Greater Yorkshire Police... 3 helicopters..? [Archive]

tigerfish

24th Mar 2006, 19:25

In operational terms there has been an accepted rule in Police air Support, & its called the 15 - 20 minute rule. i.e. the aircraft with all its High Tech equipement can only be truly effective if it can be overhead the scene of the incident in a maximum of 15 - 20 minutes. After that the chances of the criminal still being around to catch are minimal.
That rule is well understood and has seen us well for many years. In the main it is fairly well accepted by the Senior Officers further up the line.
But with these super forces and devolved budgets etc etc there is a growing danger that they will try either to make the existing numbers of machines cover a greater area or worse still to try & reduce the numbers of machines.
If that happens effectiveness will rapidly drop off & then the ******* bean counters will say "They are not cost effective - we do not need them at all).
Sadly air support is now seen as just another resource, many Senior Officers have forgotten what it was like before we had it. Ram raids, are in the main, just a memory, and extended pursuits rarely happen now. The bean counter not understanding why that has happened will try to save the money.
UK Police Aviation is currently one of the best & most effective services in the World. I hope & pray it remains so.
The only real way of ensuring it remains effective is to take it out of the control of local forces & make it a Regional or National resource.
Tigerfish

ppheli

25th Mar 2006, 05:52

tigerfish - "Sadly air support is now seen as just another resource" - yes, but 20 years ago the industry was desparately trying to get air support accepted as resource... So has the past efforts come round to bite us on the bottom? I think you would rather it was accepted and have to justify its existence,than trying to get it accepted - at least you have evidence behind you on what has been achieved.

I would suspect it's actually the lower-hour units that are looking over their shoulder. Sussex at 500 hrs pa is one that springs to mind (and some of that is EMS work...) - perhaps the Surrey EC135 will move to Dunsfold to cover both counties?

Whirlygig

25th Mar 2006, 06:58

Tigerfish ....and I speak very highly of you!!!

May I point out that Police Forces are on a fixed budget determined by Central Government. If the money isn't there, it isn't there. There could equally be people jumping up and down at redundancies saying, "we need bobbies on the beat" or getting irate when the police accommodation is sold off, "how can a copper afford to buy a house round here".

It seems to me that too many people use "bean-counters" as the scapegoat for all the problems in any business or organisation that appears to be in difficulty without getting to understand the whole situation and ramifications thereof.

There is a lot of wastage in the Public Sector but that is not down to accountants; it is down to remits from Central Government about accountability of the tax payers money and the perception of what public wants. There are departments who monitor everything and departments who monitor the monitors and that's even before the auditors are involved.

Why don't you have a look at your local force's accounts and suggest to them where the savings could be made? Then you might understand that it's not so easy!

Cheers

Whirls

Bearintheair

25th Mar 2006, 08:14

ppheli - You might get your facts right ! Sussex have always contracted for 730 hrs a year and in fact are running at nearer to 800. We would argue that running as a combined Police and HEMS operation we are more cost effective due to the financial support of the Ambulance Service. The new management of the combined SE Ambulance Service are VERY supportive of our model as are the Police Command Team in Sussex. Perhaps it would be best for Surrey to also take on the HEMS role and cover both counties with two joint aircraft.

tigerfish

25th Mar 2006, 08:46

My comment, "now seen as just another resource" reflects a change in attitude in more recent years. When the service was troubled with "Ram Raids" and extended high spead pursuits the arrival of air support was seen as a highly significant development and we were not subject of the attentions of the "Bean Counters". As a result we were able to develope the art into a highly effective and efficient service.
The problem is that 20 years later, many of our managers have forgotten what is was like before we existed. I repeat, if the jam gets to be spread too thin as a result of these Force amalgamations, then efficiency will drop. There are significant savings to be made in infrastructure & support contracts etc, especially as part of a Regional or National air wing, but not, repeat not in hardware.
Whirls, my attitude towards corporate accountants is that they usually know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!
Tigerfish

ppheli

25th Mar 2006, 17:37

Bearintheair - I am merely using publically available information. The CAA G-INFO site records G-SUSX here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=60&pagetype=65&applicationid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=G-SUSX) and I can see from that (1) it was new in Jan-00 and (2) it had done 2004 hours on the airframe at the end of Dec-03. 2004 divided by 4 years flying = 501 hours a year, so allowing for "delivery mileage", you're doing 500. Are you saying the CAA is telling fibs? Or do you do 230-300 hours a year in replacement aircraft when the Explorer is AOG? (eg the five weeks from 2nd Dec 03 to 6th Jan 04 that I noted in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=167975)) Show me the maths, I'd be interested to see where 730 comes from.

Air ambulance - I appreciate this is a really sore point for you given that Kent Air Ambulance Trust is pushing very hard to start two new operations in Sussex and Surrey... and they already have one-page websites at
surreyairambulance.com (http://www.surreyairambulance.com) and
sussexairambulance.com (http://www.sussexairambulance.com)
to air their intentions, and certainly they are putting out press stories drumming up support in each area.

Tell me, does your joint operation of one helicopter between two different emergency services result in torn priorities? A single organisation (eg. police) can decide on relative merits of two situations if they have demands for the helicopter to be in two places at once, and decide which one to send it to. But Police v Ambulance must create conflicts? Surely it would be better to separate them?

Droopy

25th Mar 2006, 18:56

Conflicts between tasking are actually very rare, to the extent that I personally feel many more should be joint units. In most areas these days you have a police ASU and an air ambulance. They each do between 2 and 3 hours a day. Council tax or charitable fundraising, they both rely on public money [and of course the AA's are all leased so must include a profit margin]. They are both sent on a certain percentage of tasks which, let's face it, could be avoided if there was a more objective decision making process....but that would involve the tasking agencies working together a damn sight more than they do at the moment. As an example, our local AA is on 10 hours a day and does about 1000 turnouts a year; our police ASU has been called on out of hours 4 times in the same year.

PANews

25th Mar 2006, 23:16

I was wondering whether Home Office thoughts were drifting towards dismantling Humberside?

As an earlier post mentioned, it includes part of Lincolnshire. It was a valid formation at the time it was created but subsequent local authority boundary changes have invalidated the concept. Even when they got their BO105 G-EYNL [signifying East Yorkshire and a number of small councils in North Lincolnshire] I gained the impression that all the original good reasons had been dismantled [or am I wrong].

Create the 'Yorkshire' police and return the southern side of the Humber to the lowlanders!

A pointer though is that action might weaken the case for the Humberside 900 staying put. And of course Lincolnshire has not AS of its own!

I was thinking though that it might migrate to North Yorkshire an area also devoid of its own AS.

morris1

26th Mar 2006, 00:27

when you consider the departments to be chopped down (I mean rationalised)ie
Training Schools (police)
Driver Training
IT
Comms
Various Admin Depts (pay, personnel, crime management, stats etc)
not to mention the savings on 3 Chief Constables cars.. ha.!

Maybe, just maybe, with the extra savings incurred by rationalisation of other departments, ie major organisational departments going from 4 separate entities down to one, the extra cash may be there for an extra a/c in N. yorks..!! and the new "super force" can run 4 Explorers..?? havent N. Yorks been researching running a helicopter in recent times..

If not, then I wouldnt mind betting on a move back over the water for Humberside to cover N. Yorks too...

morris1

26th Mar 2006, 00:39

. As an example, our local AA is on 10 hours a day and does about 1000 turnouts a year; our police ASU has been called on out of hours 4 times in the same year.

What does out of hours mean by the way.. do you mean calling the a/c out during offline times.. assuming the ASU isnt 24 hour working. Not sure what the relevance is.

I dont agree on the funding arguement either, theres a BIG difference between charitable funding and Police funding.. in that the charity funding is only as good as the fundraisers, and they come and go. In a perfect world the government would pay for AAs, but thats not the case at the moment, they have much more important things to spend it on ;)

The roles are greatly different, as far as the pax / crew (whatever you want to call them) are concerned. Im sure 2 Police observers are far more effective together, than 1 police / paramedic... and vice versa for the AAs.

PANews

26th Mar 2006, 07:24

I am not so sure that the 'savings' to be made by chopping ...

Training Schools (police)
Driver Training
IT
Comms
Various Admin Depts (pay, personnel, crime management, stats etc)
not to mention the savings on 3 Chief Constables cars.. ha.!

are not illusions.

Training schools tend to be shared anyway, its odds on the IT will conflict from area to area and there will be a call to spend a way out of it.

I accept that on comms the ever so expensive new Tetra radio system should help out but with the record of the current Government getting the body count down in the various duplicate departments may not be realised.

As for the demise of Chief Constables, they are the ones under greatest threat and are fighting this as ACPO see themselves as having to survive as an organisation. If they do not they will be faced with having their annual conference in a phone box and not at Excel!

I can see you will get the 'spare' CC's cars allotted to the additional ACC's and DCC's required to undertake the workload.

And then there is the Police Authorities ... will they be reduced or will they evolve into local clones feeding an even larger entity? Regional PA's just like Regional Government!

Droopy

26th Mar 2006, 08:57

Out of hours, Morris, means when the H24 ASU is on and the AA has gone off duty; perhaps I should have made that clear. Let me expand a little on my point.

Counties vary in their requirements for emergency service cover. Ours has a wide spread of ground ambulance and A & E cover and it is relatively easy to get a casualty to hospital within the golden hour period. In many other cases the ground ambulance attends well before the AA gets there, so as a result - and I stress this - in counties such as ours the AA role is one of stabilised rapid transport, not of first response. The "life-saving" aspect of the resource is valid but not nearly as significantly as the fundraisers believe.

As regards the crew [let's call them that] were Sussex and Wilts [and previously N Wales] getting it wrong for so long? I'm not saying by any means that AAs aren't relevant, what I'm saying is that many areas have discrete units which take up a great deal of funding when a bit of joined up thinking could provide the same service for a lot less.

tigerfish

26th Mar 2006, 10:46

Droopy makes some very good points! But surely,the real issue must be coverage, rather than whether the unit is purely a Police function or carries a dual role.
We can argue for hours as to whether a criticaly injured patient stands a better chance in a pure & specialised ambulance aircraft or a "Dual hatted" one. Or whether a specialist Police aircraft is more efficient than a part ambulance machine. Its time to task and whether there is still a job to do when you finally get there, is what ultimately is the decider in "Good job or failed"
It comes back to that old question of the range of efficiency being about 15-20 minutes.
In the long run a National Emergency Services air wing would be the most efficient. That would permit the proper placing of a mix of aircraft where they could provide the best service to all of the emergency services and ultimately to the people of this country. The national unit would have its own spare aircraft to fill in for downtime, Pool of pilots and its own maintenance regime.
If the National Crime squad, NCIS etc can do it why not emergency services
aviation?

Bearintheair

26th Mar 2006, 14:51

The management of Sussex Ambulance Service have just been appointed to overseee the amalgamation of Sussex, Surrey & Kent Ambulance services.

They are very much in favour of the joint role model. Kent Air Ambulance have attempted to take over in Sussex without the support of Sussex Ambulance or the existing Air Ambulance that has been operating for 16 years. Indeed in their initial publicity they explicitly said that there was no Air Ambulance in Sussex, they've now grudgingly changed that to "no dedicated Air Ambulance". Their ambiguous publicity has caused an enormous amount of confusion amongst the fund raising and giving public of the county.

The new Ambulance Service management also aim to extend the training of the helicopter paramedics in order that there is no need to carry a doctor on the aircraft.

The joint operation rarely throws up a conflict of interest, we only average 2 hours flying out of 17.5 hours of duty each day, and after all the first priority of a Police Officer is the preservation of life. We have more conflicts between police tasks than between police and ambulance.

The benefits to both services far outweigh any problems. The paramedics are trained up as observers, they aren't just passengers, and the crew work as a team of three whatever task they're involved in.

The police receive material (crew) and financial support for the operation and the ambulance service receive a HEMS helicopter for about 20% of the cost of a charity air ambulance. Additionally with a joint operation such as Sussex and Wiltshire you get increased availability, only the joint operations do Night HEMS.

morris1

26th Mar 2006, 15:23

ha ha..

I think tigerfish hit the nail on the head.. its down to bean counters, and luck of the draw as to gets to run the new organisation.

If he/she is pro air support, then perhaps a 4th aircraft is in the pipeline. However if said new Chief (or whatever rank he/she is going to award themself) is against air support, then 3 a/c being chopped down to 2 could be just as feasible.

:suspect:

Helinut

26th Mar 2006, 17:01

All of us involved in Air Support respond to the prospect of change with some concern. From tigerfish's first post, it seems as though his response is a bit at the pessimistic end of the spectrum. Me, I oscillate.......

He is right to say that a major part of the justification for Air Support SHOULD BE in the situations it prevents simply by its existence. The reduced number of pursuits and the reduced length of pursuits is a great example, and there are lots more. I know of lots of examples where the bad-guys change their behaviour because of the existence of Air Support: so will others I feel sure.

However, before he starts blaming bean counters, he should ask himself whether all those in ASUs are doing as much as they can to keep "selling" Air Support. My experience is that, for all sorts of reasons, UEO and others vary enormously in what they do to champion their Unit and Air Support in general. Some Units trumpet their successes widely both in the police forces they support and indeed to the public. There are complex pdf Annual Reports that really demonstrate the value of Air Support with hard examples and stats designed to awaken real interest - Others do SFA. Most of us in Air Support have free time when we could be doing something to help too. If we all think it is someone else's problem, guess what - the doom mongers will be proven right.

There is a terrible approach in some ASUs: if it aint invented here, there is not a prayer of US adopting it.

I have never worked on a combined police/HEMS unit (yet). However, it is my view that they are the WAY TO GO, for many ASUs, if only a rational management process existed. The value of a rapid response (mentioned earlier) is so key to the success of many sorties. It is also true that most unit helicopters spend most of their time waiting in readiness on the ground - they are VERY expensive static displays. If you add to this that many, and my bet is most, Units will be employing some civi observers soon, then the police might as well get them "free" from the Ambulance Service.

However, it is not very likely that joint ops Units will be widely adopted if the police make their decisions and the Ambulance people makes theirs, in isolation. Central and local government departments guard jealously their own budgets, and hang the possibility of an overall benefit.

Don't be under any misapprehensions either about the ACPOs - the last thing that CCs and elevated ACPOs are thinking about at the moment is AIR SUPPORT. They will be worrying about which of the 3/4 of them is going to be the superCC of the big new shiny police force, and where they are going to build the shiny new Police HQ. Which is why there should be a bit of an Air Support lobhy going on. (Maybe there is, but I see little sign of it?)

PANews

26th Mar 2006, 18:09

And maybe that will be the problem.

A total failure to promote air support. And a failure to stand together, period. There are groups where members of air support meet because of a common cause or because of a common aircraft type but they are nothing more than secret societies as far as self promotion is concerned.

So scared of getting a positive story in the sort of papers the bean counters and the public might read that as often as not the first bit of publicity to get through the ever present guard is either a negative one or inaccurate.

And it is not just air support. A long standing acceptance [if you can call it that] of a creeping civilianisation across the board. Walking backwards and not a peep from any quarter.

Be assured trained/sworn police are NOT a breed apart as some try to suggest so stopping creeping civilianisation will actually take some positive action to hold the 'inevitable' back.

You saw it a million years ago with Traffic Wardens [because the police were too busy to do the job themselves], then the tecs gave way to SOCO's [because the police were too busy to do the job themselves] and more recently yet more traffic wardens and PCSO's [because the police were too busy to do the job themselves] and now large numbers of motorway patrol officers [because the police were too busy to do the job themselves].... it may have been creeping but now its trotting...

And the same applies to civilian observers. They can do the job and do it just as well - are you really too busy to do the job yourselves?

Sell yourself, get your product noticed where it matters or soon this thread will be civilianised - how many sworn police pilots are there!!! :)

morris1

26th Mar 2006, 18:29

whether all those in ASUs are doing as much as they can to keep "selling" Air Support. Most of us in Air Support have free time when we could be doing something to help
Agree whole heartedly...
Best way of selling the ASU..? simply by doing the job..!
Each unit needs to make themselves totaly indispensible. That wont happen by sitting on ones arse waiting for the phone to ring. Theres always something going on somewhere Trick is finding it of course.!
New Headquarters..?? why bother.. West Yorks are obviously going to be the big boys in the school yard. Every one else better do as their told. :ouch:

Helinut

26th Mar 2006, 19:10

Just thinking about TC's prod for all ASUs to go "HEMS approval", in my recent experience, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of "will we / won't we" exercises about requests for CASEVACS. People are getting their knickers in a twist about whether what they are being asked to do is a CASEVAC or not (and therefore whether a non-HEMS approved Unit can legally do the job).

I have thought for a while that the answer may be to go for the HEMS approval, just in case. The way that the PAOM is written is dictating to each police force how it may use its own helicopter. When this is for reasons to do with flight safety, that's fine and appropriate. When it is more to do with policy of the use of an expensive publuc asset, get the CAA out of the loop and get a HEMS approval, so you can make your own decisions.

The CASEVAC definition is so complicated and deals with matters the crew cannot possibly know about, and you have so little real information when you have to make your decision, you often don't know whether the job was a CASEVAC, until after you have done it, and maybe not even then!

[For the benefit of those who aren't familiar with the UK PAOM, whether or not a casualty transport is classified as a CASEVAC (or not) revolves around whether you will save the patient's life, by doing the flight].

2 quick questions to those who may know:

Can you do HEMS wihtout a paramedic on the crew (i.e. by taking one from a land amblance when you carry a casualty)?

Are there significant cost implications e.g. insurance?? Presumably most units are already covered for CASEVACs?

Thomas coupling

26th Mar 2006, 22:39

It's so clear when you know how!!!

Casevac is a POLICE ROLE. It should be treated under the same auspices as a pursuit or a misper etc. In that the rules and regs are fully embedded in the PAOM I.
It was/is designed purely to swoop and scoop a downed police officer and transfer to a medical facility - endex.
It Is a means of responding to a life threatening tasking WITHOUT PLANNING FOR IT.
ALL police helicopters have this capability built in (or should I say all police crews?).
CASEVAC is day and night capable.
CASEVAC must NOT allow for commercial financial gain. That is to say that the police cannot charge an external agency for the occasion. To do this would require an AOC.
CASEVAC should be used only after ALL OTHER MEANS OF RAPID TRANSPORT
HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. This is because there are commercial companies out there trying to earn a buck doing this for a living and they dont want public money stealing the show.

A HEMS flight requires intent. Intent to commit an emergency medical response. Be it operational and/or financial.

You either intend to man your a/c with a full time paramedic, or
Plan to pick one up en route, or
collect one at scene, or
charge the ambulance authority for your services.

Your intent signals your desire to operate outside the PAOC. Thus the need for an approval. This is not guaranteed. The CAA have to vet your operation and it is themselves who will decide whether you deserve a HEMS Approval (police).
When operating under HEMS you operate under JAR OPs 3.005(d)Annex.

There are no insurance complications.

There are restrictions - the main being no night HEMS unless you either operate twin pilot OR, the terrain you operate over allows the CAA to grant you approval for night ops with a suitably qualified HEMS crew member. In the UK I believe only Wilts have this exemption?

Certainly keeps the pilots honed:ok:

Droopy

27th Mar 2006, 07:41

Since when was casevac designed purely for a downed cop?

Helinut

27th Mar 2006, 08:32

Like Droopy, I have never seen heard of that limitation on CASEVAC. I did appreciate that standard PAOC holders are not supposed to charge others for their flying.

whoateallthepies

27th Mar 2006, 10:46

Thomas

Sussex have been operating night HEMS longer than anyone and are certainly CAA approved for that operation.

The Sussex Air Ambulance web site was set up by Kent Air Ambulance and was a predatory cash-raising exercise by them, trying to sneak into Sussex to raise money from people who already had a perfectly good Air Ambulance (Joint Police/HEMS unit, Shoreham).

The Sussex unit is a good model for a low(er) crime area and works well there. The joint unit setup may not work so well somewhere like West Yorks?

Helinut

27th Mar 2006, 14:22

There seem to me to be 2 possibilities for contemplating acquiring a HEMS approval:

1) In a police Unit which keeps pretty busy, but has regular requests for CASEVAC. Rather differently to what TC is suggesting, there are various problems with taking on those tasks, because of the grey area over the definition of a CASEVAC. This is a case where the police force and ASU concerned want to do the task, it is safe to do it, but it might not strictly be a CASEVAC, as defined. Rather than worry over whether it is or not, if the ASU got the HEMS approval, then the decision would be simpler: is it safe to do the task, and do we want to do it? It would avoid the risk of working outside the legal requirements.

2) The other case is the one suggested by whoateallthepies and bearintheair, with Surrey as the quoted example of a combined unit, with someone other than the police contributing to the cost of running the hele for HEMS ops. As has been said, this would only probably be appropriate in a relatively "lightly-loaded" police unit in a county or other ruralish area.

Thomas coupling

27th Mar 2006, 18:32

Casevac was built into the POM I when it was designed. It stems from the requirement to protect officers who may become injured during certain activities - plain and simple.
It must not be confused with an all encompassing remit to launch for anyone who is injured, day or night. This did happen in the early days until the CAA cracked down on it hard and advised the industry that it would be removed if it was abused.
One has to understand that CASEVAC is an emergency procedure to be carried out in extreme circumstances.
If you find you are 'inundated' by requests from the police to get airborne for medical assistance too often then it's time to re-educate them, I would suggest.

If you are getting increased requests from the ambulance authority to launch then seriously consider applying for an extension to your operating arm: HEMS Approval.

This is where our history came from - we were using Casevac as an excuse to launch for anything that smelled of injury!! [All those years ago]. We now have a proper infrastructure to respond appropriately.

I'd love to know the definition of light users????

Apologies to Sussex, re their night capability. I suspected they did but wasn't 100% sure.

Remember this - the whole concept revolves around your operating (licence) rights. Police operators do not hold an AOC, therefore they cannot carry out 'planned' medical assistance because this is commercial property. IF the CAA deem it necessary, they may allow you a HEMS approval to dip your toe into the commercial world (but with severe restrictions for air ambulance work).
We used to carry out around 150 ish per year before the Air Ambulance showed up. Now down to 60-80.

handysnaks

27th Mar 2006, 18:54

TC Wrote
Casevac is a POLICE ROLE. It should be treated under the same auspices as a pursuit or a misper etc. In that the rules and regs are fully embedded in the PAOM I.
It was/is designed purely to swoop and scoop a downed police officer and transfer to a medical facility - endex.

The PAOM says (Section 5, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1.1)
c) Casevac
A flight, the purpose of which, is to give immediate assistance to a sick or injured person in life threatening circumstances

As there is no mention of that sick or injured person being a Police Officer there, would TC be good enough to tell us when it changed?:E ;)

Bertie Thruster

28th Mar 2006, 12:58

I wonder what "life threatening circumstances" are?

Droopy

28th Mar 2006, 14:01

My basic understanding for what it's worth:-

All police operators hold, or contract to someone who holds, an AOC. It may be a Police AOC rather than CAT or HEMS but nonetheless an AOC.

The concept of casevac was originally separate from the threat to life case; in the days of putting together the PAOM some inputs were rather more fanciful than others, and there used to be a permission to bust the performance/third party risk question to land and assist a police officer whose life was in danger. It fairly quickly became obvious that this was unrealistically restrictive, also that if it was specifically a cop in danger then it would equally likely result in, say, a petrol bomb through the tail rotor. That narrow definition was lifted in about 1997, though I don't have an old CAP612 to hand.

As I would define it, "Life threatening" means "if the helicopter doesn't intervene someone might die" [note, not "will die" though I'd stand corrected on that by those with more time in court than me]. Similarly there is an easement from normal landing site requirements for "perceived threat to life" assistance to medical passengers which IIRC is derived from the original early 1990s permission.

As for other matters - again this is my interpretation -
The less life threatening stuff can still be done as long as you're satisfied about the measure of last resort bit, you can't be paid, and you can't use the permissions about the scary landing sites.

The question of more widespread HEMS is an interesting one. Personally I believe:- if it's really threat to life then we can and should do it for free. If it's not, they might squawk a bit as they're carried down the hill but we don't need to take our aircraft off police duties. If one goes HEMS [with possibly night police casevac] in an area with a charitably funded AA, one is then asking the ambulance authority to pay for a less well equipped out-of-hours service which they get for free when the AA is on, or for free by the SAR units. I feel they'd probably demur and decide to "manage", unless the charitable trust were prepared to shoulder the burden; some have more money than others so I wouldn't care to predict how that would go.

Rant over.....

handysnaks

28th Mar 2006, 15:10

I still don't recall the PAOM (even in 97) specifying police officers as the subject of the casevac role (although I don't recall the last time I had intimate relations with a lady either!:{ so that probably counts for nothing!). I will accept though, that that was the intent when the PAOM 1 was created. (aren't I magnanimous:oh: :rolleyes: )

whinetyler

28th Mar 2006, 15:15

......................anyway, back to the original point.
How do other potential regions see regionalisation?
Seems like some large metropolitan forces will regionalise (West Midlands)
and some won't (Greater Manchester)
How's that work then?:confused:

Droopy

28th Mar 2006, 15:17

The concept of casevac was originally separate from the threat to life case;
Crossed lines snaks? - I think the mists of time are confusing the above two cases as being one and the same thing, which they weren't.

tigerfish

28th Mar 2006, 15:34

We seem to have gone off message here, & got sidetracked into the solely Police or Police & Hems thread.
Surely the original question was about the effect of the current round of amagamations. In which case its effective coverage that will count not which type of operation. Anyway the fund holders the New Police Forces will be more atuned to their own operations not someone elses.
There are many more pure air ambulance set ups around today than when the Police units started & they are unlikely to want to be swallowed up now!
I remain concerned that with a huge but largely insufficient budget to manage future managers will try to spread the jam too thin!

PANews

28th Mar 2006, 15:46

Regionalisation was allegedly to create police forces large enough to undertake major enquiries.

So it seemed that all forces except London and Manchester were in the firing line because they already had 28,000 and 11,000 respectively [1997 figures].

So any group with around 1-3,000 was going to be amalgamated.

But then we hear that although Lancashire Sussex and Hampshire were about the same size [over 3,000] the former would have to join Cumbria but the latter pair could remain separate.

Its certainly not consistent West Midlands should have been safe with over 7,000 but seems to have picked up its smaller neighbours - probably because they encirled the larger force I guess.

Which brings us to Yorkshire. On the 3,000 rule basis West Yorks are well clear, so are South Yorkshire... but both North Yorkshire and Humberside are in the firing line.

Droopy

28th Mar 2006, 15:56

Lancashire seemed almost indecently eager to merge with Cumbria, perhaps to avoid being subsumed by Merseyside. At least the acronym for the new force name should mean there are fewer headaches....
Calpol :hmm:

handysnaks

28th Mar 2006, 17:10

Crossed lines snaks? - I think the mists of time are confusing the above two cases as being one and the same thing, which they weren't.

Might be, to be frank it doesn't really matter, I was just trying to ascertain where TCs 'casevac=swoop & scoop of police officers came from'

Your point
The concept of casevac was originally separate from the threat to life case; in the days of putting together the PAOM some inputs were rather more fanciful than others, and there used to be a permission to bust the performance/third party risk question to land and assist a police officer whose life was in danger. It fairly quickly became obvious that this was unrealistically restrictive, also that if it was specifically a cop in danger then it would equally likely result in, say, a petrol bomb through the tail rotor. That narrow definition was lifted in about 1997, though I don't have an old CAP612 to hand.

has added to my crossed line but as I'm fast losing the will to live I don't think I can be bothered to zzzzzzz! pursue it any further;)