Sid, thanks for the pictures.
As you know, I do have a problem with the expectations of the TFOs regarding their involvement in aviation matters. You describe them as 'qualified police observers'. I know exactly what you mean. They have qualified in their role as observers.
But they have absolutely no aviation qualification whatsoever. Yes they may (or may not) have absorbed technical information, and may even have the knowledge to ask sensible questions. But they are absolutely not qualified aviators! The system is absolutely designed to give specific individuals 'partitioned' responsibilities! It's supposed to be safer when police officers do the police work in the company of a professional aviator who is the final arbiter of all things aviation! That makes it different, and supposedly safer than the US for example?
Let me put it another way. IF (a big if!) all indications were operating perfectly prior to the aircraft running out of fuel, how much responsibility for the tragedy could you ascribe to the TFOs?
My personal view is, non whatsoever. Simple! Exactly as it should be!
If you want a second qualified aviator in that aircraft, then you pay for a second pilot. Or you accept that one individual soaks up all the pressure! To attempt to blur the lines is just fudging the issue, placing too much expectation/burden on unqualified people! Fudging happens in other areas of police aviation too! In terms of flight safety, blurring and fudging, are not good bedfellows!
Now, we have no idea yet what the precise situation was here, and we won't for some time. But if anyone wishes to understand how a police helicopter's fuel system can be mishandled to cause a double engine failure and autorotation, then there is an example from Christmas Day 2001 involving G-DPPH. You can google the AAIB report and see how the AAIB regards TFOs, and how the pilot explained the situation to them.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 22nd Feb 2014 at 10:25.