NPAS News 2024
Type approved engineers and service centres can be grown of course. The mass limit is set in stone and just kills the machine dead once you do the sums (unless you're in Canada who allow max weight). It also is worth noting that French Air Ambulance operators sold off some of their Bell 429 recently (F-HBEL and F-HBEK) and are not buying ones to replace them. The Swiss ones (extra one bought recently) are a special case due to the operating environment at high altitude (the power/payload scales get tipped a little differently when you operate at height). Also worth noting the lack of uptake of the machine for Air Ambulance in the UK except by Wilts. I'd say the H145 is the sweet spot, particularly given the imminent introduction of a UK simulator for the type.
Slightly disagree with this one line Gipsy "Type approved engineers and service centres can be grown of course.:" the complexity and training burdens not to mention cost means those engineers we all love and rely on and getting quiet rare. Sadly in a way the good days of extra work and things people do to keep the whole operation running has become the normal because good people with a work ethic subject to none, has become so expected by the employer. Things people used to do so much which is not written in to their contract be that in hours, effort or just they want to make it work and are committed to make this machine work. I am not saying for one second that the new engineers/pilots/ops people are any different to any of us older types, and are committed as we are, and I enjoy working with them ( plus there all over this computer stuff which I am not) But I do think employers need to give their head a wobble if they think these guys/girls are daft enough not to think "I worked 13 hrs yesterday freezing my body parts off , and now Ive got HR calling me at 0900 to tell me my need to do my mandatory training, and finance has said my claim for lunch cant not be read as its too faint.............
Tightgit
Spoiler
Slightly off focus but just to note that Tigerfish, one of the more voluble critics of NPAS, and one of the victims in terms of being thrown out of his industry job thanks to actions by a senior police officer (I am sure they would take many others out if they could!) has now moved on into silence.
That is very sad news indeed. RIP Brian. I’ll have fond memories of our many conversations.
Thread Starter
Awwwwww omg, this is so saddening to hear.
I will really miss his expertise and opinions about Police Aviation, he contributed so much to Police Aviation over the years and will be sadly missed by us all!
RIP Brian
I will really miss his expertise and opinions about Police Aviation, he contributed so much to Police Aviation over the years and will be sadly missed by us all!
RIP Brian
Those more well informed could you see something like this happening? Though my opinion may not be as well informed as those in the know, aerial policing is forever changing with the introduction of better and more reliable drones where previously only NPAS could fulfil the role, which must be eating into how often they are required (Think policing football matches, firearms ops containment, that sort of thing where an eye in the sky is great but fairly static) Any police force admittedly would be daft requesting NPAS for any job that a drone is capable of fulfilling at a much much lower cost
Would the H145 be a strong option for the NPAS fleet renewal? The H145 has a greater payload capacity which suits the requirement for all the role kit NPAS machines require and as far as I'm aware better endurance. Though unit cost would be higher, NPAS could widen their coverage/reach from specific bases (Due to the increased endurance) and then close some of the "quieter" bases down that exist solely to ensure that the 'National' in NPAS is fulfilled. NPAS are no strangers to closing bases, as they were formed they were ruthless. They could operate far more efficiently in tandem with the fixed wing, where missions that would normally see two helicopters alternating based on crew rest and the requirement to refuel, the fixed wing unit could deploy and when arriving on scene could stand down the rotary unit which deployed initially to get on scene quickly, rotary units being used for fast response times and then fixed wing for persistence (For Missing person searches/large search areas). This would mean the rotary fleet could reduce in size leaving the potential for NPAS to offset some of the cost of fewer new units by selling off some of the 135 frames and not replacing them, and also reduce the maintenance requirements across the fleet, with newer reliable airframes reducing maintenance/tech fault downtime for the fewer remaining operating bases
I know this, in theory, is a very perfect world argument, and we all know from how NPAS is ran it is by no means a perfect world, but surely in a world where drones constantly raise the question "Are the benefits of having NPAS and its capabilities overhead during an incident worth the associated costs", surely NPAS needs to ensure it is operating at peak efficiency to keep those costs down and maintain its value to the different police forces across the country, As drones continue to improve and assume more and more of the taskings previously fulfilled by NPAS will the justification to spend public money on police aviation come under more scrutiny?
Would the H145 be a strong option for the NPAS fleet renewal? The H145 has a greater payload capacity which suits the requirement for all the role kit NPAS machines require and as far as I'm aware better endurance. Though unit cost would be higher, NPAS could widen their coverage/reach from specific bases (Due to the increased endurance) and then close some of the "quieter" bases down that exist solely to ensure that the 'National' in NPAS is fulfilled. NPAS are no strangers to closing bases, as they were formed they were ruthless. They could operate far more efficiently in tandem with the fixed wing, where missions that would normally see two helicopters alternating based on crew rest and the requirement to refuel, the fixed wing unit could deploy and when arriving on scene could stand down the rotary unit which deployed initially to get on scene quickly, rotary units being used for fast response times and then fixed wing for persistence (For Missing person searches/large search areas). This would mean the rotary fleet could reduce in size leaving the potential for NPAS to offset some of the cost of fewer new units by selling off some of the 135 frames and not replacing them, and also reduce the maintenance requirements across the fleet, with newer reliable airframes reducing maintenance/tech fault downtime for the fewer remaining operating bases
I know this, in theory, is a very perfect world argument, and we all know from how NPAS is ran it is by no means a perfect world, but surely in a world where drones constantly raise the question "Are the benefits of having NPAS and its capabilities overhead during an incident worth the associated costs", surely NPAS needs to ensure it is operating at peak efficiency to keep those costs down and maintain its value to the different police forces across the country, As drones continue to improve and assume more and more of the taskings previously fulfilled by NPAS will the justification to spend public money on police aviation come under more scrutiny?
It is all debatable. The H145 cost significantly more than the 135 but gives only a little bit more in lifting ability which then has to be set against the maintenance..... the 135 is new but the 145 is old school, its still certified as a BK117 and requires BK maintenance [BCARS]. Where a (good new) 135 can still be expected to sail through a maintenance in 5 days (if you have PBH intact) the 145 (and several of its competitors) is going to take 2 weeks or more even when new. That messes with the sums when there are few spare airframes around.
I still see the whole drone thing as pie in the sky. Yes a quad copter in the back of a patrol car is a 'good' thing but they are now playing magic tricks and conjuring up a device that is wholly automonous before they invent and test and try such a device. They have not decided whether it should have one or two engines when operating in an urban environment..... let along created a reliable twin engine drone legally able to fly over cities. The whole reason that UK police aviation is expensive was a decision over 40 years ago that police aircraft must have two engines when over urban environments. If that is being rescinded we may as well get rid of all the 135s and go back to the H125 which works perfectly well in the rest of the world - and is cheaper of course. A single engine drone with a dead engine is going to hurt someone. They are doing it quite regularly already. Its OK if it zaps into a a mud hut in Africa (several instances) but when it crashes into a conservatory in Surrey there will be hell to pay. I have yet to be introduced to a twin engine drone that fits on a lamp post - let alone seen one in action. So we wait with bated breath for Norfolk Police to show us their bit of kit.
On another matter raised earlier, high transit speeds of various types, there is not that great a difference between the fast and the slow. Unless the responding unit has to transit for more than 20 minutes (by which time we are told even continuing is pointless) the difference between a H145 and a AW109 is going to be a matter of a minute or so, certainly nothing to get too worried about. The NPAS fixed wing were faster than the helicopters they were supporting but that difference got lost in the taxi run along the runway (and that sort of got hampered when the undercarriage broke on every single airframe).
I still see the whole drone thing as pie in the sky. Yes a quad copter in the back of a patrol car is a 'good' thing but they are now playing magic tricks and conjuring up a device that is wholly automonous before they invent and test and try such a device. They have not decided whether it should have one or two engines when operating in an urban environment..... let along created a reliable twin engine drone legally able to fly over cities. The whole reason that UK police aviation is expensive was a decision over 40 years ago that police aircraft must have two engines when over urban environments. If that is being rescinded we may as well get rid of all the 135s and go back to the H125 which works perfectly well in the rest of the world - and is cheaper of course. A single engine drone with a dead engine is going to hurt someone. They are doing it quite regularly already. Its OK if it zaps into a a mud hut in Africa (several instances) but when it crashes into a conservatory in Surrey there will be hell to pay. I have yet to be introduced to a twin engine drone that fits on a lamp post - let alone seen one in action. So we wait with bated breath for Norfolk Police to show us their bit of kit.
On another matter raised earlier, high transit speeds of various types, there is not that great a difference between the fast and the slow. Unless the responding unit has to transit for more than 20 minutes (by which time we are told even continuing is pointless) the difference between a H145 and a AW109 is going to be a matter of a minute or so, certainly nothing to get too worried about. The NPAS fixed wing were faster than the helicopters they were supporting but that difference got lost in the taxi run along the runway (and that sort of got hampered when the undercarriage broke on every single airframe).
The following users liked this post:
I'll add that through referring to Drones I had only visualised the quadcopters in use today which are plucking away at some of the jobs that used to be NPAS' bread and butter, though as discussed the prospect of fully autonomous drones with the real flight endurance and controllable range to completely replace helicopters in this space does seem a world away but I'd imagine there are plenty of companies working away at it. There is a drone project not too far from me that is trialling rapidly delivering urgent medication to two hospitals in the UK.
Like you say PANews, these are technologies that need to mature and prove their reliability and they aren't going to be instantaneously deployed over densely populated areas, the project I refer to above currently follows an exact routing for every flight that avoids any sort of housing at all let alone anything that resembles a town or city.
The difference in maintenance requirements you mention between the 135 and 145 leaves me even more bewildered as to why NPAS weren't at least tapping the RAF up about those 5 surplus Junos they had, seems like that could've been an easy win.
Like you say PANews, these are technologies that need to mature and prove their reliability and they aren't going to be instantaneously deployed over densely populated areas, the project I refer to above currently follows an exact routing for every flight that avoids any sort of housing at all let alone anything that resembles a town or city.
The difference in maintenance requirements you mention between the 135 and 145 leaves me even more bewildered as to why NPAS weren't at least tapping the RAF up about those 5 surplus Junos they had, seems like that could've been an easy win.
The following users liked this post:
Those more well informed could you see something like this happening?
Would one of these been a better choice for Fixed Wing aircraft?
Yes a quad copter in the back of a patrol car is a 'good' thing
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It was always obvious to those of us actively involved in police aviation that long term searches (such as some, but not all, ”MISPERS” etc, or pre planned crowd monitoring such as post football matches) were largely a waste of helicopter hours (the latter being my least favourite task of anything we were tasked with) and these days can be far better achieved by a far less expensive drone.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
The following 3 users liked this post by ShyTorque:
While I'm sure that none of us in Air Support around 2005-2010(when the idea of a National setup was bring planned) could have nailed down the specifics of the current problems with NPAS, we were all pretty sure that it wouldn't work. This was reinforced when we were part of the NWAOG(North West Air Operations Group, the initial NPAS implementation) which included North Wales, Cheshire, Merseyside, GMP and Lancs. At the time, their Air Support budgets were around 0.5% of their total Force budget, which seemed pretty good value for what we used to achieve.
It was always obvious to those of us actively involved in police aviation that long term searches (such as some, but not all, ”MISPERS” etc, or pre planned crowd monitoring such as post football matches) were largely a waste of helicopter hours (the latter being my least favourite task of anything we were tasked with) and these days can be far better achieved by a far less expensive drone.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
The consensus I gather from anyone in the know is that NPAS was flawed from the word go and it doesn't show many signs of getting any better.
To both ShyTorque and MightyGem I can imagine you've both got incredible stories to tell of both how you've flown your aircraft and what happened during the incidents you were responding to during your time in Police Aviation, I could listen for days. Respect to you both.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The concept of a national police air service is sound, or should be. By the use of a common aircraft type, the initial fleet purchase, maintenance, availability of spare airframes, crew training etc should become more cost effective.
Unfortunately it was introduced at a time of increasing financial constraints and those put in charge seem to have soon lost the plot, despite being given very sound professional advice. Even worse, those trying to give sound advice were seen as troublemakers and removed from post. The result was that not much (if any) money was actually saved, but operational efficiency was devastated. The whole concept of trying to replace a number of helicopters with a fewer number of unsuitable fixed wing was never going to work for no notice tasking such as vehicle pursuits. What service the taxpayer now receives seems to have plateaued, unfortunately that plateau is at rock bottom.
Unfortunately it was introduced at a time of increasing financial constraints and those put in charge seem to have soon lost the plot, despite being given very sound professional advice. Even worse, those trying to give sound advice were seen as troublemakers and removed from post. The result was that not much (if any) money was actually saved, but operational efficiency was devastated. The whole concept of trying to replace a number of helicopters with a fewer number of unsuitable fixed wing was never going to work for no notice tasking such as vehicle pursuits. What service the taxpayer now receives seems to have plateaued, unfortunately that plateau is at rock bottom.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: home
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was always obvious to those of us actively involved in police aviation that long term searches (such as some, but not all, ”MISPERS” etc, or pre planned crowd monitoring such as post football matches) were largely a waste of helicopter hours (the latter being my least favourite task of anything we were tasked with) and these days can be far better achieved by a far less expensive drone.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.
There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.
Thread Starter
So this week, Doncaster Council have had a 125 year lease signed with Peel to reopen DSA.
NPAS still has their Rubb hangar assembled there, will the fixed wing aircraft and maintenance of the aircraft go back to normal?
Or do we think that they will stay at EMA? or potentially split the FW fleet up to operate from both DSA and EMA?
Who knows, but I'm just curious as to what good an oversized and vacant Hangar is going to achieve for NPAS?
I know since NPAS' departure from DSA, Humberside and Lincolnshire haven't been happy customers as response times and tasks accepted by HQ have plummeted.
NPAS still has their Rubb hangar assembled there, will the fixed wing aircraft and maintenance of the aircraft go back to normal?
Or do we think that they will stay at EMA? or potentially split the FW fleet up to operate from both DSA and EMA?
Who knows, but I'm just curious as to what good an oversized and vacant Hangar is going to achieve for NPAS?
I know since NPAS' departure from DSA, Humberside and Lincolnshire haven't been happy customers as response times and tasks accepted by HQ have plummeted.
Thread Starter
This obviously isn't the first time an oversized empty hangar has emerged within NPAS...
…cough cough North Weald and Lippitts Hill shenanigans!!
…cough cough North Weald and Lippitts Hill shenanigans!!
The following users liked this post:
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Things may have changed since I was CP at a police air support unit but I’m fairly sure that they are still classed as public transport so will require a licensed airfield. I’m not sure how DSA could be used again without at least some basic relevant facilities for fixed wing aircraft, eg runway lighting for night ops. Presumably they would need a formal IMC letdown - the previous facilities and letdowns have been decommissioned.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Further to the above, I wonder about the legal position of the NPAS hangar at DSA. A lot of publicity was given to its construction (at public expense) although it was not used for quite some time after completion. It can hardly be considered to have been given much return on the outlay.
Things may have changed since I was CP at a police air support unit but I’m fairly sure that they are still classed as public transport so will require a licensed airfield. I’m not sure how DSA could be used again without at least some basic relevant facilities for fixed wing aircraft, eg runway lighting for night ops. Presumably they would need a formal IMC letdown - the previous facilities and letdowns have been decommissioned.
From the licence point view, this is not required for aeroplanes under 5700kg or helicopters under 3175kg (except scheduled flights) or for aircraft flying under a police air operator’s certificate.
It’s been a while since I had to have my head buried in the books too, so apologies if I haven’t got that quite right.
Cheers
TeeS
The following users liked this post:
I expect that 2Excel will return eventually, they retained their occupancy of the hangar they acquired in 2017 mainly because it would take their 727 aircraft. I believe that they also have an interest in the hangar next door [the one previously occupied by Cessna/Textron]. There is a solid need there - even if it it just those superb hangars.
So they have a reason to return even if their tenure at Humberside might have got cosy over the years. And they will not move anytime soon of course, a lease is one thing but the council still need the operator and then that operator needs to reattach all those wires Peel undid. I doubt very much that 2Excel have any enthusiasm for being a Operator.
As for NPAS, they have gone. The building was their only connection with the airfield and they now have moved to another at East Midlands, a location that was strangely a location they dreamed of in 2012 when they started...... In view of the very tenuous links they have with their fixed wing (shall we keep it, shall we not) and the lacklustre performance in terms of hours flown I doubt they will even have a fixed wing by the time DSA reopens for business in a few years time.. Meanwhile they have another empty 'Sports Hall' at North Weald and that does do flying.
So they have a reason to return even if their tenure at Humberside might have got cosy over the years. And they will not move anytime soon of course, a lease is one thing but the council still need the operator and then that operator needs to reattach all those wires Peel undid. I doubt very much that 2Excel have any enthusiasm for being a Operator.
As for NPAS, they have gone. The building was their only connection with the airfield and they now have moved to another at East Midlands, a location that was strangely a location they dreamed of in 2012 when they started...... In view of the very tenuous links they have with their fixed wing (shall we keep it, shall we not) and the lacklustre performance in terms of hours flown I doubt they will even have a fixed wing by the time DSA reopens for business in a few years time.. Meanwhile they have another empty 'Sports Hall' at North Weald and that does do flying.