Police observers - passengers or crew?

[OBERON]

Police air observers are classified, by the CAA and their forces, as passengers. We are, I believe, systems managers on the aircraft and, on many occasions, assist the pilot in the day to day routine of moving and managing the aircraft. Is this a get out clause for the police force involved in the use of the observer? As a passenger our claim in the event of any accident is limited. If the worst scenario occurred our next of kin would be unable to claim more than pennies from the force operating the aircraft. As apssengers we are also unable to claim flight pay! I would welcome views of others in the rotary profession.

[Marco]

Arguably, it is in the interests of the police in general for observers to remain passengers. Any flexibility would be lost, you wouldn't get any overtime and would be subject to a regulated FTL scheme of sorts. Would you want to sit exams at Gatwick? - I don't think so.

All Police pilots realise the importance of the observer and acknowledge it couldn't be done without you.

As for flight pay - Surely a police observer is just another specialist job within the police force. Dog handlers or traffic policemen don't get any extra pay. If you do want flight pay I suggest you attend PPSC promptly.



[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 12 December 1999).]

[Chip Lite]

!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Chip Lite (edited 13 December 1999).]

[mogwai]

Chip lite - you miss the point. Not withstanding your arrogance and apparent contempt for the Police Officers who presumably work alongside you, the point I believe Oberon is trying to make is that Police Management is currently giving Police Air Observers a raw deal. By refusing them any form of crew status, they are severely under-insured and can be required to work any hours Police Regulations allow - far in excess of those enjoyed by the pilot alongside them. This matter has also been highlighted by the BHAB.
If you are employed as an emergency services Pilot to the level of experience you boast of then you will surely be aware of the supporting role the Police Officer crew give the Pilot, in what can be a harsh and exacting enviroment. Either that or you are long overdue a CRM course. The CAA, via the Police Air Operators Certificate, set very strict regulations for the selection and training of Police Air Observers, and their procedures are closely monitored and checked every six months in as rigourous a line check as I ever received in the Services. The Police Officers who take on this role do so with pride, and would soon find difficulty working with a Pilot who revels in such an unprofessional attitude.

[OBERON]

In reply to marco. It would appear that mogwai has put my point across for me. The flight pay is a secondary matter. My main concern is that my employer will not be liable for a reasonable claim of compensation in the event of an accident involving my injury or death. I realise that the BHAB has addressed this point and that police forces were advised to "check their financial state in relation to this matter".
Just to touch on the financial benefits or otherwise of the job that, I admit, I chose to apply for, overtime in many smaller provincial forces is almost non-existent and, with the loading placed upon insurance policies under the heading "hazardous occupations" I believe that many police air observers may well be financially penalised by accepting the post.
In reply to chiplite, I don't know you either but from your diatribe content I am not unhappy with that situation. As mogwai points out, we are line checked every six months, both practical and written examination. My course was six weeks, not the two as suggested. I realise that that in no way affords me the right to any CAA recognised qualification but I work hard to do the best I can in, what to me, is a relatively new area of expertise. I take a pride in what I do and in the efforts I make to improve my skills base. Finally, if there were any route by which I could "put my hand in my pocket" and take a recognised qualification in my role, I would do it.

[4dogs]

Oberon,

As part of some preparation for a legal case in Oz, I came across a House of Lords or Privy Council case (maybe 3 yrs old) that related to a suit brought by the wife of a police observer killed in an accident. I don't know where my copy is, otherwise I would give you the reference. The status of observer/crewmen was debated at great length and I believe that the case would be determinative in an English court should compensation be sought.

Interestingly, the situation in Australia is different because a helo pilot provided the drafting instructions to define "operating crew", as distinct from flight crew and cabin crew:

operating crew means any person who:
(a) is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft; and
(b) has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft.
[Note This definition includes persons:
(a) who are conducting flight tests; or
(b) who are conducting surveillance to ensure that the flight is conducted in accordance with these Regulations; or
(c) who are in the aircraft for the purpose of:
(i) receiving flying training; or
(ii) practising for the issue of a flight crew licence. ]

Observers etc have a very clear safety of flight function - without them, there is an additional risk that the task at hand would be too distracting for the pilot or even an overload and, in cases where the machine is operated in close confines, there is a risk of rotor strike etc.

After having operated multi-crew helos for over 25 years, I find some of the responses posted to be very disappointing - those who posted them should take themselves and their very much out-of-place egos and drive taxi cabs - at least their behaviour and their manners would not be so surprising.

------------------
Stay Alive,

[email protected]

[OBERON]

4dogs
Thanks for your input. I shall take the time to research the information you have provided and see where the Oz ruling would help in the UK. Good luck, stay safe.
Oberon

[MBJ]

Oberon, whatever the legalities that have been arrived at by the powers-that-be it has to be commonsense that Police Observers are crew, in any logical use of the word.

They need to be there in order to conduct the task since the Pilot can't do the stuff that you do. If the observers are not there the aircraft would not fly.

There is a more complex agenda to all this, of course, to do with licencing, regulation, training and COST.

[Skycop]

I think that there is a fine line to be drawn here. By definition the observers are pax, but the fine job they do is a specialisation in itself. Although it would most often be pointless for the aircraft flying without them, they do not often actually take an essential part in the pure aviation aspect of the flight (and therefore good CRM technique is vital where the police requirements conflict with the aviation / safety concern). I don't mean to be demeaning over this. My previous background flying as a team of pilot / crewman meant that a minor brain adjustment was required to operate as the CAA require. The CAA base check (sorry,OPC)requirement for the pilot to do it all by himself (i.e. observers not normally on board) reflects this.

I don't think the cost is the main reason for this "pax" status, rather the piecemeal and experimental way in which police aviation was introduced, at least to the UK. It would perhaps have been better in many respects if a policy decision had been made early on and an "air wing" or similar been formed at national level. This would have allowed economies of scale and better co-ordination etc etc. This could have included crew status for all concerned. I continue to be surprised how forces seems to insist on doing things their own individual way in many respects....not just in aviation. Take the "10" codes for a start!

As it stands, tenure has a part to play when considering costs, training, status etc. Look at the minimum experience and background requirements for a police pilot, set by the forces themselves in PAOM part 2. If a decision were made to increase the qualification requirement for observers to similar levels, it could be done but yes, the cost would be horrendous, it would require a change in policy for many forces and it may not achieve any great benefit as far as the job is concerned.

In my own case (and many others?) a police observer injured in the line of duty would probably come out of it financially better off than I would as a pilot...



------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..

[MBJ]

A bit more on the use of the word "crew" Skycop mentions that the observers don't play much part in the pure aviation side of the work, well, that may be the case (although in my experience they give good lookout, at the very least).. but take the cases of a Nimrod or AS Seaking - filled with people doing a task that has nothing to do with flying the aircraft but I'd hesitate to call them passengers, in their hearing anyway.

Good point about the standardisation, though, each force seems to want to re-invent the wheel when it comes to setting up an ASU.

[Hunter Delta]

I would like to refer to the comment made about the amount of training received by Police Observers. The course I completed was 5 weeks, this after completing over tens years of police service. I think I may be correct in saying that if not all Police ASU only recruit from officers who have been HIGHLY recommended by senior officers, and completed their probationary period of 2 YRS.
How's that for training
Remember without observers there would be no need for pilots!!!

[This message has been edited by Hunter Delta (edited 14 December 1999).]

[4dogs]

oberon,

The case to which I was referring was a British decision, not an Oz one. It was a fight over compensation and dealt with the application of the Warsaw and Hague conventions.

------------------
Stay Alive,

[email protected]

[MightyGem]

Arrived a bit late on this one(strong headwind!) but lots of interesting points. When I started Police flying 3 years ago I was told that the observers weren't part of the crew. As with Skycop and many others, I'd always flown as one of two crew.

As the unit Flight Safety Officer, I teach Flight Safety and CRM on our Unit's Observer courses, emphasizing that they are 'part' of the aircraft's crew, and how to assist in aircraft emergencies.

I was too late to read Chiplite's entry(it had been deleted(I wander why!!)), but from Hunter Delta's comment about the course length then Chip was probably right. My unit's courses are usually 3 weeks and we've just managed to cram one into a fortnight!! They fly one sortie each of Urban Nav, Crime Search and Vehicle Pursuit and that's it. No time to consolidate, so it's very much on the job training. Not the best way, but I suppose it all comes down to money these days.

May the Force be with you!!

[Hoist-to-Crew]

In my opinion if anyone is on the aircraft to help in the operation of it in anyway then they are crew end of story. If we take anyone from any trade in the RAF to be a survivor for SAR training then they, regardless of status are crew. Fairly simple. A police observer is operating a defined role in the helicopter and therefore is crew. Any other definitions are just trying to cover poeple's own **** 's and save cash etc. Why must we as an industry produce so much paper for no real reason. It is just as bad in the RAF what with investors in poeple etc.

Hope everyone has a good christmas

[Skycop]

Sorry, Hoist-T-C, but it's a CAA definition and individual Police Forces have had no real say in it. I agree with your view, of course they are crew but it's the way it is for historical reasons i.e. when policemen were first flown on an experimental basis they were pax and that's the way the rules were written. No one knew if Air Support was the way to go in those days so it was all done as an experiment with hired-in aircraft and pilots on a trial basis. Each Police Force seems to have wanted to make their own minds up so there remains no common policy or strategy although things are improving.

------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..

[OBERON]

It would appear that this subject has provoked some interesting comments. My thanks to all those that took the time to reply, and that includes those with opinions either way. After all, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I can't personally see any changes to the status of police observers' from passenger to crew but then, I'm doing a job I thoroughly enjoy so it does not cause me much loss of sleep! Happy flying to all those police passengers out there and, to those of you who fly with us, thanks for keeping us up safely. To all those of you who took part in this forum thank you, Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Millennium.
OBERON

[This message has been edited by OBERON (edited 30 December 1999).]

[Arkroyal]

Let me run this one by you.

Just suppose you are a police observer in a helicopter unit in the formative days of police air support.

You are quite rightly concerned as to how you will stand in terms of insurance cover in the unlikely event that an accident occurs and you are disabled.

Mindful that an accident has already occurred in Scotland, and that the various bodies involved are arguing as to whether the observer is crew (enjoying unlimited cover) or a passenger (subject to the Warsaw Convention, limiting liability), your unit, and your union (Police Federation) ask advice.

Best advice, from specialist lawyers is that as the aircraft will be owned and operated (under a Police Air Operator’s Certificate) by the Police, then the Warsaw Convention cannot apply, as no element of ‘hire or reward’ can be said to exist.

Unfortunately this is not supposition. The East Midlands Air Support Unit’s AS355N did crash almost three years ago, killing one policeman and disabling for life another.

And guess what. Those same specialist lawyers, now acting for an insurance company facing a large payout have conveniently forgotten their words of 7 years ago and about faced.

Reason. Warsaw Convention applies – payout £80000. Warsaw Convention does not apply – payout £lots more.

What does the team think. You out there Flying Lawyer?
:confused:

[Vsf]

...edited for harmony, manners, and all around goodness.

[ 01 September 2001: Message edited by: Vsf ]

[sling load]

The question is, would the aircraft go and work without the police observer?

If the answer is no, then you have reasons to suggest that the observers are crew.

Do they perform functions essential to the operation of the aircraft?

If the answer is yes, the observers can be argued to be crew.

Is there UK aviation legislation recognising them as crew? I am guessing not. The situation is similar to here in Aus. They are not licensed, but are really the whole reason why the operation is using a helicopter. Aerial suppourt to police operations.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who is fitted out like a driver, with helmet, flying suit and safety training around helicopters essential to safe operation and operational purposes is crew.

Thats my two cents

[Ally1987]

"Best advice, from specialist lawyers is that as the aircraft will be owned and operated (under a Police Air Operator’s Certificate) by the Police, then the Warsaw Convention cannot apply, as no element of ‘hire or reward’ can be said to exist."

This strikes me as a red herring as not all Police helicopters are (a) owned or (b) operated by the Police Force concerned.

I think that you'll have to argue your case in court using the arguements above, and also that they are trained in aviation related matters (CRM, navigation, etc.)

[Arkroyal]

Vsf,

Missed your reply before editing, so I'm in the dark as to your post. All points of view are valid.

sting load,

Thanks for that. Seems they are crew unless they are about to cost someone a lot of money. It is true that the CAA regard th police observer as pax, simply because thy are not licensed. That really has no bearing on the case, as, as you point out, they are the sole reason for the thing getting airborne at all.

Ally,

Thanks for the input. Indeed some aircraft are not owned and operated by the police, and that is how, in the Strathclyde case, it was decided that the Warsaw Convention did apply because the aircraft was hired on an ad hoc basis from a commercial operator using a commercial AOC. In the EMASU case, the same argument seems somewhat strained, as G-EMAU was owned by the three constabularies and operated under a PAOC.

As you say, it will probably have to be dragged through the courts, taking time and leaving the injured party with no income, already three years down the line.

Natural justice says to me that the man was a member of the crew, and should be compensated as such.

[FLIR]

Ark,
I'm not sure which side of the legal fence these cases would fall, but, you can bet your bottom dollar that the insurance company will dig-in until courts sort it out.
As far as I am aware the observers are not treated as crew because of the general reluctance of Constabularies to submit their men to licensing limitations, as the pilots are (FTL) and therefore lose their availability for other tasks at any time day or night. The CAA and the Home Office do not see eye to eye on this. Hope this helps some.

FLIR.

[Hoverman]

I'd be surprised if there's a clear-cut answer to this one, wouldn't it depend on a lot of variables? eg Who owns the helicopter? Who operates it? etc.
Why can't the policeman/his widow claim against his police force just as if he was injured in any other accident a work?

Please don't take this the wrong way Ark Royal but I think it may be asking quite a lot from FL to answer a compicated question like this as a freebie on the Forum.
I think the best advice to give the policeman/the family is to get their solicitors (or Union solicitors) to go to Flying Lawyer for an official opinion. Many people don't realise you can ask your solicitor to use a particular barrister. You can. If it was me, I know which barrister I'd ask for.

[Multp]

JAR: 'Crewmember' means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.
Air Navigation(Investigation of Air Accidents...) Regulations 1986: 'Crew' includes every person employed or engaged in an aircraft in flight on the business of the aircraft.
ANO: 'Crew' means a member of the flight crew....or a cabin attendant.

A Police Observer is a 'CAA Agreed Passenger'. With a CAA Agreed Passenger on board, various exemptions to normal ANO/CAT regulations, especially those regarding Low Flying, are given.
But of course, the Obs is a pax, so not subject to FTL.
So who's kidding who?
Flying Lawyer, any comments please?

[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: Multp ]

[Nick Lappos]

A simple test is what a jury will apply, I think. Is the person in the aircraft to do a job while it flys? Is that job part of why it is flying?

It is absurd to consider the observer a passenger, and no jury could believe otherwise. Furthermore, I challange the other observers (those still alive and working) to simply stop doing whatever it is they do while flying, take out a newspaper and wait arrival, if they are considered passengers! That might hasten the decision a bit. :D

[OBERON]

I asked the very same question about 12 months ago and got just about the same replies. In the eyes of everyone but those who may have to pay out in the case of the unthinkable happening, we are crew. It obviously suits the police authorities to remain outside the FLT when it comes to their officers and the CAA have pandered to the police authorities wishes by introducing the CAA Agreed Pax title. It's a keep your head below the parapet reaction which should be changed.
As a police observer my self I have taken the bull by the horns and submitted an official request to my local federation office for this to be entered into the national agenda. I wait with bated breath, not that I'll hold it for too long.
:mad:

[PurplePitot]

When I used to work for Aeromega, a privately owned company helicopter was used to ferry around the company directors. This helicopter was flown by a pilot as rostered by Aeromega using their AOC. These flights were deemed to be private flights and as such had no pilot FTL limitations placed on them (12/13 hours a day at times!) and hence ‘private’ written in the tech log. It was ruled by the CAA that exactly the same conditions applied when the company helicopter was U/S and a replacement helicopter from Aeromega was being used, so even when an Aeromega helicopter and an Aeromega pilot were being used to ferry these directors around, it was a private flight and they were not deemed to be pax.


This would seem to be exactly the case at East Mids ie; policemen being flown around in their own helicopter by a third party contracted pilot. However in order to gain the 12 or so easements from the ANO the Chief Constable has to hold a PAOC and it would seem that here the bobbies make a transition from private pax to commercial CAA agreed pax and hence the required entries into the tech log for CofG, AUW etc.

I suspect I have argued both sides of the coin here, all of which is based on fact and I have to come to the very uncomfortable private conclusion that the bobbies are indeed pax and not crew even though without them being on board there is little point in getting airborne. I hope that I am wrong………
:confused:

[Nick Lappos]

Purple Pilot,
I think your analogy is not airtight. The pax in the company flights were just that, pax. The purpose of the flight was to take them somewhere. If the police observers were being transported to another site, the analogy is held, but in our case, the observers are part of the flying team, trained and performing an airborne task.

Were the gunners on a Lancaster passengers? I think not! :eek:

[Multp]

In the UK Police Air Observers undergo some sort of formal training, which includes a degree of Airmanship, PofF, aircraft tech, Met, Nav and CRM, in addition to specialist skills training in using the role equipment. Most forces then award an Observer's brevet and the newly qualified Observer serves a probationary period.
All this for a 'passenger'?
And is your AWACs Sensor Operator/ WSO etc in the RAF a passenger?
I say again, who's kidding?

[4Rvibes]

Multp is absolutely spot on. Under JAR non-trained aircrew personnel will be regarded as pax, but a trained and line-checked crew with all the time and paperwork this entails are regarded as crew, this applies both to police and EMS aircrew. It all depends on the operator and/or the agency involved.
Apart from that I don't know the legal implications involved, perhaps the FL could spare us a moment of his time?

[212man]

I would have thought they were in the same position, legally, as the civillian SAR crewmen/W. Ops (who are in fact regarded as crew by their company, though with less stringent FTL scheme).

[Arkroyal]

Thanks everybody, some good stuff coming through here.

Hoverman,

I wasn't really asking FL for a free consultation, just maybe a view, and what I was really after was the discussion I have provoked.

The Lawyers for the unfortunate observer are looking for as many angles as possible to lever away at this one to prove crew status.

Keep 'em coming.

[442]

I would like to thank ArkRoyal for starting this debate, the replies are of great interest to me as I was the surviving observer from the G-EMAU crash.

I cannot detail the case as it is sub judice, suffice to say that the fat cats are making lots of money.

PAX or aircrew is a play on words depending on wether your client is facing a hefty payout. I agree that in the strictest terms of the definition, I was a CAA PAX. However how many PAX are expected to undergo line checks, attend CRM courses, wear military style safety equipment, read maps, run a comms system et al, the list goes on.

G-EMAU was owned by three forces, not leased so I believed that we were exempt from the Warsaw convention on these grounds alone. However, very clever lawyers are pushing that the consortium agreement covering the use of the aircraft constituted a contract so technically the aircraft was leased to Warwickshire on the night of the crash. Yet another play on words. How can you lease something you own?

For those of you that are affected directly, CHECK AND DOUBLE CHECK, THAT YOU ARE CORRECTLY INSURED.

This matter will no doubt go to the High Court for a ruling, for me I want to put the whole incident to bed as three years is approaching.

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: 442 ]

[nomdeplume]

442
Sorry to hear about your accident, and hope that it all ends well for you. I know from experience that these things can take a very long time, and it gets desperate at times but it's all worthwhile if you get the right result in the end.
I was concerned about your reference to the 'fat cats' making lots of money. I was unhappy until I had a barrister I was confident in - and my condidence wasn't misplaced.
Mine wasn't an aviation case - if it was, I wouldn't settle for anyone except Flying Lawyer. There seems to be nobody better in aviation cases, and you have the right to insist your solicitors use a barrister of your choice.
Good Luck.

[Arkroyal]

442

Thanks for your kind words.

Purple, I like your logic, but am dismayed by it, as it is the same kind of weasley argument which will be used by the insurer's legal team.

Letsby,

You said: 'What benefits are there for a Police Observer to be called a crewman instead of a passenger? His personal life insurance premiums would increase exponentially to possibly unaffordable levels. He would be subject to an FTL, which is something ACPO would never agree to. He would need to pass two stringent medicals a year, he would need to pass two CAA type checks per year (instead of one) and he could not be represented by the PF as he would be subject to the strict rules of the CAA.'

Hardly a very onerous set of circumstances compared to 442's ordeal. I hope you never find yourself out of work and disabled for want of a few quid extra on your life insurance (BTW as a police pilot, my premiums were not loaded), and a few extra check rides.

A police helo mission is tasked by a police control room, directed by a police observer, the sensors are operated by a police observer. Stark common sense says these guys (and gals) are acting in the capacity of crew members and not as passengers. The CAA called them pax for licensing reasons, not as a definition of their role.

English law is supposedly based on common sense and what a 'reasonable person' would interprate.

If this is so, then 442 will(eventually) win this one. I for one will be geared up to lobby my MP and anyone else required if common sense does not prevail. I hope it does!

edited for poor memory and tiredness!

[ 06 September 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]

[Flying Lawyer]

I've just seen this thread.
Although I'm happy to answer general legal questions on Rotorheads (if I can - and within reason!), it wouldn't be proper for me to do so abotu a specific case when there are already lawyers dealing with it. It would certainly irritate me if a client said "Well, there's this chap on the internet who says ..........".

Arky:
Check your e-mail.

[Nick Lappos]

FL,
The special irritant would be if the guy on the internet was a better lawyer, too.

The problem with medicine and law is the errant belief that they are "professionals" and so above second guessing, and second opinions. It irks me that good pilots can have honest disagreements on the net, and good engineers can also disagree, but lawyers and doctors can't.

What bull! Pilots get blamed, doctors and lawyers get Wednesdays off for golf. ;)

[Roofus]

442 my kindest regards & best wishes.

As for my two pennies worth to this debate.

I believe the officers who fly with me to be crew. The aircraft cannot act in the role it got airbourne for without them.

I have however seen the Police Observers take either side. The one which best suits their needs at that time. Thankfully not often.

ACPO's are very reluctant due to the FTL scheme.

Now I stand to be corrected, but isn't the FTL scheme for a crewman slightly less stringent than for Pilots?

We fly as crews, in everything but the letter of the law we are crews.... we should be crews!

[Flying Lawyer]

Nick
With great respect (as we lawyers always say - but, in your case, is sincerely meant) you've missed the point of my post. The fault is mine; I should have expressed myself more clearly.

(1) "The special irritant would be if the guy on the internet was a better lawyer, too."
Not at all, the opinion of a better lawyer is always welcome – provided he has all the relevant facts before expressing his opinion. What is irritating is the lawyer who expresses an opinion when he does not have all the relevant facts which have to be taken into consideration. It is irritating for two reasons:
Firstly, it may unsettle the lay-client who has been given legal advice which, although correct, is not the opinion which he would like to have received. Human nature being what it is, the lay-client will naturally be attracted by the opinion which is more pleasing.
Secondly because, in my opinion, a lawyer who expresses a view about a particular case involving real people with real worries and real distress, when he does not have all the relevant facts, is irresponsible.
(I used to do it frequently as a law student, and I doubt if things have changed much. 'A little learning is a dangerous thing .......... etc!)

(2) "The problem with medicine and law is the errant belief that they are "professionals" and so above second guessing, and second opinions."
There are many 'problems' with the law, the legal system and lawyers but this is not one of them, at least in the UK – I can't comment on the US.
We are members of a profession, but certainly not above second opinions. I referred above to the 'lay-client'. In the UK, lawyers are divided into Solicitors and Barristers. (Similar, but not without exceptions, to GP's/Specialist Consultants in the medical world.) The lay-client goes to a solicitor who, in appropriate cases, refers the case to a barrister for a second opinion.
As a barrister specialising in aviation cases, all my work is referral. If the case is particularly difficult or unusual, I advise the solicitor to obtain the opinion of a second barrister. Barristers often seek a second opinion informally if the point of law is difficult or unusual – we have our equivalent of the crew-room! But, whichever method is used, we ensure that the second lawyer has all the relevant facts, without which the opinion is of little or no value.
I am often asked to give a second opinion in aviation matters where another barrister has already advised. If I disagree with the first barrister, I have no hesitation in saying so.
I have also for many years been involved in Professional Conduct matters involving barristers against whom a complaint has been made. Their conduct of the case is reviewed and, if appropriate, they are subject to full disciplinary proceedings. The Bar's professional conduct/disciplinary process has the reputation of being the toughest of all the professions – and so it should be, in my view.

(3) "It irks me that good pilots can have honest disagreements on the net, and good engineers can also disagree, but lawyers and doctors can't."
Good lawyers often have honest disagreements, even on PPRuNe – you've obviously missed the discussions on various legal topics over the years. But, they have been on general points, not specific cases for the reasons I've explained.
(4) "What bull! Pilots get blamed, doctors and lawyers get Wednesdays off for golf."
Oh dear, Nick. :rolleyes: Your contributions to Rotorheads are amongst the most valuable, but you're letting your prejudices show on this occasion!


In conclusion, much obviously depends upon the individual case. As must be clear by now, the answer to the question posed by ArkRoyal is by no means straight-forward. No competent and/or responsible lawyer would attempt to answer it without obtaining a great deal of additional information.

[Edit]
I hope the significance of the last line of my earlier post wasn't lost on you. I know it won't be lost on Ark Royal!
;)

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

[heloplt]

Define the phrase "What a shame!".

Perhaps it could be restated as " a missed opportunity..." such as a Stretched 747 carrying legal beagles to Hawaii crashing full chat into the Pacific Ocean....with one empty seat!

Just joking,beagles!

[Nick Lappos]

Flying Lawyer,
OK, I apologize, because you are as usual quite right. I took cheap fun at that issue (once in a deposition where I was commenting about "pilot error" I asked the questioner what he did about "lawyer error" and I was also rebuked!)

I think US standards of professional review for Law are quite a bit less rigorous than what you describe, and I'll bet the same for medicine. Thanks for the snap back! :)

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]

[nomdeplume]

Nick
I was very pleased to read you graciously withdrawing your earlier remarks.
You're probably not aware, but Flying Lawyer is the UK's leading aviation lawyer. His standing in the industry is as high in his field as yours is in yours. I also know (thankfully not from personal experience!) that he helps many people informally and discreetly.
The exchange was useful though - I was never quite sure what the difference was between barristers and solicitors. Now I know!

[Arkroyal]

Flying Lawyer

Thanks for your interest in this case, your posts and e-mail.I understand fully the constraints posed by professional ethics.

Seems to me that we, the men on the Clapham omnibus, ('cept for purple pitot, who missed it in Tooting! :D ) agree that 442 was a crewmember deserving to be treated as such by the insurers and courts.

Common sense will prevail in the end, I feel sure. I wonder how different things would have been had he been disabled in his previous duties. No-one would have argued that as the non-driving member of a motorway police car crew, he was just a passenger. Would they?

[PurplePitot]

Ark. Sorry to rock your boat again but having canvassed every member of my unit, everyone without exception has stated that they are passengers first and crew second, indeed some say that they have absolutely no desire to be called anything other than police observers. It is perhaps interesting to note that I do not consider myself to be a policeman either! Throughout my police flying to date the first thing that I have been told by the various chief pilots and UEOs is that they (the police) are passengers with the exception that they walk under the disc unescorted and that they refuel the aircraft. With the recent ruling by the EU as mentioned by Letsby (wherever that post is now) there is unlikely to be any change to the current status quo. Having said that I would reiterate my feeling once more than natural justice in this particular case has not been served and I have no doubt that a court would look upon this particular case favourably.

[Genghis the Engineer]

For what it's worth, I've never been a police observer, but have earned part of my living for many years as a "Flight Test Observer", both in civil and military environments.

The wording in military regulations is that "A Flight Test Observer is not aircrew, but is part of the aircraft operating crew". The understanding in civil flight testing is the same. We are considered crew, because the mission of the aircraft could not be properly undertaken without us. FTOs are also required to maintain logbooks and are qualified within the procedures of an individual flight test organisation.

So far as I can see if you are there as part of the mission, are trained to do the job, and maintain a logbook, you're crew. You just aren't aircrew (apparently).

G

[4Rvibes]

If you really have the time, go to http://www.google.com and input a search for clyde+helicopters+lords. Sit and have a long read (as I did many years ago) and you will find where the precedent was set for this type of thing.

[PurplePitot]

Having just spent 20 minutes wading through many pages of 'legal speak' the Lords ruled that Police Observers are Passengers, no more, no less. :(

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm an outsider in this debate, but it strikes me that if I were a police observer, I'd be asking my union to lobby the CAA (and anybody else in sight) for a statement otherwise.

G

[Nick Lappos]

Good comment Genghis. The affected individuals only have to demand the proper insurance to alleviate the problem, and simply ignore what the Lords of flatbrains have to say.

One can argue what to call the folks, crew or non-crew, until the end of time. The issue is the employer stepping up to the risks involved, and not hiding behind the Warsaw convention. As long as we and they debate crew vs non-crew, the employers win.

[Arkroyal]

I only have a few minutes, so won't go into depth now.

Purple, can't you see the difference between the Strathclyde case and this one?

Strathclyde Police chartered a helo from Clyde helicopters using their AOC. The element of 'hire or reward' was clear, and the policemen on board deemed passengers (within the terms of the Warsaw Convention) after lengthy debate.

442 was injured in a helicopter which was owned by his employer and operated on a POAC for the sole purpose of police operations. There can be no question that the helicopter existed purely for police work, and that the observers carried were the sole reason for it flying. They must be crew. There was no element of 'hire or reward' as you can't hire something that you own. The Warsaw Convention existed (note the irony that it was scrapped days after 442's accident) to limit airlines' liability to fare paying pax.

Ghengis and Nick, thanks for the support.

[PurplePitot]

OK – This is my last post on the subject. I am more than aware of the difference between the Strathclyde case and the case at Husbands Bosworth. I have extracted just two relevant passages from the Lords ruling on the Strathclyde case

“The activities which Sergeant X was carrying on while on the aircraft are not to be regarded as contributing in any way to the carriage of himself or the other persons on board. He therefore is properly regarded as a passenger”

“It is not suggested that the surveillance and detection duties on which Sergeant X was engaged at the time involved him at any stage in the handling of the helicopter. It is a matter of admission that the flying of the helicopter was a matter for which the pilot, Captain X, was solely responsible. Although Sergeant X was on board the helicopter in the course of his duties as a police officer, he was there merely as a passenger”

Notwithstanding the fact that the Strathclyde machine was being flown under contract by a commercial pilot from a commercial helicopter company and the East Midlands aircraft was flown by a commercial pilot whilst the relevant police authorities owned the helicopter. I fail to see how the Lords ruling can apply to the former case but not to the latter when the fundamental duties of a police officer on board each helicopter were the same.

The PAOM clearly states that a Police Officer must be trained in the correct use of the onboard police equipment and be tested once per annum thereafter. He is not, however, allowed to switch on that equipment, or use that equipment until the pilot has given permission. A police observer ‘might’ be asked to assist with navigation and lookout if requested by the pilot. I am the first to acknowledge that that isn’t exactly how we operate but that is how the legislators expect us to operate so I have to say again that as a commercial helicopter pilot working for the police, the only people I currently fly - are passengers (for reward).

[Genghis the Engineer]

As it happens, whilst looking into this thread, I had the ANO open on the desk since I'd been looking up definitions of aerial work.

There are two paragraphs which might be of interest: -

ANO Article 32(3)(a)and (a), covering POM...

(i) The operator of every aircraft to which this article applies shall... make available to each member of its operating staff a police operations manual.

(ii) ensure that on each flight every member of the crew has access to a copy of every part of the operations manual which is relevant to his duties on the flight.

ANO Article 31(4)

...operating staff means the servants and agents employed by the operator, whether or not as members of the crew of the aircraft, to ensure that the flights of the aircraft are conducted in a safe manner, and includes an operator who himself performs these functions.


It seems then to me that the key term is "operating staff", and the crucial issue is whether the observer is employed (no doubt amongst other reasons) to ensure that flights are conducted in a safe manner.

Personally I think an observer, whether police, flight-test, navy, or whatever is part of the crew. But, I suspect that any judge making a decision will be poring over these paragraphs and it is a little ambiguous.

Strengthening the argument, ANO Art.20 (7)(b) which is about passenger flights says...

"The crew of an aircraft ... shall include cabin attendants ... duties to be assigned by the operator or the commander of the aircraft but who shall not act as members of the flight crew".

So if a hostess is part of the crew, but not part of the flight crew, I think that it might be implied that the same applies to a police observer. Sounds like a job for the Unions again, they must have a tame lawyer somewhere who can help you out with this.

As I said before I am a complete outsider, so by all means tell me to shut up if I'm spouting sphericals.

G

[PurplePitot]

Will this thread never end? Article 31(4) of the ANO does appear in the PAOM right after this one in Sect 1 4 Para 7

Quote:

The ANO (No2) 1995, Article 118(1) defines flight crew as follows:

‘Flight crew’ in relation to an aircraft means those members of the crew of the aircraft who respectively undertake to act as pilot, flight navigator, flight engineer and flight radio operator of the aircraft.

All other persons on board the aircraft, including Police Observer, are regarded as passengers.

Unquote.

[Multp]

Purple:
Well, what a surprise that the most favourable definition for Police Authorities is conveniently in the PAOM!
The point of this endless discussion is that,as Genghis has reminded us, the legislation is contradictory and unclear.
The Law is (still)an Ass, I fear.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Looking at PP's last post, perhaps all police observers should insist on the right to operate a radio.

G

[Ally1987]

Does all this affect HEMS paramedics in a similar fashion? I ask because I thought the only reason we were allowed into unrecced LSs was because we has a HEMS crewmember acting as an observer during landing... something that would have to be construed as a 'flight duty'.

[Droopy]

Genghis - the observers already operate radios but they're all in the emergency services bands for which they don't require a flight r/t operator's licence.

Ally - It would be an interesting legal argument between the definition of a HEMS crew member in JAR-OPS 3 and that quoted above from the ANO.

This, however, brings up something that may be a way ahead; as many of you will know already, in "a couple of years" [CAA quote] there will be a Public Service AOC. This will encompass police, fire, ambulance etc. With this in mind, it would be an opportune moment for all the "non-pilot personnel" to decide what status they want their associations to lobby for and there's the rub; my personal experience is that there are widely differing opinions amongst the observers as to just what they want to be. It should perhaps be addressed by the Police Federation and Unison to see what the concensus is.

[442]

Well PP.I bow down to your ability to regurgitate paragraphs from books, I am just glad that you are not fighting my cause. I am also glad that I never had the pleasure of working with you, God forbid that you "might" ask me to do some navigation or answer a radio once in a while. Of course when I worked I just looked out of the window and watched the world go by.

May I remind you that without observers, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A JOB. Find that in your bloody manual.

The observers are an integral part of the crew and a good observer makes all the difference between success and failure.

Yes we had to wait for clearance to switch the bus bar on, but in my experience I never had to ask "permission" from the throttle jockey, but then I was working with and not for the pilot.

The reason this thread is never ending is because it matters. Maybe not to you, but for a lot of others it is of great significance.

Put away your books and read between the lines for once. It is far from cut and dried as you so succinctly suggest.

Stick to what you think you are good at. If you find this topic boring, may I suggest you leave it well alone.

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: 442 ]

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: 442 ]

[Arkroyal]

PP

I’m so sorry if we are boring you. You may be surprised to learn that all opinion is as valid and likely to be worth reading as yours. You cannot presume to post your encyclical and expect it to be accepted without comment.

You are still missing the point. Current regs may define the observer as a pax. This is from a licensing perspective, and came about to absolve Police authorities from costly licensing, FTL and currency requirements. In the Strathclyde case, the B206, was chartered under Clyde Helicopters’ AOC, and had no police role equipment. It was easily arguable that the observers were pax. This case is different.

As Genghis and multp understand, the point under scrutiny is whether these people, who are not only vital to the operation of a police aircraft, but its sole reason for existing, should be regarded as pax in the eyes of the Warsaw convention.

Best legal advice to Police observers at the formation of EMASU was that the convention did not apply to them.

This convention was agreed to limit the liability of airlines to their fare paying pax in the event of accident. Note, it never applied to the crew, including cabin attendants. Cabin crew in the airline are not flight crew, nor licensed, but are still considered to be outside the remit of the convention (sorry, were, as the iniquitous Warsaw Convention has since been scrapped by EU legislation), as they do have a role as ‘operating staff’. They (like Police observers, IMHO) are not pax.

I can well understand 442’s ire at your superior attitude. Try a bit of original thought as well as bookworming. The subject remains as controversial now as it was before your final words of wisdom. This is not an academic exercise in wordplay. Andy’s future depends on the outcome of this argument.

I am surprised that there has been little input from other observers. Are you all happy to continue your daily and nightly duties with this uncertainty hanging over you?

Think hard on on it. You might be in a wheelchair after your next sortie. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the certainty that your future would be secure? For the security of your families you should be lobbying the Federation to push for a final decision. If you are not properly covered by your employers for all eventualities, then you are mugs to continue to fly.

[Thomas coupling]

Technically, observers need a 'restricted radio licence' to transmit on a VHF frequency air to ground radio. In the past, Basic Observers Courses used to teach and award observers with such qualifications. We've got two working here. It seems to have slipped thru the cracks recently though. If one has to talk to other a/c OR coastguard for instance, one needs that licence.

On the main issue:

I don't think many Observers are aware this thread is going on! Spread the word so that this subject gets as wide a hearing as possible.
I hope it works out for you 442. Most people only see the up side of your job, very few have read the fine print when it comes to a situation like this. And it won't be the last... I wonder how the yanks handle it..because another of their EMS cabs has just gone in!

Carpe Diem!

[PurplePitot]

442: You can rest assured that I also think this subject matters a great deal and I have no doubts that you have a very valid claim against the Insurance Company in question. Clearly, the best legal advice your employers were given at the time was seriously flawed or indeed wilfully negligent and I suggest that this is the line you should take to redress this tragic situation in the courts. I also think that the Chief Constable at the time should have fully satisfied himself that all was in order before committing his policeman to the air support unit, not do have done so was negligent. As an aside, your local MP is a highly experienced QC. If you haven’t already done so can I recommend that you contact him and brief him fully on the facts of the case so that you might gain some representation in parliament?

I apologise for, what in retrospect, looks like a flippant comment, it was not meant to offend. Having said that, however, I still maintain that if the main thrust of your claim is that you were crew at the time and not pax – then it will fail, and that would be a travesty. I wish you the very best of luck..

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: PurplePitot ]

[MightyGem]

Thomas, I've put a link to this on the National Air Support Forum. Only had the one reply so far.

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: MightyGem ]

[Arkroyal]

PP

I had time to read your 24/9 post but not to reply until now. Now I find it edited!

To answer the (now edited out) points, I can see that the Strathclyde findings could apply to 442. My argument is that that would be wrong, as so many circumstances were different, from ownership of the helicopter, to the role of the police observers on board.

To blindly accept that Andy was not crew because a couple of hapless pioneers of police aviation were deemed passengers, would be ridiculous.

Of course those who stand to pay out a large sum of money will wriggle to avoid it. They must be made to face up to their responsibilities. This thread was started to energise debate on the subject, and it has certainly done that.

Yes PP, your views are as valid as mine or anyone elses, and I have not attacked your right to place them here. I merely objected to your arrogance . quote: OK – This is my last post on the subject / Will this thread never end? unquote. You must defend those views in open argument, not simply expect the rest of us to shut up and agree with you!

[PurplePitot]

Ark.. I thought my last post was a little OTT hence the edit. We are both on the same side really and I duly modify my stance accordingly…………

[SARcastic]

To ARK & 442.

An interesting but disturbing thread - could other civil cases not be used to assist ?
If civilian SAR aircrewmen are not deemed to be flightcrew, then they must be either aircrew or cabin crew, otherwise there is no point in taking off, because without them it is impossible to attempt a mission. Therefore they are part of the crew and are covered by the appropriate legislation (Operations manual, ANO, AOC etc) and insurance, even though they are unlicenced.
Without quoting the details, two accidents involving Civil SAR crews were investigated by the UK AAIB, and ALL AIRCREW (licenced & unlicenced) had all the usual post accident checks - medical, recency, currency, competence etc. etc.
I would suggest that "passengers" would not be subjected to the same line of investigation - therefore, it would seem that the case has already been made covering "crew" of any description.
Hope that this may assist.

To PP. don't touch that mouse or keyboard.

SARcastic :rolleyes:

[cleartorappel]

This sure makes you think. Its not just police. What about ambulance and firefighting helicopters that have "agency" staff on board?

[Arkroyal]

clearto..

It sure does. I'd advise anyone who makes their living flying in helicopters to get a clear decision in writing, as to where they will stand in the event of the unthinkable.

Rest assured, that just as in Andy's case, they will wriggle and squirm to avoid paying out.

I'm sure Andy will win in the end, but is it right with the accident now over three years ago that he must fight in the courts to get compensation for an accident that, no matter where the fault lay, it sure as hell was not with him.

PP I knew you were really on side all along. You just can't resist an argument, can you?

[OBERON]

I have taken the bull by the horns and put this matter in front of my federation reps who, I admit, to my surprise, have seen red and taken it to a national level. I hope that something will get done. Personally, I don't want flight pay or the such, I just want to make sure that, should the unthinkable happen, as unfortunately it sometimes does, I or my next of kin will be fairly treated in compensating for any disability or loss.

I'll update you when I get further details from the Police Federation.

[Arkroyal]

OBERON

Well done. I hope your colleagues (and paramedics) countrywide are going to take this up too. The more noise you make the better. To have to go to court more than 3 years after a tragic and traumatic accident to fight for compensation is disgusting.

Look forward to seeing the federation's answers. They will of course be more than familiar with 442's case as they were obviously involved. My memory is that their promises of support after the accident evaporated as the costs mounted, so better a difinitive answer now than following 442's frustrating and painfull path.

Good luck

[MightyGem]

Oberon, would you care to post on the Air Support Forum (link at the top of this page), to get more coverage amonst ASUs, when you get more info?

Ta MG
;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Best of luck in this. Many people earn their living in aircraft, and it's important that the "system" realises that you don't have to be a pilot - or even in a trade listed in the ANO, to be part of the operating crew of an aircraft.

I wonder how many aircrew trades the armed forces have between them that wouldn't be listed in the ANO !

G

[OBERON]

I have put an update on the Air Support Forum and thought it would be worthwhile doing so here.
My federation rep has done some sterling work in the investigation of this matter and has presented it to the Police Federation National Health & Safety Committee. It is hoped that they will take it up and run with it on our behalf. If they decide against it then it is planned to table it as a motion to be discussed by the Police Federation Conference. Whichever way it goes, I hope we will get this obvious injustice into the limelight.
A meeting has also been requested with our Police Authority to obtain their views on the matter, including their proposals for any compensation to observers within our force who may suffer in the event of any accident.
I will update both forums when I hear more but, in the meantime, if any other police observer would care to go to their federation and put pressure from more than one branch, please feel free. If anybody wants to e-mail me and use me to contact our federation rep with the research answers, please do so.

[Arkroyal]

Surprise surprise.

With 4 weeks to go to the court case, the insurers are beginning to talk money.

Hopefully a just end is in sight. How much do we think fair for the ruined career of a man in his 30s?

[Heliport]

Arky

Your assistance is being sought on the 'Police plot prosecuted' thread in the Reporting Points forum : here! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51623)

[Arkroyal]

True to form, the insurers were not keen to have their ridiculous theory tested in court and have settled.

[Flying Lawyer]

Very pleased that all eventually worked out well for 442.
It must be a great relief for him after such a long period of anxiety.

[sycamore]

I have spoken to a friend who is an observer ,who says that as policepersons first they can be called upon to "work" without hours restriction/limitation unlike as per pilots.Would any pilot accept that another member of his crew has been working long hours without proper rest,and then get airborne to do a job??What stones would be upturned at a subsequent Inquiry if there was an accident,even unrelated to the Observers work patterns? :(

[Heliport]

Thanks for the post Ark Royal
Good news for 442.
Surely the status of obervers ought to be sorted out once and for all. Whatever is decided, at least everyone will know where they stand and avoid the sort of additional distress which 442 had to suffer on top of everything else.

sycamore
"policepersons" ?!?!?!? http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/spineyes.gif ;)

[sycamore]

Policepersons covers the male and female of the species .I was I hope being non -sexist/P/C,otherwise I could have used @#%>&&,**&£33@@##+, or even##&**@5$4F**,for good measure;just being polite to the poleeth! :p :p

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Delighted to hear that, at long last, the insurers bowed to the inevitable.

Chatting about this case with some of our observers, one of them made the point that if their role required some form of FTL compliance then Chief Constables might consider it cheaper to go down the direct-employed-civilian path to filling the non-pilot seats in the aircraft. Beancounting in the modern police world being, of course, more important to some than operational proficiency...

Mighty Gem:

Some of us would consider reading and posting things on your alternative forum if your duty-Cerberus would let us in. I applied, giving my background and quals, and received a snottagram in return saying No Entry, Not Known Here. Well, you're not going to get to know people if you won't let them talk, are you?! Nah, I'll stick to PPRuNe where I can filter out the Walters myself, thanks.

[Thomas coupling]

Thud and blunder:
E-mail me with your name and work place, I'll do my best to get you in...You certainly received a strange response.

Jas is normally very accomodating.

Call me.


It seems ACPO want the minimum of fuss over this. By default it has played into their hands where they are not forced to make a national decision. They are hoping now that it will go away.
The Observers here either don't understand or don't care!

[whoateallthepies]

I believe there are ACPO guidelines to be followed regarding maximum duty hours for police observers. (I don't have the details with me as I'm not on a police unit now, flying paramedics).
This followed a run of flight safety incidents at the unit I used to work at, where a police observer had worked a long run of shifts and was definitely knackered by it. Should maximum duty hours for observers be published in the PAOM?

[Thomas coupling]

Whoateall: can you e-mail me those details re the ACPO observer limits on duty hours, please.

[whoateallthepies]

Thomas
details of where to get the info on it's way. As I said I don't have the info with me but I know a man who does!

[Arkroyal]

I'll point 442 to this site again so that he can (or not) flesh out the details.

Meanwhile, thanks to all contributors for their four pennorth.

I too was shown the door whilst trying to get into the other forum. Although I am an 'ex' police pilot, I still pop in to the unit with doughnuts, so please let me join

[fat pax]

Dear T C

'The observers here don't understand or don't care.' Without harping on too much, I think you will find that they actually do care and hope this particular subject matter is finally satisfactorily resolved - soon.:)

[SASless]

Nick,

We were confronted with this very issue in the US EMS business....vender operated programs used single pilot, medical crew member sitting in the "co-pilot" seat on BO, BK, and B-412's. They operated radios, assisted in navigation, tuning aircraft radios, and other "crew" tasks. Because they were hospital employees and not employees of the Part 135 operator.....then they had to be considered passengers and not crew. Each flight therefore had to be operated under 135 whereas in a non-patient , crew only, hospital operated service (where pilots, mechanics,and medical crew were all hospital employees) the flight could be operated under Part 91, until the patient was onboard.

It challenges the reality of the situation but the legal aspects are tremendous when this issue arises. As much as we wanted to consider the medical personnel as crew....the law clearly prohibited that in the legal structure that was being used at that time.

I guess the medical crew could have been contracted to the helicotper vender....and then the whole crew and aircraft could have been further leased back to the hospital.....as a way to get around that but then other legal issues arise.

[zaplead]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'd be grateful if someone could clarify what FTL stands for with regards to licensing......cheers.:rolleyes:

[Helinut]

zaplead,

FTL stands for Flight Time Limitations. The rules provide for limitations on the number of flying hours, length of time on duty etc. to avoid pilots getting fatigued. FTL limits (in the UK) exist for pilots flying for commercial charter and/or police flying.

[zaplead]

Helinut,
Thanks for that, I of these rules, but never knew that was what they were called, Thanks....:)

[Arkroyal]

I hear that 442 has returned from a well earned holiday, banked the moolah, and may well be about to transmit!

[442]

First of all I would like to thank you all for the responses to my predicament, and Ark for the ales!

I will not post a reply at this stage as I want the proposed article checked first!

A big thank you to Mick Dunn and all at EMASU, all 3 Police Authorities and the Police Federation for their support and backing.

Oh, I nearly forgot........................... a Huge thanks to the insurers for making the last 3 1/2 years a complete nightmare:(

[Big G.]

Evening All.

Just walked in and found this link. Serving Police Observer and very interested in the discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The boys and girls on my unit have all been updated regarding it's importance.
PPRUNE does have it's uses.

Be good and be safe and watch the Radalt.

[MightyGem]

Big G, are you aware of the Air Support Forum? If not, visit here:
http://www.oscar99.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

[Arkroyal]

Wellaware too, mightyGem, but barred from joining as I don't work there anymore.

[Skycop9]

In the US most departments have a policy and procedure and this usually defines the duties and responsabilities police pilots and observers. It describes what each " crew member's" duties and responsibilites are. I do not know how Policy agencies over the pond regulate the police duties but I would imagine that there has to be some type of policy and procedures in place. If it is described in the policy and procedurs that they are CREW MEMBERS then it seems to me the case is closed. However when you deal with criminals and insurance companies never let your guard down. They both seem to br crooks.

SKYCOP9::

[STANDTO]

Now I thought this was sorted. However, whilst reading CAP612 I notice that the police observers are still referred to as Pax, unless I have an out of date version (unlikely as it was downloaded fromthe CAA website)

I thought after former tragic events, it was accepted they were crew. Can anyone enlighten me?

:confused:

[idle stop]

Despite the fact that, in UK, Police Air Observers undergo a formal aviation course and wear an Observer's brevet on their flight suits, they are officially passengers, as per the PAOM.
I think this belittles their duties and capabilities: those I have had the privilege to serve with in the past have been every bit as professional 'aircrew' as some that I knew in a distant military life.
Cynics might say say that if PAO were aircrew, they would be bound by CAP371 FTLs and that this would put an unbearable strain on police peopling. ('Manning', for the un-PC!)
This has all been said before....see previous threrads,wherever they've gone to.

[Genghis the Engineer]

When I used to earn my living as a Flight Test Observer flying out of a certain airfield in Wiltshire, the flying order book (FOB) said...

"FTO are not aircrew, but they are part of the aircraft operating crew".

To this day, I still don't know what the ***** it was going on about.

G

[morris1]

It is no change no change, as far the the Observer Vs Pax debate goes.

At a recent (ish... 5 or 6 months ago) meeting I heard that the CAA had re iterated their intent to continue (and justify) their categorisation of the Police Observers as passengers.

[J.A.F.O.]

Who cares.

Doesn't affect the job, doesn't affect the pay packet.

Call me cargo if you like as long as the job gets done.

[morris1]

Agreed: Doesnt change the job, & probably wouldnt change the pay.

But where do you draw the line...?

The BBC camera man (experienced or otherwise) or the photographer, Im sure will not have had to sit CRM courses, E & S exams, be fire trained, first aid trained, qualified in fuel handling, know how to navigate from A2B, been on a formal CAA recognised training course, or indeed be expected to whip out some FRCs and assist the Pilot in the event of an inflight hyd failure etc etc. plus do some Police work on top..

Anyway, its an old topic.
It all be academic when aviation gets taken away from individual forces and put into a national organisation. They'll all be civvies then anyway..!

[Letsby Avenue]

Sorry morris1. I deleted my post due to my somewhat alcohol induced right wing stance on the matter and I didn't see page two and your post. As you say it doesn't make any difference. :O

[STANDTO]

I think it makes a considerable difference if you crash and burn. I think that was what the old argument was about

[aeromys]

Yes - it was the old Warsaw Convention that resticted the maximum compensation to something like £50,000 for passengers, whereas for "Crew" there was no limit.

However I think the Montreal Convention has now binned that ceiling, and that there is now no limit?

[Letsby Avenue]

So the captain of the aircraft has to accept his passengers are now crew so that they can claim compensation in the event of a major disaster... Perfect.

[J.A.F.O.]

I think it makes a considerable difference if you crash and burn.
I bet it doesn't hurt any less.

[paco]

It's all because the ANO only mentions "pax" or "crew", and you are one or the other. We, too, have observers, who do an excellent job, but as they contribute nothing to the flying of the aircraft, they are sadly "passengers". Most other countries call them "personnel essential to the operation" which neatly gets round the problem of whether you're doing aerial work as well.

Phil

[Marco]

Generally, I believe, the police don't want to be regarded as crew and have to deal with the associated baggage from the CAA that comes with it. They are quite happy to be legally classed as passengers as they are aware that anyone who has any knowledge of the subject realises their true status.
:D

[STANDTO]

Flight Crew - Definition

The ANO 2000, Article 129 (1) defines flight crew as follows:
'Flight Crew' in relation to an aircraft means those members of the crew of the aircraft who respectively undertake to act as pilot, flight navigator, flight engineer and flight radio operator of the aircraft. All other persons on board the aircraft, including the
police observer, are regarded as passengers.

[Letsby Avenue]

Same extract of the ANO in section 1 of the PAOM. I often wonder why this subject keeps cropping up? Its never going to change; Just read the books!

[STANDTO]

I know it isn't going to change - but that doesn't make it right.

[aeromys]

I don't think it really makes a difference now that the Warsaw Convention compensation limit has been lifted.

If made crew and subject to CAA duty limitations, Observers would lose a lot of overtime... ;)

[Arkroyal]

JAFO,

You might change your frivolous tone if YOU were the one disabled for life, and staring inadequate compensation in the face because of the definition of crew or passemger.

Letsby.

I'm sure 442 will appreciate your vomit.

[Bertie Thruster]

Is a police observer required to be on board for the helo to be operated under the terms of the PAOM?

[Thomas coupling]

No.............................

[TeeS]

But a HEMS crewman is, unless there are two pilots! (Not talking POAM here of course!)

TeeS

[Arkroyal]

....................but there'd be bugger all point in it being airborne without one or two.

[Letsby Avenue]

Thanks for that Ark - My post is duly edited. At the time this small thread had not been attached to a discusion that took place nearly six years' ago. Why it comes round every other year is anyones guess.

[morris1]

"If made crew and subject to CAA duty limitations, Observers would lose a lot of overtime..."

Wasssss that then this overtime thingy......??

[Bertie Thruster]

If obliged to follow CAA duty time limitations observers would still be able to clock up 30 hours overtime a month. (40 hours if on a standard 37.5 hr week)

[handysnaks]

Bertie, that would depend on what type of shift pattern they were on. Ours wouldn't get any (unless they were on leave...)

[Bertie Thruster]

I was just indicating that being subject to CAA limits would not in theory prevent overtime, (quite a lot of overtime in fact) for anyone who enjoys the 'standard' working week, eg police observers or hems crew.

[J.A.F.O.]

Ark

As with Letsby my comment was made at a time when this was a stand alone thread and not part of the larger one. My comment was not meant as part of that thread and it was never my intention that it should be taken as part of the previous thread nor that it should be seen in that light. If, now that the threads have been merged, you or anyone else would like me to edit or remove it then I will certainly do so as I would not wish to cause offence, least of all to those who have been on the blunt end of this legislation.

[Arkroyal]

Guys,

I didn't realise that this was now a merged thread.

Had a beer or three with 442 the other day.

He's just had another operation to try and regain mobility in his neck. Hopefully it'll work.

[Heli-Ice]

I haven't had the patience to read through all the posts here and I would like to address a question.

I know that police work with a helicopter is a demanding job but if the observer is considered as a passenger by the CAA, why don't they consider photographers as passengers also?

Aerial photography and Police work, isn't it a different porridge in the same bowl?

[JimL]

Well you know what Heli-ice, they do!

Jim

[Droopy]

Heli-ice, it's not appropriate to compare a police observer's role to that of a photographer [well not most of them anyway...]. A lot of an observer's job is done in the office, reviewing/rejecting/planning task requests and on scene the job is constantly changing.

The main reason police observers are not considered crew [which in practice they clearly are] is pressure from police management through the government to the CAA. Crew status would require control of those staff by an outside agency [medicals, licensing, duty periods etc] and the police as an organisation are not prepared to relinquish that control.

Theoretically a police observer could be ordered to work a second duty out on the streets immediately after a flying duty, though the reverse should not be possible because the aircraft commander has the power not to carry the observer on safety grounds.