location Incident type

01-May-2010 00:00 Woodbury Common Training & Familiarisation
01-May-2010 18:50 Tiverton Lost / Missing person search
01-May-2010 18:50 Newton Abbot Training & Familiarisation
02-May-2010 00:30 Newquay Lost / Missing person search
02-May-2010 00:50 Stoke Cannon Crime Search
02-May-2010 01:15 Honiton Crime Search
02-May-2010 11:55 Porthleven Optical Evidence Gathering
02-May-2010 13:30 Launceston Crime Search
02-May-2010 17:35 Dartmouth Lost / Missing person search
02-May-2010 21:30 Hartland Pursuit
02-May-2010 22:00 Lee Moor Miscellaneous search
02-May-2010 22:25 Newton Abbot Miscellaneous search
02-May-2010 23:00 Exe Estuary Training & Familiarisation
03-May-2010 18:30 Seaton Lost / Missing person search
04-May-2010 09:40 Pendeen Lost / Missing person search
04-May-2010 12:20 Bodmin Crime Search
04-May-2010 13:40 M5 Exeter ANPR Activation
04-May-2010 15:35 Taunton Lost / Missing person search
04-May-2010 22:30 Beaworthy Crime Search
05-May-2010 00:10 Roborough Crime Search
05-May-2010 02:30 Okehampton Crime Search
05-May-2010 12:10 Dousland Miscellaneous
05-May-2010 12:30 Devon Patrol
05-May-2010 15:35 Barnstaple Crime Search
05-May-2010 16:10 Fremington Crime Search
05-May-2010 20:50 Tiverton Crime Search
05-May-2010 22:05 Sandy Bay Miscellaneous search
05-May-2010 22:30 Woodbury Common Training & Familiarisation
06-May-2010 13:30 Dawlish Positioning
06-May-2010 14:25 Exeter Optical Evidence Gathering
07-May-2010 11:05 Ilfracombe Lost / Missing person search
07-May-2010 11:50 Crediton Training & Familiarisation
07-May-2010 13:35 Plymouth Positioning
07-May-2010 13:55 pLYMOUTH Optical Evidence Gathering
07-May-2010 14:30 Plymouth Optical Evidence Gathering
07-May-2010 14:40 South Hams Training & Familiarisation
08-May-2010 09:45 Wrantage Assistance at RTC
08-May-2010 10:30 . Positioning
08-May-2010 11:40 Calvadnack Optical Evidence Gathering
08-May-2010 12:15 St. Mary's, IoS Other
08-May-2010 13:20 Cornwall Positioning
08-May-2010 18:30 Plymouth Lost / Missing person search
08-May-2010 21:40 Newquay Crime Search
09-May-2010 01:15 Witheridge Crime Search
09-May-2010 17:45 St Austell Lost / Missing person search
09-May-2010 20:10 Devon Training & Familiarisation
10-May-2010 00:05 St Merryn Lost / Missing person search
10-May-2010 00:15 Exeter Crime Search
10-May-2010 00:40 Exeter Miscellaneous search
10-May-2010 13:45 Sowton Village Miscellaneous search
10-May-2010 16:25 East Devon Training & Familiarisation
10-May-2010 23:50 Exeter City Crime Search
11-May-2010 00:00 Exeter City Lost / Missing person search
11-May-2010 00:20 Exeter City Crime Search
11-May-2010 01:55 Paignton Lost / Missing person search
11-May-2010 13:40 Merryfield Positioning
11-May-2010 14:30 Merryfield CASEVAC
11-May-2010 14:50 Yeovil Westland Positioning
11-May-2010 15:15 Newton Abbot & Crediton Training Course
11-May-2010 15:55 Newton Abbot & Crediton Training Course
11-May-2010 16:40 Devon Training Course
11-May-2010 17:15 Devon Training Course
11-May-2010 20:35 Exeter Crime Search
12-May-2010 00:40 Seaton Crime Search
12-May-2010 10:25 M5 jn27 Training & Familiarisation
12-May-2010 14:10 Helston Pursuit
12-May-2010 15:20 Falmouth Optical Evidence Gathering
12-May-2010 16:05 A38 Devon Expressway Miscellaneous search
12-May-2010 23:25 Dawlish Lost / Missing person search
12-May-2010 23:45 Woodbury Common Training & Familiarisation
13-May-2010 14:15 East Devon Training & Familiarisation
13-May-2010 17:15 . Training Course
13-May-2010 17:55 M5 Crime Search
13-May-2010 18:10 Exmouth & Exeter Training & Familiarisation
14-May-2010 02:25 Chevithorne Miscellaneous search
14-May-2010 13:45 Exeter ANPR Activation
14-May-2010 13:55 South Devon Training & Familiarisation
14-May-2010 15:45 . Training Course
14-May-2010 16:40 . Training Course
14-May-2010 21:45 Sandy Bay Lost / Missing person search
14-May-2010 22:00 Copelstone, Taunton Assistance at RTC
14-May-2010 22:35 Kennford Miscellaneous search
15-May-2010 10:40 Devon Lost / Missing person search
15-May-2010 11:40 Devon Assistance at RTC
15-May-2010 12:25 Exeter CASEVAC
15-May-2010 13:00 Exeter Positioning
15-May-2010 18:15 St Agnes Positioning
15-May-2010 18:30 St Agnes Optical Evidence Gathering
15-May-2010 18:45 Cornwall Patrol
15-May-2010 19:05 Devon Patrol
15-May-2010 19:30 Devon Refuelling
15-May-2010 19:40 Ottery St Mary Lost / Missing person search
15-May-2010 22:40 Bideford Crime Search
16-May-2010 15:00 Exeter Training & Familiarisation
16-May-2010 15:40 Sidmouth Lost / Missing person search
16-May-2010 18:50 Exeter Lost / Missing person search
17-May-2010 02:05 Torquay Lost / Missing person search
17-May-2010 10:05 . Training & Familiarisation
17-May-2010 11:40 . Training & Familiarisation
17-May-2010 14:30 Exeter Training Course
17-May-2010 16:20 MM Training Course
17-May-2010 22:00 Devon Training Course
18-May-2010 10:05 . Training & Familiarisation
18-May-2010 11:30 . Training & Familiarisation
18-May-2010 14:25 Torquay Training Course
18-May-2010 15:00 Torquay Training Course
18-May-2010 15:40 Torquay Training Course
18-May-2010 18:20 Plymouth Lost / Missing person search
19-May-2010 11:00 . Training & Familiarisation
19-May-2010 14:20 East Devon Training Course
19-May-2010 14:50 East Devon Training Course
19-May-2010 15:30 East DEvon Training Course
20-May-2010 09:05 Devon Training & Familiarisation
20-May-2010 11:15 devon Training Course
20-May-2010 11:55 Bittaford Lost / Missing person search
20-May-2010 13:00 Bittaford Lost / Missing person search
20-May-2010 13:55 South Devon Training Course
20-May-2010 15:15 Torquay Crime Search
20-May-2010 15:25 South Devon Training Course
21-May-2010 00:20 Nos Mayo Crime Search
21-May-2010 00:50 Musbury Lost / Missing person search
21-May-2010 13:50 South Devon Positioning
21-May-2010 14:15 Plymouth Optical Evidence Gathering
21-May-2010 14:45 Lee Moor Miscellaneous search
21-May-2010 14:55 Dartmoor Patrol
21-May-2010 18:25 Honiton Lost / Missing person search
21-May-2010 23:50 Kenton Crime Search
23-May-2010 12:10 Saltash Positioning
23-May-2010 13:10 Hatherleigh/Follygate Positioning
23-May-2010 13:50 RD&E CASEVAC
23-May-2010 14:30 Exeter Positioning
23-May-2010 15:20 . Lost / Missing person search
23-May-2010 15:30 Parracombe, nr Lynton Optical Evidence Gathering
24-May-2010 00:10 Redruth Lost / Missing person search
24-May-2010 09:55 Oxford Positioning
26-May-2010 17:05 oxford Other
27-May-2010 13:00 Filton Other
27-May-2010 14:00 Exeter Other
28-May-2010 01:25 Looe Assistance at RTC
28-May-2010 01:35 Bideford Lost / Missing person search
28-May-2010 08:30 Exeter Crime Search
28-May-2010 18:35 Exeter Lost / Missing person search
28-May-2010 18:45 Marldon Lost / Missing person search
29-May-2010 01:40 Ashburton Lost / Missing person search
29-May-2010 16:30 . Equipment Evaluation
29-May-2010 22:05 Ivybridge Crime Search
29-May-2010 22:25 Devon Patrol
30-May-2010 12:15 /. Lost / Missing person search
30-May-2010 13:55 Midsomer Norton, Somerset Lost / Missing person search
30-May-2010 14:50 Taunton - Monkton - Honiton Crime Search
30-May-2010 19:25 Exeter airport Training & Familiarisation
31-May-2010 01:05 Plympton Lost / Missing person search
31-May-2010 01:05 Tedburn St Mary Lost / Missing person search
31-May-2010 15:45 Exeter Crime Search

Jun 2010 Flights information

Date Time Location Incident type

01-Jun-2010 01:05 Plympton Crime Search
01-Jun-2010 01:40 South Devon Patrol
01-Jun-2010 14:20 Ottery St Mary Crime Search
01-Jun-2010 14:40 East Devon Training & Familiarisation
01-Jun-2010 15:05 Exeter Crime Search
01-Jun-2010 23:50 Ilfracombe Lost / Missing person search
02-Jun-2010 12:50 North Devon Training & Familiarisation
02-Jun-2010 15:00 Middlemoor Training & Familiarisation
03-Jun-2010 08:45 Ashburton Lost / Missing person search
03-Jun-2010 09:30 Devon Training & Familiarisation
03-Jun-2010 10:45 North Devon Training & Familiarisation
03-Jun-2010 11:50 Bude Lost / Missing person search
03-Jun-2010 19:35 Exmouth Patrol
03-Jun-2010 19:55 Torquay Crime Search
03-Jun-2010 20:05 South Hams Patrol
03-Jun-2010 22:55 St. Austell Lost / Missing person search
04-Jun-2010 00:00 Dawlish Warren Crime Search
04-Jun-2010 11:15 Roadford Reservoir Miscellaneous search
04-Jun-2010 21:45 Croyde Lost / Missing person search
05-Jun-2010 14:20 Torbay Training & Familiarisation
05-Jun-2010 14:45 Teignmouth Optical Evidence Gathering
05-Jun-2010 15:00 Exmouth Training & Familiarisation
05-Jun-2010 18:15 Rousdon, Lyme Regis Lost / Missing person search
05-Jun-2010 22:45 Babbacombe, Torquay Crime Search
06-Jun-2010 09:00 Exeter Crime Search
06-Jun-2010 09:25 Exeter Training & Familiarisation
06-Jun-2010 13:45 Exeter ANPR Activation
06-Jun-2010 13:55 Plymouth Training & Familiarisation
06-Jun-2010 14:10 Plymouth Training & Familiarisation
06-Jun-2010 14:30 Plymouth Training & Familiarisation
06-Jun-2010 15:05 Plymouth Lost / Missing person search
06-Jun-2010 15:20 Dartmoor Patrol
06-Jun-2010 19:35 Plymouth Lost / Missing person search
06-Jun-2010 20:25 A30, Exeter ANPR Activation
06-Jun-2010 22:30 . Lost / Missing person search
07-Jun-2010 01:05 Tiverton/Harberton Lost / Missing person search
07-Jun-2010 13:35 Honiton Lost / Missing person search
07-Jun-2010 13:50 Exeter Airport Training & Familiarisation
07-Jun-2010 14:05 Exeter ANPR Activation
08-Jun-2010 12:45 Exeter Crime Search
08-Jun-2010 17:00 Chudleigh Positioning
08-Jun-2010 21:05 . Training & Familiarisation
08-Jun-2010 21:25 Paignton Optical Evidence Gathering
08-Jun-2010 21:30 Topsham Miscellaneous search
08-Jun-2010 22:05 Woodbury Lost / Missing person search
09-Jun-2010 15:30 Devon Training & Familiarisation
09-Jun-2010 18:00 Exeter Training & Familiarisation
10-Jun-2010 11:30 Bovey Tracey Lost / Missing person search
10-Jun-2010 11:35 Saltash Lost / Missing person search
10-Jun-2010 12:45 Exeter Airport Training & Familiarisation
10-Jun-2010 14:45 Devon Training & Familiarisation
10-Jun-2010 16:30 Devon Training & Familiarisation

I think if I paid into that pot, I would be satisfied with the service provided!

SilsoeSid

20th Jun 2010, 23:05

And finally, you may like to flick through;
YourRightInformation/FreedomInformation/Policies/D145.pdf (http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/YourRightInformation/FreedomInformation/Policies/D145.pdf)

Not bad considering all this research was done while waiting in a field in the dark on an iphone....!

jayteeto

21st Jun 2010, 08:45

Great list, I wonder how many of the lost missings were of the type I mentioned in an earlier post?

Hughes500

21st Jun 2010, 08:53

SS

Well the D and C is being very protective of its assest
Why a 145 when everyone else has the cheaper and better 135
Weather better in Exeter great if you live in Exeter ( sunniest city in UK I believe !)
Oh gosh the crew live in Exeter, no reason to base it there really
2 machines for 2 engineers, how often do they need a maintenance input to justify that ?
Bet the tasking figures would be different if machine is in the middle of the force area. Would you send the machine off on a 100nm to do a job that is probably over before you got there ?

Dont get me wrong I think the asu's should stay, but the waste of money due to " its a big firm" mentality must go. As a tax payer I would be very unhappy about paying for an assest based 100 nm away !

As to no fuel what bolloc.s. You can get rotors running by day at Dunkeswell ( almost as far East as you can go), Eaglescott, Chivenor ( if ask nicely),Lomas at Bideford( as far North as you can go).
In fact I am going to give up posting now ( bet you will be pleased SS) as it is very difficult to get through to some that, if you cant afford it you cant afford it., simple ecomomics really. Mind you if it was that simple the last idiots that have been in No 10 and 11 for the past 13 years wouldnt have destroyed our country

SilsoeSid

21st Jun 2010, 09:10

Huesey,

As it appears to be you that it is hard to get through to, I suggest that it is a good thing that you have decided not to post here again. It's like a hamster wheel trying to get through to you. Ignoring all the answers you are given by various sources leads me to conclude that your attitude stems simply from the fact that you would like to be in the job yourself, but for some reason cannot quite make it.

If you really are bothered about some issues at D&C, I suggest you get in contact with them directly, but of course we all know that you won't.

It's that little green chip on your shoulder.

Freewheel

21st Jun 2010, 10:42

Sid,

Your posts remind me of the dangers of arguing with idiots.

chopjock

21st Jun 2010, 11:38

That's a long list. I notice no info on whether each flight was effective or not. :)

B.U.D.G.I.E

21st Jun 2010, 12:04

That's a long list. I notice no info on whether each flight was effective or not.

well its hardly going to say.

"search for a missing person. Result what a bloody waste of time should never have lifted"

SilsoeSid

21st Jun 2010, 15:56

Freewheel,

Sid,

Your posts remind me of the dangers of arguing with idiots.

I know what you mean. Huesey and the Chopmeister just didn't want to listen to the answers others were giving him/her.

All the best.

B.U.D.G.I.E

21st Jun 2010, 17:30

Huesey and the Chopmeister just didn't want to listen

still don't
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

timex

21st Jun 2010, 19:47

Speak to some of the ASU's that have their own engineers and you'll find that it works out cheaper than having contracts with EC and the like.

J.A.F.O.

21st Jun 2010, 19:53

And a great deal more efficient in terms of how fast you can get back on line following maintenance.

[email protected]

21st Jun 2010, 20:10

Hughes500 - why choose Exeter?

Well it has an excellent weather factor especially in wet and windy SWesterlies as it is in the rain shadow of Dartmoor - that means better chances to launch and recover rather than divert.

At Chivenor we hold Exeter as a most probable diversion in poor weather.

Exeter has a 24 hour airport with radar and ILS available and is in low lying ground giving a low DA unlike Plymouth which is 700' up and closes at 2200.

There is no point in basing your helicopter centrally in the D and C patch because there is nowhere with the facilities required to maximise the availability of the helicopter - you would end up diverting a lot, away from your engineering and operational support which would be counter-productive even if it did save a few quid.

Being close to the coast also means that if inland is socked in, the aircraft can route around the coast to try and find a break in the weather rather than being stuck with no options.

Not to mention that Exeter is right on the M5 which is where any scallies will route out of the SW after conducting whatever criminal activities they have chosen for themselves.

Can't think why they chose to put it there at all:ugh:

SilsoeSid

21st Jun 2010, 20:12

Chopmeisterjockey et al,

I would rather do what we have just done and turned out for a missing 6 year old girl, that was found just after we turned up on scene, than to be called up at 2am to illuminate the river area in order to assist the recovery of a body.

Not only do we give the community the reassurance that we are there for them when they are in a time of need, it also frees up officers on the ground to do a more thorough local area search, which is in fact what happened in this case.

Have a pleasant evening!

chopjock

21st Jun 2010, 23:09

crab,
Exeter has a 24 hour airport with radar and ILS available and is in low lying ground giving a low DA unlike Plymouth which is 700' up and closes at 2200.

Not completely correct, Plymouth is about 470 ft elevation, not 700 ft and has an ILS.:ok:
Also Exeter suffers a lot from FOG, wafting in from Marsh Barton. Plymouth rarely gets fog. Oh and EGHD is very close to the coast too.
Plymouth would make a much more central, stretegic position for an ASU in my opinion.

SilsoeSid

22nd Jun 2010, 01:22

Exeter has a 24 hour airport with radar and ILS available and is in low lying ground giving a low DA unlike Plymouth which is 700' up and closes at 2200.
Not completely correct, Plymouth is about 470 ft elevation, not 700 ft

Actually Chodjock, I think you'll find crab@ was referring to the DA at Plymouth being 700 ft, not the elevation, which by the way is 476ft.

As an aviator I would have thought you would know better than to argue that one potential base location is better than another purely because of the weather.

Once again you disregard answers from known reliable sources and show your ignorance about basic aviation operations.

Best of all you ignore the fact, one that you were told, that Exeter operates 24h as opposed to Plymouth that doesn't.

Not very handy for a unit that operates 24/7 is it!

[email protected]

22nd Jun 2010, 07:07

Sorry - Plymouth elevation typo, meant to press 5 and got 7 instead, must be my age:)

Chopjock I didn't say Plymouth didn't have ILS but their weather factor is far worse than Exeter because they are South facing and on a hill which means you need 700' amsl cloudbase to get in on an instrument approach.

Hughes500

22nd Jun 2010, 08:09

Crab

Thanks for that, I have been merely making the point that if you are in Cornwall, having a machine so far away makes little sense, espically when the biggest conubation is more central.
As I live on Dartmoor I know what the weather can be like in both Plymouth and Exeter ( have flown down here for 20 years and 5000 hours). Not sure on the actual facts but I would agree with the wetness of Plymouth but Chop is also correct at how easily Exeter gets fogged in due to the Estuary and low lying land. Castle Air at Liskeard dont seem to do too badly and they are in Cornwall
Somewhere along the line savings will have to be made, ASU's need to either show how good they are and how cost efficient they are or come up with cost and efficiency savings, more likely to be both. I would think having a central run asu rather than its "my train set" will help, you will then get economy of scale.
Most on this site do not have the first idea of running a business, after all that is what the police force is. Comments like the staff live in Exeter is laughable
Having 4 machines myself ( yes I know they are not as complicated as a 135/145/902) I have to question how often a machine goes wrong that it needs so much time to look after it. If you do the maths that is 3952 man hours to keep 2 machines airbourne for approx 1000 hours ( that used to be same man hours for 1 machine doing between 400 to 600 hours). That is nearly 4 man hours for 1 hour of flight. That does not include avionics support and outside agency support.

To you all I have no issue with what you do. But you have to get it in your mind that you are not bomb proof in what you do. Most of you have the attitude that the heli is king, It is part of a team.
To keep the team going something has to give. Yes there are probably better cost savings to be had elsewhere but as any big budget item an asu is a bean counters target. All I have been doing is playing devils advocate, which is what you have to do when running a business, " think outside the box". In any big business there will be people trying to build and maintain their empire.( look at the mil arguing about Eurofighter, Trident, aircraft carriers etc etc)So instead of arguing about how indisposable you are you will need to cost justify what you do against a finite budget. Most of you have explained to chop about using singles and The CAA, correct answer, but maybe in the future we will need to look into using singles who knows. Look at the Cessna Caravan, a single aircraft that can be flown for public transport now.
SS I am ready for your spear:ok: