Cabby,
Ok - it might seem like people are 'naysayers' of which I might seem to be one
but here's my perpective on NPAS.
It is a logical sensible idea. It isn't new
it was first described in a major report in 1992. What was envisaged was a national borderless mixed fleet run, and providing services, rather like Bond or Bristows. It was intended to delivery effectiveness and efficiency by having an appropriate number of aircraft and bases, but at the same time save money by economies of scale (fuel, equipment, central purchasing, training). All of the benefits that we know ought to accrue from such a set-up.
You might say that I'm stating the obvious or being patronising. But I just want to emphasise that NPAS hasn't been set up like that. To be fair, it hasn't has the chance. It has been implemented in response to economic pressure. It has been said by others (who have greater experience than me) that if NPAS had not been formed, there might be no police aviation at all (maybe some in London and the large metropolitan areas). Each police force would have been forced to axe its own very expensive standalone unit. My own local force is selling off police stations, axing jobs, and still has to meet further spending cuts of £Millions. It's the same story elsewhere. And in the NHS and MOD!
The things that hurt/anger those that are in it, or come into contact with it are, in my view , twofold.
Firstly, this incessant 'feel-good' message
that it's as good as, if not better than, what it has replaced
the lack of honesty
the 'Emperor's New Clothes' outlook. The real message should be, "Look, it's not as good as it was, or should be,
but the choice is, what we have
or nothing at all".
Perhaps I am being naive here. Maybe that such directness cannot work when dealing with political decision makers. I've had a Chief Constable say to me that if air support became too difficult, then they've managed without before, so they could do so again. And the 'Salami' principle may apply
keep cutting slices off and someone may decide that whats left isn't worth keeping. Perhaps that's why they keep their up-beat message going.
Secondly, its the feeling that those running it don't know what they're doing. It's unfair to level that charge across the board, but the police have a long tradition of 'having a go at a job' rather than listening to expertise. I know of more than one person, with great experience and knowledge, who has been excluded from involvement in various ventures leading unto NPAS because they weren't 'on-message'
that their qualified opinions did not accord with what people wanted to hear.
With regard to those management roles fulfilled by police officers .. as a new police officer, you are taught a set of rules, and sent out into the world to deal with whatever comes your way. You are expected to become a problem solver of the unexpected
and you do. You develop a 'gissa job - I can do that' outlook. You have to. You can't ever walk away from a situation because it is overwhelming or you don't know what to do. You just do something (your best) and hope that it works, which it does mostly.
I believe that this 'can do' approach can become detrimental if it percolates up the rank structure as it can. It means that people are given tasks that they have insufficient knowledge to deal with, and the culture is to just get on and do your best. I know of one former colleague who was put in charge of an important technical project and asked to make an immediate major decision. When he pointed out that he had only just arrived in post, he was told, "You're in charge now. Make the decision'. He made the right one
but that's hindsight.
And that is why people are dissatisfied and complain abut NPAS. I talk to others still involved in it
they never complain about working conditions, pay, hours. Its not being able to offer a standard of service that they want to give and being patronised by decision-makers who they consider to be less knowledgeable and capable as they claim to be.
So
NPAS? Great idea
the future
I hope that it survives to work! But only when it is can be resourced in the way that was originally intended. That means a proper mixed fleet of about twice as many airframes, spread across about half as many again bases as they have now. As it stands, it is saving money
but it can't do what it says on the tin!
What might it turn into. Again, an opinion of a friend of great experience. If it doesn't pick up, or becomes a victim itself of further austerity
it may well be snapped up by people like Bond, etc and become a fully outsourced facility. The wheel will have come full circle
as envisaged in 1992!
Just my two penn'orth. Does that offer you any insight or encouragement?