Jackonicko
19th May 2008, 17:17
I know that a number of regulars here are ex-mil aircrew now working as Police aviation pilots, and I'm especially interested in their views as to what you need to perform that role successfully - both in the pilot and in his aircraft.
Is it necessary for a Police pilot to have a CPL? (In the USA it seems that this is not always a requirement, and that some PDs and Sheriff's units employ police officer PPLs, or even unlicenced pilots trained 'on unit'). Is a CPL (as I suspect) a good indicator that a pilot will have the levels of experience and skillsets that he will need to carry out the role effectively and safely?
However much we admire, respect and appreciate the beat policeman, isn't it the case that it's easier to train a professional pilot to become a professional police aviator than it is to teach a professional policeman to become one?
In the UK, Police air support units seem to favour twin engined types, whereas in the USA, singles seem to dominate - some units even using Robinsons and Enstroms.
Are such machines up to the job, if you need to carry Nitesun, FLIR, loudspeakers and all the normal kit?
Doesn't Police aviation almost inevitable infer low level ops over built up areas? Should single engined helicopters be acceptable for such missions? Don't you need a Class 1 performance helicopter for the role? Don't you need an SPIFR capability?
How essential is a second observer?
Because Public Aircraft are effectively outside the FAA's domain, they don't have to have an FAA certificate of airworthiness (hence the ex-mil Kiowas, H-6s, Hueys and even Sea Kings used by Police Departments and Sheriff's offices in the US).
Is this defensible? I can see that it gives Police aviation units access to cheap aircraft, but is there an adequate guarantee that such aircraft currently meet relevant and applicable maintenance and airworthiness standards? Do such organisations have sufficiently robust airworthiness authorities and procedures in place, and is there sufficient hope that they always will without compulsion/legislation?
Is it necessary for a Police pilot to have a CPL? (In the USA it seems that this is not always a requirement, and that some PDs and Sheriff's units employ police officer PPLs, or even unlicenced pilots trained 'on unit'). Is a CPL (as I suspect) a good indicator that a pilot will have the levels of experience and skillsets that he will need to carry out the role effectively and safely?
However much we admire, respect and appreciate the beat policeman, isn't it the case that it's easier to train a professional pilot to become a professional police aviator than it is to teach a professional policeman to become one?
In the UK, Police air support units seem to favour twin engined types, whereas in the USA, singles seem to dominate - some units even using Robinsons and Enstroms.
Are such machines up to the job, if you need to carry Nitesun, FLIR, loudspeakers and all the normal kit?
Doesn't Police aviation almost inevitable infer low level ops over built up areas? Should single engined helicopters be acceptable for such missions? Don't you need a Class 1 performance helicopter for the role? Don't you need an SPIFR capability?
How essential is a second observer?
Because Public Aircraft are effectively outside the FAA's domain, they don't have to have an FAA certificate of airworthiness (hence the ex-mil Kiowas, H-6s, Hueys and even Sea Kings used by Police Departments and Sheriff's offices in the US).
Is this defensible? I can see that it gives Police aviation units access to cheap aircraft, but is there an adequate guarantee that such aircraft currently meet relevant and applicable maintenance and airworthiness standards? Do such organisations have sufficiently robust airworthiness authorities and procedures in place, and is there sufficient hope that they always will without compulsion/legislation?