Uk Police Force Re-Structuring

[huntnhound]

Now that the Home office have made their intentions clear in the UK, with a proposed re-structuring from 43 to 12 forces...isnt it time we had a National Air Support Unit?

[Brian Dixon]

But be prepared to deal with idiots like this:
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/wootton_bassett/news/WOOT_NEWS_LOCAL5.html

Thank you all for doing what you do.

[Fortyodd]

A "gentleman" in the North Midlands area has recently had a visit from the CAA and the police regarding a similar incident. He's also now of the opinion that it wasn't the brightest thing he's ever done.
National Air Support Unit?? Long overdue. The difficult thing will be to get the Chief Constables to give up "Their" helicopters.

[Flying Lawyer]

As usual, it wouldn't be wise to assume the newspaper report re the Wiltshire case is entirely accurate - and worth bearing in mind that the journo doesn't know why a compromise was reached at an extremely late stage.
FL

[Helinut]

Mm,

I am not at all sure that those senior police officers in a position to influence this will be thinking much about air support for the next year or so. Rather they will be playing musical chairs, trying to negotiate their way into the (presumably) fewer ACPO jobs.

Of course, the Home Office could make the decision for them, but I am not holding my breath............

The idea of national air support is initially attractive. It would presumably remove some inefficencies and enable a more rational and effective use of resources. However, it would depend very much on who was put in charge. How would we all feel about working for the "best bid" (i.e. lowest cost) contractor?

Change is not always predictable, especially when politicians are involved.

[Coconutty]

Talking of unpredictable changes when politicians are involved ......

One for Flying Lawyer :

Can FL ( or anyone else ) CONFIRM that the offence of "Endangering an aircraft" would apply in the case of someone shining a bright light / laser as stated above ??

I know that the "original" offence had a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment so was not an "arrestable" offence.

The offences of "Endangering the safety of an aircraft", "Drunkenness in an aircraft" and "Acting in a disruptive manner", are all offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000 - Section 63.
Chapter 19 of the Aviation (Offences) Act 2003 has increased the maximum penalty on conviction for these offences to 5 years imprisonment, which now makes them "arrestable offences", however :

The "original" offence(s), AFAIK, only applied to persons ON BOARD an aircraft - so the drunk who wouldn't turn off his mobile phone in flight could be arrested, whereas the bright light incident shone at the aircraft from the ground would not apply.

The question is - In addition to increasing the penalty and making the offence arrestable, has the wording of the offence now also been altered to allow the offence to be committed by someone NOT on board the aircraft, i.e. the tw@t with his laser pen ???

It would be useful to get a definitive answer to make sure there are no unlawful arrests, ( as if they would ;) ) and if the legislation doesn't cover this - as I suspect ( although I hope to proved wrong ) then alternatives would have to be considered such as Attempt Criminal Damage, or even an Assault ( damage to eyesight ) depending on the intentions of the offender ????

:ok:

[on21]

Could possibly go for a public order offence, harassment, alarm or distress, maybe sec 4a intentional? Hope I never that call!

[huntnhound]

Blimey...the original question has been hijacked by someone standing in his garden with a torch:rolleyes:

Helinut...you may well be right about the management. But who is to say there will be any form of contractor? After all in the UK a lot of the present day units are going to direct employment arent they? Surely the Home office are big enough to directly employ pilots and engineering?

Hnh

[Helinut]

There is a fashion in government at present not to employ anyone (other than pen pushers). The dogma is that it is more flexible, more efficient and saves money to use contractors. In addition, the Home Office knows diddly squat about aviation. It does not matter whether this is true or not: original thought is not common under the bowler hats.(I know the trend you mention in local air support seems to be against that, but the general trend is to contract out).

I accept that pilot employment could go either way, if there was national air support. However, if we look at the example of what has happened with local air support, most units still use contractors. In my mind, the REAL decision in the current setup lies with the UEO. If he/she is persuaded that it is a good idea, it will happen. If not, it won't. The UEO writes the report to make the case, or otherwise. In reality, it is the UEO who has to deal with the hassle/benefit of direct employment as well.

The same would be true if there was national air support. It would depend upon who was the air support supremo, assuming that the Home Office appointed someone in that role. He could make the case for employment in the civil servoce or not, and his view would probably prevail. Alternatively, they could just farm out the whole thing to a contractor, and only have to think about it every 3/5 years, when the contract came up for renewal.

[Another Old Git]

It is interesting and I think quite relevant that at the same time as the Home Office are reviewing Police boundaries, the Dept of Health are also reviewing Strategic Health Authority boundaries and Ambulance Service Trusts. Thirty two ambulance services are to be reduced to "about 9". Both reviews are in consultation stage and due to be announced by government in December.

There are clearly some very significant changes ahead for the emergency services air support industry with what the respective departments ominously call rationalisation. If anyone in the industry wants to second guess their future then I would suggest that they look at the (thought to be forgotten) regional assembly boundaries. A quick look at duplication of cover, or previous holes in cover make it fairly easy to see what the new Regional Chief Constables and Ambulance Trust Chief Executives will be thinking.

I think national air support is now less likely than it was, but regional support is definately on the cards, more rational, and hopefully a step forward with nothing to fear. In any event, we will soon know.

[Helinut]

I wasn't aware of the NHS review.

It would be too much to hope that emergency services air support will be looked at as a whole. From past experience, few senior police officers have the vision to see the overall benefit of cross emergency service helicopters. Maybe it is not right to expect them to do that anyway. After all, they (and the Home Office) are only supposed to look at policing, and the Health Service in England and Wales tries to ignore HEMS as much as it can. That really leaves only the politicians in a position to take the broader view........

In the end, won't police air support just follow the reorganisation of the police forces?

[Another Old Git]

In the end, won't police air support just follow the reorganisation of the police forces?

I am sure that they will, as quite separately will all the HEMS units. I just have a feeling in my water that the boundaries are already set and they will be the same 9 or 10 for Health, Home Office (and regional assemblies). It is just the game of chess that follows that will prove interesting.

I do think that it will put a national ASU off the agenda though. Each new regional Chief Constable will just be moving all the pawns about the board.
:uhoh:

[Brian Dixon]

Just want to apologise for causing a slight thread hijack. That was not my intention.

Apologies again,
Brian :O

[morris1]

I firmly beleive that the police ASUs status will be secondary to the actual re-organisation of the Police forces themsleves.
In yorkshire there are potentialy 4 forces (W.Yorks, S.yorks, N.Yorks and Humbs) that could merge to one "super force"..!!

Of these four, there could be winners and losers..
North Yorks -- have never had an ASU..!
Humbs -- have just moved to a new base (potentialy now, in the wrong county, Lincs??)
S. Yorks -- about to become homeless (SCA to close..??)

Thats a HUGE barrel of worms to sort out, if they were to all merge together.. at the least there's 2 UEOs to sack...!!

None of this will have any influence on the decsions being made about the mergers. It will all just be cobbled together after the event, into a "best fit" case, AND based on who's holding the purse strings...
hope all goes well...!!

[rotorcraig]

Just want to apologise for causing a slight thread hijack. That was not my intention.I think it's a random hijack at that ... the link now points to a story about a three-day Italian market that is set to grace the High Street of Wootton Bassett when comes to town next week :p

RC

[heli1]

Sorry but the police had a weak case in Wooton Basset.True the guy shone a powerful torch (not a laser ) at the helicopter but he didn't put the aircraft at risk.
Rather ,quoting the pilot's statement "I was told by the paramedic that a light was being shone at the aircraft from the port side..I then positioned the aircraft so I could see what was happening,as soon as the aircraft turned I could see the light ".In other words he was not dazzled but deliberately turned and stayed in the area whilst the man was arrested by a ground unit.
Bearing in mind the helo was already in a lit area and at a height well above any likely power lines etc. I think the defence would have had a good case if it went to court.
I don't condone what the guy did but these are the facts.

[Thomas coupling]

Sorry did you just walk into a different conversation, heli1????

What on earth are you on about?

[on21]

This is the link I think he is talking about.

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/wootton_bassett/news/WOOT_NEWS_LOCAL9.html

[whoateallthepies]

Thomas

He's referring to Brian Dixon's post near the top of the thread