Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?

[Waldo_Plopper]

I am looking for response / comment on the following set of circumstances.................


This tale relates to a Police aviation unit, operating light helicopters on a 24/7 basis. It is a single pilot operation with the 2 observers trained to support the pilot aswell as the policing of incidents when deployed. Cops coming onto the unit complete a 3 week basic course, covering basic met/ nav and a brief introduction to role equipment. Once appointed to the unit further online training is carried out with the cop being mentored by a training officer for 10 weeks................getting the picture.

2 officers complete the course, this is a pass or fail course, lots to take in during the 3 weeks. 1 student makes reasonable progress with the nav, while the other student struggles with their "finds" and repeatedly fails to call on-route hazards to the pilot, this continues throughout the course.

Come line-check day student No1 acheives a pass, student No2 fails......................

student No1 continues training, while student No2 is returned to normal duties and does not continue training.

The 2 course trainers & the line check pilot concur student no2 fails..................the course notes recorded on student No2 support this, and the line check report conducted on the third week of the course is endorsed..."fail "

There then follows the usual political wrangles, student no1 returns to normal duties to await appointment to the unit, and student No2 is no more...................

However, student no2 makes representations, and is offered a further 4 weeks of training to bring them up to standard, sufficient to pass the line check.

Taking into account this is a single pilot operation, what are the readers thoughts, is it correct that student no2 gets further training ?, is it essential that observers call on route hazards to the pilot, or is that simply "his job".?

Student No2 was totally maxxed out with the nav side of the course, with no more capacity to add on use of role equipment, additional thinking..............is student No2 a liabilty to the safety of the aircraft ?

would love to hear your thoughts please.................

[Farmer 1]

is student No2 a liabilty to the safety of the aircraft ? Of course he is, or would be, at the moment.

There are those people who can take these things in their stride first time round; there are those who will never master it no matter how long they try; and there are those who will, eventually.

If he is one of the last group, then it is possible he will eventually make a good team member. It depends, among other things of course, on how long and how much money the Force is prepared to spend teaching him. That is what the selection process is all about.

[Maude Charlee]

I'm with Farmer 1. Sometimes simple exam passes or failures are no measure of a candidates suitability for a role in the long term, simply a measure of their ability to pass exams at any given point in time.

I know you suggest that there are more subjective issues here relating to the opinions of trainers, but these people can be, and often are, completely wrong. I know several pilots who have had great difficulty in their initial training who have subsequently progressed in impressive fashion later in their careers, but to apply the criteria you wish to see implemented in your post would have prevented this from happening.

Sometimes an outside opinion from somebody independant to a degree from the process can be a useful addition to the process.

Why don't you tell us what your real beef is? Candidate 1 by any chance?

[handysnaks]

Try asking the question on Rotorheads and you may get all the replies your heart could desire;)

[jayteeto]

We do observer training here at merseyside. I actually teach the nav package to some courses and certainly fly and assess a large number of course training sorties. I taught low level nav in the military as well.
THIS IS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM.
The pilot is THE flight crew member........ full stop. He is ASSISTED by the observers who should assume the tactical navigation for the sortie and police job at hand. If he busts controlled airspace or danger areas, guess who is at fault?? Do not under any circumstances blame student B for the safety of the aircraft.
If a student fails the course for navigation, it is usually because they cannot control the tactical navigation aspects that are required for the job. As Farmer 1 states, some people take extra time (often ending up as brilliant observers) and some will just never get it in a million years. This is important to differentiate, the bad observers lose the success of the police incident at hand NOT the safety of the aircraft.
I hate to say this, but anyone who disagrees is operating the aircraft in an incorrect manner IMHO.

[Waldo_Plopper]

Thanks,

The replies are very interesting , particularly the view from the Merseyside end of the world.................arent merseyside a national training centre for Police aviation .

I have intentionally left my text vague so as not to cause embarrassment to those involved, however I agree that the with student No2 struggling to nav (at the moment), the police work side of the job may be lost. Poor nav to the job may lead to joey the burglar making good his escape.................may be a minor issue . But at a few pounds an hour to launch, then results are a requirement of the post. If your crap at the job joey wins !

More angles of reply would be interesting reading so please carry on......................

Waldo

[Another Old Git]

The Police do not share the same tradition as the military chop ride with no appeal. They need a totally transparent system that stands scrutiny if a student should apply a grievance procedure to the outcome, which is their right.

Police training culture tends to ask the question “Did the training fail the student, rather than the student fail the training?” There is a possibility that further training just might offer the solution to a slow starter.


On the three separate occasions that I have faced this very issue, I came to these conclusions:
• Further training didn’t work, it prolonged the agony and made the final outcome even more expensive, disappointing (and bitter) for all concerned.
• The unit training processes probably benefited by being scrutinised and tested
• The whole procedure was seen to be fair and transparent.

Look on the bright side, there is one more benefit from this, a bigger ASU budget for next year!

[Thomas coupling]

We do national obs courses too.

It doesnt help when there are NO national guidelines to follow. This leaves the whole process wide open to challanges from the onset!

However, with the case in question:
IF student B fails on safety and obstruction reporting and this alone, then I'm afraid he has our full support in complaining. It is NOT his/her job, full stop. It's nice to have the back up and we employ this tactic to afford the observer more responsibility.

When we select a candidate to join us, we are looking for a rounded person, not just an expert in one small area. If they have the general aptitude to tactically think in the air...that is what we want. We orientate our checks and measures therefore to weed out the weaker candidate. It would however amount to a series of 'black marks' across several check areas before we failed them totally. This also leaves us less exposed to any failed candidate who chooses to challenge our findings.

At the end of the day they are after all - passengers!

[Waldo_Plopper]

The officer involved , student No2 has shown a lot of commitment and motivation to get on the unit, giving up there own time to fly..............

armed with the replies I have already received, and my knowledge of the people , I would expect student No2 to raise their game to pass the line check.

As to how student No2 fits into the Police role, and works with cops who know the politics and the additional training, we shall see............


Waldo

Good stuff,


Id like to think I can generate a good flow of comment here,


If anything this case, to me unearths a pre-course lack of selection............

If thorough and all encompassing selection was used, then this very difficult situation would not have come about....to see the character flaws/ ability or lack of it during a deep selection process may be the answer.......

However I do keep harking back to the Police reason why the machine is up in the air.....................catching joey !

If the observer cannot show aptitude to getting joey in the cells while on the 3 week initial course, is it right to keep training them ?


Waldo

[jayteeto]

It depends. This is why we are assessors, we are supposed to be experienced enough to make a decision on the likelyhood of a candidate making it with further training. All I know is that if the RAF had been an absolute pass/fail twenty years ago, I would not be a pilot now. A bit of extra flying got me through the Jet Provost course with a helicopter recommend. I think that I did pretty ok after that!!!

[Tigs2]

Jayteeto

Sorry but couldnt disagree more chap. you say

If he busts controlled airspace or danger areas, guess who is at fault??

It doesnt matter whos fault it is if the result of the 'bust' is a mid-air or incursion of a danger zone that could result in the loss of an aircraft.



He is ASSISTED by the observers who should assume the tactical navigation for the sortie and police job at hand.

so the observer should assume tactical navigation and he should ASSIST the pilot, yet still to this point the observer is not given ANY form of crew status by the CAA and therefore should NOT assist the pilot, particularly with TAC nav near Controlled airspace.

These guys are not given the costed hours to develop, and in many cases not given the development by pilots in the air. The reason you 'developed' to an OK standard following difficulties on the JP was that you were given costed hours, you were both developed and you were treated as a crew member.

The observers should be given crew status (only a cost issue with the ASU's)by the CAA to make the set up as legal and as safe as possible. Then they would have to have costed hours training etc. You say this is not a safety issue well in my eyes in terms of operating the aircraft ( talking as a mil rotary pilot) and in terms of CRM it definitly is an issue. It is an accident waiting to happen.

The whole ASU business needs revamping on a national basis to get qualified , accredited, licensed coppers in the left hand seat.

Waldo this is the right forum for this subject.

[jayteeto]

Tigs, still disagree!! If the observers become crew in the future and aircraft nav is handed to them, then yes, this scenario could be dangerous.
You misunderstand my words....... At the moment, as the rules are NOW, the PILOT is responsible for the position of the aircraft. If the aircraft was to be lost, it would be the fault of the pilot. The crew recognition by the CAA argument is a totally separate issue. When this rule changes, then potentially this thread changes. What you have said is EXACTLY what I am talking about. There has been a 'creep of percieved responsibility'. When we fly in merseyside, 'assist' would work something like this:
"JT, we need to go to XYZ on a heading of 120, 3 miles"
"OK, I am routing around the prison avoid and everyone look out for the mast at ABC"
In other words they tell me where the target is, but I am responsible to get there safely. If a pilot believes that there is potential of a 'bong' of airspace, they should not blindly follow where the bobbies are directing them. That is why you are employed and paid all this money (:yuk: ), your experience and CAPTAINCY!!!!!!!!!

[cwatters]

The pilot is THE flight crew member........ full stop. He is ASSISTED by the observers who should assume the tactical navigation for the sortie and police job at hand.

While that is technically correct what about human factors angle?

The pilot might be responsibly but he is expecting the observer to be warning of hazards.

Is that a power line I see before me? I'm not sure....No it can't be
my observer is good and would have said something...

[huntnhound]

I think (and that makes a change) that this whole thread revolves around a diversity or equality issue in the first place. Clearly the police bosses didnt want the student to fail and the student was encouraged to either submit a grievance or make a complaint. There is an attitude in police training that a) anyone can do police "job" and b) if they fail the course its the fault of the trainer.

We are without doubt passengers, and long may it continue. If only for the overtime. No Chief constable will want to lose control over their officers, so being "crew" simply isnt going to happen.

To answer an earlier point... there is a National Air Suport trainers manual...therefore there is a National standard. Any unit having problems with initial air observers courses should re-visit their selection procedure. I am reasonably confident with ours now, to the point i know when I start a course, I am working with people who have the potential.

HnH

[Non-PC Plod]

The crew/passenger debate is a strange anomaly. It appears that it is allowed to continue in the system simply for the purposes of fudging the issue of police rostering.

Any objective assessment of what takes place in the aircraft would conclude that those on board are working together as a "crew" in order to achieve the mission. The precise division of responsibility is immaterial - the captain of the aircraft remains the captain, and the buck stops there.

In order to work to maximise both safety and efficiency, we use CRM - even PAOM 1 which classifies observers as "CAA-agreed passengers" requires annual combined CRM training for flight crew and observers because: " the successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires effective coordination between flight crew and observers". It is no great surprise that this wording is somewhat similar to JAR-Ops 3 which states that "the successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires effective coordination between flight and cabin crew"

Observers are seen as equally important in CRM terms as cabin crew are for airlines. This is why we need to select people to do the job who we can work with, and who will be an asset rather than a hindrance in terms of achieving the mission. The organization needs to have confidence in its training staff to pick those people. If it doesnt trust their judgement, it needs to change the training staff.

Shall I get off my soap box now?

[MightyGem]

student No2 fails
Hmmm...now there's a novelty. :rolleyes:

I've seen the occasional student who, applying the standards in my previous life as a military QHI, would have failed. In fact it took great effort, for quite a while, for me not to apply those standards/criticisms.
Student No2 was totally maxxed out with the nav side of the course, with no more capacity to add on use of role equipment, additional thinking..............is student No2 a liabilty to the safety of the aircraft ?
Well most of them are,maxxed out that is, which is why we tend not to get them using the role equipment, but just concentrate on nav and map reading. Safety liability? No, not really, when there are two other experienced people in the aircraft. Anyway, even the most experienced observers sometimes can't see the wood from the trees when trying to find a back street in downtown Liverpool. As for controlled airspace, I wouldn't expect them to call it.
If anything this case, to me unearths a pre-course lack of selection
We used to do selection. Not allowed to anymore. Some elitist/human rights/diversity c**p.

[RatherBeFlying]

I was once low level due to weather one evening as we were diverting. PF had eyes outside while I, PNF, had eyes on map tracking control zones and obstacles.

Sounds to me that the coppers don't want to spend the money for two qualified pilots up front -- in an environment that demands it.

The human factors side of somebody somewhat qualified next to me who can assist to an unofficial (here I mean the CAA or equivalent national aeronautical authority) standard is insidious.

That said, I have not heard of any police helicopters striking obstacles; so, maybe they're doing it right. Local area knowledge has to count for something.

[morris1]

I think part of the problem.... is that the Observers role is in fact probably one of the MOST challenging of any police specialist role... in that its most UNLIKE any other Police work an officer is likely to face..

Therefore not all Officers are going to possess the skills necessary for the role.

This does indeed go against current Police training culture, which is the biggest pile of ..... limp-wristed, arse about faced, softly softly, human rights, diversity friendly, bul**** loaded crap..... as you would ever wish to meet.

Thankfuly... at the moment.. my own force DOES do aptitude testing prior to interview for the observers role, and the interview doesnt make up the entire score for the post.

(However... should you wish to be an armed Officer... you can be the stupidist, laziest, mentaly unstable, alcoholic in the job... but if you pass an interview.. YOUR IN MATE..)

I agree with jaytee... im simply freight..!! get me to the job and i'll point it out on the ground and do the stuff as far the police work is involved. Put me in with a floating pilot who doesnt know the area, and i'll do the same.. we will still get around the county (safely)
My skills or otherwise at reading air charts, GPS readouts, TCAS indications, approach plates, Ts and Ps etc etc are of no consequence if it all went tits.. the Pilot would be held blameworthy.
That doesnt mean i wouldnt be prepared to learn, and pass examinations on such such matters, should i be required, and given the right motivation..!! I enjoy my job, and if i was given the opportunity to train, and learn new skills to get the job done better, I'd gladly take them.
Just need the powers that be to realise that we do have people doing this job that are willing, and capable of being more than cargo...

And bring back the good old days of.... drop em at the deep end... sink or swim training... 'cos pressure is what its all about.. put "student number 2" over a fast moving pursuit, thats goes next door into a neighbouring county, or an unfamilair Town centre, dodgy comms due to Airwave, a floating Pilot and **** weather... No matter how much training time he's been given.... he's going to be weak at the important stuff

[huntnhound]

Ah Morris1......


".....
And bring back the good old days of.... drop em at the deep end... sink or swim training... 'cos pressure is what its all about.."

Sounds like you are as old as the rest of us mate!!!!

Hnh

[bandeeto]

Dear All,

An interesting set of replies, some technical quoting PAOM, and some not so technical - call me baggage etc.

Yes the buck stops with the pilot, but its not that simple, we all know that - pilots get maxxed out too. Who are you all trying to kid - never missed an atc call? Never had an observer say 'thats tower shouting on you' or even 'whats that smell/noise/banging' etc.

"JT, we need to go to XYZ on a heading of 120, 3 miles"
"OK, I am routing around the prison avoid and everyone look out for the mast at ABC"
"No I'm not looking out for the mast, thats your job your the pilot, I'm already maxxed out with my A to Z and the radios, I'll be eyes in for the next 2 or 3 minutes" or even worse..silence..

That is not a good scenario for flight safety - especially not at weather minima, in the dark. If you were the pilot, how would you feel - back to the office??

And how often does the pilot see 'joey' before the observers!! I'm sick of them gettin the chalk - but at least the bad guy is locked up!! If we all stuck to our own jobs it wouldn't work...we all know it, but hate to admit it.


Quote: My skills or otherwise at reading air charts, GPS readouts, TCAS indications, approach plates, Ts and Ps etc etc are of no consequence if it all went tits..

The point being that all your skills above may STOP it going tits in the first place..or at least kate moss becoming jordan..

Stay safe..and like Roy Walker said - "Just say what you see"

Love, El Bandeeto

[jayteeto]

Oh please........
It is called getting the crew involved. If I ask you to look for a mast and you are too busy or it is silent, then we go home?? I don't think so. Is it unsafe if you are heads in?? I don't think so. It is just sensible to use everything available to help.
Please dont get me wrong, I am NOT a prima donna who ignores the crew, ask any of my flight, but I fly to my abilities as if I was the only person in the aircraft. If I get some ASSISTANCE, then fantastic. If not, I NEVER push the limits in order to put my crew or machine at risk.
Your comment on the pilot making a spot first works against you by the way. If he is busy flying the aircraft and cant look for the bad guy, does that mean you cant do your job and should go home? Of course not, it means when he can help, he does, when he can't, he doesnt. Just like the observers with the pilot.

[Tigs2]

JT

you say they are freight now you are saying they are crew. The observers according to the CAA are not crew. And come the day there is a major accident the lawers will have a field day. Who was naving the aircraft? Why are Pax naving the aircraft? etc etc

As has been said, pilots have their bad days (and nights), dont you? And if you are having a bad day and so is your Nav assist (who you will become very reliant on) then its all going to become pearshaped.

As Morris1 says

I agree with jaytee... im simply freight..!! get me to the job and i'll point it out on the ground and do the stuff as far the police work is involved. Put me in with a floating pilot who doesnt know the area, and i'll do the same.. we will still get around the county (safely) My skills or otherwise at reading air charts, GPS readouts, TCAS indications, approach plates, Ts and Ps etc etc are of no consequence if it all went tits.. the Pilot would be held blameworthy.


JT the 'floating pilot wont have the local SA to know about 'steering around the 3 mile avoid'. I agree with you it is about Captaincy, but the current situation is a cop out (edited because there really was no pun intended) , and questionable in a legal sense as well.

JT and Morris
We are missing the point here. It doesnt matter who is blameworthy if 3 of you are dead. With a fully qualified licensed crew the Captain is always held responsible under law anyway. The guys should be licensed. For those observers that dont want to be licensed because of rostering or pay benifits etc, then get out of aviation. Professionals involved in aviation are ALL licensed.

If No2 failed, then he should fail, end of story. You can teach anyone to pass any course, but you are looking for people that can grip a standard in a certain amount of time.

Standing by

[Waldo_Plopper]

Well,

My initial crack was........................


"Is this a safety issue"


It still to me looks as if it is, 3 pairs of eyes out are better than only 1 pair or 2.................


If student No2 is up to their ears doing A-Z stuff and never has time to look out the window, then maybe they are maxxed out and have no additional capacity.

Me personally Im no top professional multi tasker, I get by and manage. But surely there has to be a bit of space left in the grey blob when flying to cram a bit more operational use into.


If the driver bollicks it up then its the biggest bang & last in your life, if the observer does with an A-Z we will go home that night. However if that observer misses the safety calls, be them totally trivial and often repeated, then a pilot on nights who hasnt slept well may avoid flying into the mast and the big bang.


Decisions have to be made whether its "Best Value" (Police terminology for cheaper) to continue training the student.

Bring it on......................





Waldo

[zorab64]

We had the problem, some years ago, when we ran a course for potential Obs - some from other Forces, who had been "selected", and some from our own who had just had an interview & "flight test". It was patently obvious, after one or two training flights (to anyone who had ever been in a military training environment), that some would have little problem, some would require a deal of work to get them up to speed and some would never pass as long as their a**e pointed downwards.

Result was we lost one one the course, one went after a lot more time & money had been spent & the other transferred to a neighbouring force, though no loss IHMO. No real surprise that the "selected" ones still operate very effectively (if my spies are to be believed) - just a shame they're not working for us!

The consequence of all this? The policy which didn't allow selection, for all the namby-pamby reasons previously mentioned, has now been changed - potential Obs now sit a very thorough set of selection papers ("borrowed" from the force that sent us an Obs to train who didn't really need training) prior to the flight test. Whilst some can pass the selection tests (which actually relate to the sort of skills that are most sought in a Police Obs), some still sweat buckets on the flight test & it's just as obvious that these people are going to struggle - what's the point of wasting oodles of tax-payer's money on training anyone but those who have an aptitude. It's no criticism of the individual, it's just a completely alien environment to many people whose brains live on Terra Firma and are only ever going to be able to find their way around in two dimensions. As others have said, if they're maxed out on the basic Nav, how can they expect to do the more challenging, multi-tasking, jobs when on scene - unless they're being "carried" by the other members of the team, which normally includes the pilot.

As Rowan Atkinson said in Belfast " If you don't know where you are, how do you know you're there when you get there?"

[jayteeto]

I have tried to be diplomatic and have failed... Ok, here we go, apologies for my tone.
Tigs, you twist my words when you say crew. On an airliner, the cabin crew are crew!! But they don't navigate the aircraft, so if you want to pull my use of english apart, thats up to you. I stand by what I said.
Ask me another question, do I think the observers should be crew?? Yes I do actually. Then things will be different and if they end up with more navigational responsibility, the training standards should, and WILL, change. At the moment, in my opinion, things are ok.
You state, what if things go pearshape when they are navigating (+ being reliant)?? LISTEN!!!!!! They don't navigate here!!!! Which bit do you not understand?? They assist in lookout, but I would ask my grannie to do that if she was flying with me.
The floating pilot would not have the SA to navigate around avoids?? How dare you!! If he can't navigate, then its time to stop flying and buy flightsim.
The bit about all being dead.... If you fly outside your limits and push your luck, you are a penis. Recent accidents have been caused by other problems.
I am glad you were not my instructor at RAF Cranwell and Shawbury. I needed a bit extra training, got it, and passed. All through the system, I was never the brightest one and I needed every bit of training going, including my flex. But I did it in the end. I think you did the course with us at Shawbury CFS?? All students different? Remember?
I have chopped many people over the years, but they always got a fair chance, the first question we always asked was: Could this be our fault, not theirs?
The fundemental question is: Is there a safety problem or not? The answer is NO there is not. Things could be run differently, but safety is just fine.

[Tigs2]

JT
Tsk Tsk! we are getting touchy. Now whos twisting words. You were describing a situation where you are flying, the ob was naving (i.e map in hand) and mentioned an avoid. You with your local area knowledge say 'steering around the avoid'! the floating pilot may not have your local SA and will therefore (without the map) be unaware of the avoid and those landmarks that would guarantee deconfliction!! Dont start the how dare you bit! No i did not go to CFS with you. Get off your high horse and try to discuss things on an adult basis. I imagine there are some lovely CRM situations could arise in your cockpit.

I did not twist your words or tear apart your english, reading your last response i doubt you have read my previous reply and comprehended it correctly at all.
you have just said

You state, what if things go pearshape when they are navigating (+ being reliant)?? LISTEN!!!!!! They don't navigate here!!!! Which bit do you not understand?? They assist in lookout

you said previously that they navigate, now you are shouting Listen they assist in lookout only, no wonder i dont understand!You are twisting your own words.

The bit about all being dead.... If you fly outside your limits and push your luck, you are a penis. Recent accidents have been caused by other problems.

But the fact still remains JT you could be a dead P***s. You keep repeating this as if you never make mistakes, it does not have any relevance who is to blame, if a team cant get it together on the flight deck the consequences can be fatal. What are 'the other problems' that have caused recent accidents?


I am glad you were not my instructor at RAF Cranwell and Shawbury.

No need to get personal now. Please re-read my post and explain on what your basis is for that comment. I discuss CRM issues only. If it is because i state

If No2 failed, then he should fail, end of story. You can teach anyone to pass any course, but you are looking for people that can grip a standard in a certain amount of time.

Why on earth can that statement upset you? You can teach EVERY single adult in the uk to fly an aircraft, just give them enough hours ( several thousand may be needed in some cases!).

This is a safety issue JT, and as such deserves to be discussed as one would hope you do in the cockpit, calmly, maturely and non-egotistically.

I am glad we agree on one thing, that the observers should be crew.

[bandeeto]

Jayteeto, i've never met you or been to your area of operations but i wonder what your definition of navigating is? do you get them to the nearest town or village or the exact street using your A to Z.

Because our pilots can be over rural areas, anywhere in an area of over 3500 square miles, they dont know where everything is, nor do we for that matter.

Where I work we have to navigate, its as simple as that, and if the weather isnt the best we all step up a gear, follow things on the map and leave the pilot to fly, maintain visual references, talk to air traffic/radar/military ranges and monitor all the systems. If the pilot knows we're going near an avoid he will say so "wheres the prison from here?" etc. If he is unfamiliar we will tell him. When this happens its almost constant conversation in the cockpit about direction/hazards/what the next town is at one o'clock etc

If the pilot doesn't know where somewhere is we will check the map on the way out or give him the nearest big town as a starter. But that town can be at the bottom of a ten mile valley, with the target at the top.

We can take off on a sortie and have to travel 80 miles or more before we get there. Then the pilot has to start working his a*se off trying to position the aircraft where we need him with a tailwind, heavy rain etc etc.


I cant talk our pilots up enough - they're the dogs danglers..

Sorry I simply cant believe you do all the nav...

On our unit - somone who cant nav is a liabilty we cant afford

[Tigs2]

Bandeedto

Do you think that the obs should be invested in, in terms of more costed , dedicated training hours because of the role they are needed to perform (note needed not expected)? Do you think you (Obs) should be recognised crew members by the CAA or doesnt it matter( cant see how as in comments from others this would effect overtime, but dont know your pay system)? By the way i am not a sado with the time of posting, i'm in the Far East at the moment.

Tigs

[jayteeto]

Ok, maybe I was being touchy and I apologise and will keep this short.
As the rules stand NOW, the pilot is responsible for navigation. In my earlier post, I was not saying the observer was navigating the ac. He had a map and was telling me where he WANTED to go, but the pilot gets him there. Yes they do the A-Z bit, but when you are down to individual street level, avoids have already been avoided generally. You are down to tactical nav then. Our crews/passengers then ask to pilot to follow the car to xyz, but they concentrate on the job in hand. The pilot does piloty things like avoids. I repeat my earlier statement, if your crews are doing PRIMARY navigation, then you are doing it wrong. AS THE RULES STAND NOW, if your pilot can't cope, then get another pilot. Don't use the passengers for primary nav.
I admit it, I sometimes call it if I become unsure of position for a few seconds and have been helped, but if there is danger/avoid nearby, I am extra extra careful and would drop a target vehicle to head in my PREPLANNED safe direction, rather than 'bong'.
No high horse here, I have no problems with CRM, my how dare you was justified in this situation. I agree there are BETTER ways to do things, I agree the pax should be crew, I strongly DISAGREE that there is a safety issue here. If there was the CAA would be down on us like a ton of bricks, they aren't.
Bandeedo, although I am a pilot I am a mere mortal, but yes, I do the aircraft nav and the observers tell me where the job is (extremely accurately), including distance and heading. I avoid things.
PS, some people take more time to learn and become good observers. If they don't show potential, agreed, chop them. But give a chance first.

[jayteeto]

Just driven to work and we are u/s, so we had a crew chat (or should I say pilot/passenger chat). The bobbies agree with me. They hold a map and tell me where they want to go. They expect ME to do avoids. So, maybe we do it different to others, I will accept that.
So where does this leave us? A lot of you seem to allow observers to carry out primary navigation, which I believe is incorrect, my opinion of course. Tigs, you seem to think someone might die if this carries on. I have the solution

http://www.caa.co.uk/homepage.aspx

This is the CAA website. If you truly believe what you have said so far, as an aviation professional, you are duty bound to report this to the authorities. It really is a case of put up or shut up, because if this IS a safety issue, it needs to be sorted.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As an ex Puma crewman, now J model Herc loadie, I have been reading this thread with a wry smile on my face. The evil thought runnning through my mind, not a long journey I know, was why not just employ ex SH crewman in the Ob's role cos that would sort the whole issue out quite nicely:ok:

Then it all got a bit heated, Tigs and co I may have met but JT I have flown with on numerous occasions and a more professional, safety conscious and CRM advocate I have seldom met, despite the fact he is a geordie git :p

Reading his posts I picked up on what I thought were some sound and salient points

The buck stops with the A/C captain....despite some pay issues:p

The captain is responsible for the Nav FULL STOP!

CRM is vital, however the above points take precedence

Ob's, rightly or wrongly, he idicates wrongly, are not crew.

Any help the Ob's gives is a bonus but reliance on it by any captain is bad juju!

All seems pretty clear to me and I just serve pies and make tea:rolleyes:

Sounds like Ob's training is a bit of a fudge and not robust enough, I think back to my Puma/Wessex days of "nav" from the centre seat or bubble window at night, low level and on gog's and can't imagine how you develop competant Ob's in just three weeks.

JT do you think it's time to send for SH :E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[jayteeto]

Thanks Joe, I haven't changed, I still do the CRM bit and I am still a geordie git!!
Our course is only two weeks, it is an introduction to navigation, as you know, it takes a lot longer to 'crack it'.
Ex SH loadmasters might be the answer you know, you can navigate and operate aircraft systems. Only the camera to learn really, all taught formally in the past so the training burden would be nil.
One thing though, you could never ever ever ever ever join the police, you have to pass phsycological tests.............

[Tigs2]

JT

Thanks for your candid reply (for what its worth, respect +200 points). I was not saying someone might die if this carries on, i am locking on to the fact that quite a few people have been implying on this thread that its ok for the OB to Nav or operate but if they screw up then the Capt is still responsible. Re-read the thread. As i said the Capt is always responsible, however if we are expecting him to be informed of potentially critical information by a non-licensed person then if anything happened(god forbid) the s**t would hit the fan. I know many Obs who would love to go through the Licensing process(and some who wouldn't!), the problem is that the CAA bow to organisational pressure(i'll go to hell for that one).

All broken

you're right give me an SH crewman any day. By the way we have flown together many times, now i have thought about your handle which i have thought about for years it all makes sense. We used to teach the crewmen and Nav to fly in case we took a bullet in the chest( no costed hours, we just did it). Cant be there in London tonight(18th) stuck in bloody KL.

JT
not having a go at all, just want some mates who want CAA status to have it. Would trust all ex -RAF pilots with my life (and have done and will continue to do so for many years)

Tigs

[jayteeto]

Great we agree, I want them to be recognised as well :D

[bandeeto]

Hi Tigs2, do i think obs should be crew?

No, i dont think they need to be. For one thing my life policies have a question in about aircraft crew!!

I agree with everyone that the buck stops with the pilot. All the pilots are experts with lots of hours and more than capable of doing all the Nav. Ours do A to Z finds on their line checks too.

The good thing about helicopters is if the pilot isn't happy where he is then he can stop, get the maps out and check, and put us all in our place.

I'm not a fan of these forums cos as we all know from our CRM training 80% of communication is Non Verbal and there is no tone inflexion hre etc etc..but here goes..

If we go back to the original scenario with candidate 2 not being any good at nav....If we all subscribe to the CRM theory, then if the CRM is out of balance, it must be a flight safety issue.

Anyone with knowledge of Police aviation knows that when everything is going off outside the cockpit on the ground...we all need to be calm and in control in the cockpit. If someone is being carried then its just not a good situation.

If you start a sortie knowing that one of the passengers isnt up to it, CRM must be affected.

Any thoughts...just to turn it round...is CRM a flight safety issue?

Teamwork works..if your a team

[jayteeto]

Ah, now we are getting there!! Yes I agree, if you are carrying someone because they are weak, then CRM for the police job can break down and the job doesn't get done, the criminal can get away.

[huntnhound]

The Police should remain as passengers. No Chief constable will want to lose conrol of their officers for a start. If you wanted "crew" in the aircraft then the Police should bite the bullet and have two pilots up front, with properly equipt aircraft.

As usual its down to cost isnt it?

Hnh

[Captain Stable]

I'm glad tempers have cooled off a bit here.

It all boils down to both control and CRM. The pilot must be in command and in control at all times. However, he cannot be a one-man band and it makes sense, particularly when things are tricky, as they so often are in this line of work, to make use of all resources available.

Yes, an Ob holds the ground map and says "I want to go here", but it is down to the pilot to put him there in the right place and, in doing so, to navigate, to avoid obstacles, terrain and other aircraft. One of the hardest things he will have to do is to say "Sorry, we need to pull off this job/target/whatever as I'm not happy about the weather/safety/visibility/whatever", particularly if it's an important job. But it needs the pilot to remain objective, even under pressure from a target-orientated Ob.

And finally, I cannot foresee any circumstances in which and Chief Constable is ever going to agree to police Obs' being subject to an FTL scheme. Consequently, in the view of the CAA/JAA, they will always be passengers, not crew.