Enntwo - thanks for your input. Are you by any chance an ex-Mil Police pilot?? If you had taken the time read my earlier postings properly, you would see I have no particular problem with Police Ops - in general - or ex-Mil pilots. I have worked with some great pilots and some idiots - both civvy and Mil trained. I have no chip problem with ex-Mil pilots, only with pilots who take unnecessary (in my opinion) and illegal risks. (and try to justify it by saying that it is the nature of the job) Risks that may end up with them landing on somebody’s roof. Or worse.
To address your other points :
My experience - not that it is relevant to a discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of hovering over a built-up area - I have over 2,000 hours of UK AOC flying. What about you? Straight out of the Mil and in to PAS??
Police ops. Presuming you are a police pilot, and you were tasked to go hover over the city centre. Would you say, “Sorry can’t do that - I couldn’t land clear in the case of an emergency” or would you do it regardless? (this is obviously a rhetorical question...) Would any police pilot refuse?
So you don’t agree that risk-taking and helicopter flying don’t go together? I agree that flying helicopters is a risky business at the best of times, that is exactly the point. Why make it more risky than it already is? Not just for you - who knows and accepts the risks - and the crew, but for anybody who happens to be below you at the time. If I have an engine failure in a 206 in the cruise over open ground, I will (should) be able to land it without incident. Acceptable risk, with a laid down procedure in the FM. If I am over the city centre at the time - not a very good chance of a suitable outcome. Unacceptable risk (and illegal to boot if no suitable landing area).
As for the PAOC rules not catering for every conceivable situation - I have not been talking about every conceivable situation , but about the requirements to fly without endangering the people or property you are supposedly protecting.
As for having less understanding of Police Ops than FL, perhaps you could enlighten me? What hugely important task is it that these Police Helicopters perform that makes it OK for them to operate in potentially dangerous flight regimes - in contravention of the ANO? Because it is operationally desireable? It may be operationally desireable for a civilian in a filming helicopter, for example, to do the same. That would get the same response from me. It is not for you or me or FL to say that, in the cause of fighting crime, we will accept the risk of a helicopter landing on our heads, no matter how small that perceived risk. The helicopter is a great tool. However just painting “Police” on the side doesn’t turn it into an infallible flying machine.
Before I jump off my soapbox (first checking that the area below is clear) let me ask you one thing : Do YOU think that hovering over the city centre with no landing area available in case of an unrecoverable emergency (tail rotor maybe) is operating within the rules as stipulated in the ANO?
Danger! This is not a wind-up.