Pilots in court over 'sex tape'

[jayteeto]

South Yorkshire Police helicopter sex film trial begins - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-40645716)

The pilots are being prosecuted? Surely the camera operator is on his own here?

[4468]

The camera operator AND mission commander?!

Not the chauffeur! Unless policy has changed dramatically since I was last involved? The pilot was occasionally put firmly in his or her place, if they expressed any opinion regarding where or what the helicopter did? That's police business. Not the driver's!

Seems to me the pilots are in the clear, and the police officers are idiots, unless the video was intended to provide evidence for a prosecution. Rather than titilation?

[MightyGem]

They are certainly going for it. Going back to 2008 for one clip. I'm sure most of the people in that business have seen similar. :rolleyes:

[coalencanth]

Found this story very interesting. I am from a completely opposite end of aviation but am curious, in these type of ops, do police officers place a lot of pressure/threats on pilots to go along with questionable practices? This seems to show the willingness of the police to go after their non-sworn 'helpers'.

[Sky Sports]

The pilot IS the aircraft captain. Full stop, end of story.

The weathers ****, we're going home.
Short on fuel, we're going home.
This is not police work, we're going home.

If you play along with the perving, I'm sorry, but it's joint enterprise in the eyes of the law.

[4468]

I'm sure most of the people in that business have seen similar?
Depends.

In the dark, we often investigated vehicles parked in odd places. Only to inadvertently stumble across relatively innocent consenting behaviour.

That's a little different to what I've heard suggested here.

SS. In my experience, you're wrong!

[Sky Sports]

4468
So what you're saying is, the 'chauffeur' always did what you told him to do? And in all cases you were in charge of the flight, and not him, as the aircraft Captain? You had final say on weather, fuel etc?

Which ASU were you with?

[clareprop]

The captain/pilot is commander of the aircraft. Perhaps others would like to define that role in the police service but I know what I think it means.

[4468]

You had final say on weather, fuel etc?
Yes I most certainly did!
Which ASU were you with?
About 6 as it happens. Plus 2 Air Ambulances.
This is not police work, we're going home.
What does the police officer do whilst you're making all the police's decisions?

Don't get me wrong. I do think this is pretty nasty, from what I've heard.

[paco]

The pilot is in command...... sort of.

In real life, operational decisions are the customer's to make, until the flight becomes illegal or unsafe.

[noflynomore]

Mr Wright said the couple shared Pogmore's interest in swinging and added it was "no coincidence" that the helicopter flew above "while they brazenly put on a show."
Pogmore was the fifth person charged - a "former" police office.

I gather from reading between the lines that this was far from mere opportunism. The above quote obliquely implies that the sex on a patio scene was deliberately staged and the Police helicopter filming it was part of the act. If pilots (ie more than one of them) were charged too then the CPS must be convinced - and we know how hard it is sometimes to convince them - that pilots colluded in this activity on multiple occasions.
It sounds like a group of ASU pervs inc. pilots going out to look for naked sunbathers to film and also setting up a sex-scene with other swingers so they could film it. It would be hard for pilots not to have colluded if such activity was repeated on several occasions or they went to a specific address without a callout and miraculously found a couple bonking who were happy to continue while waving at the helicopter! The fact that two pilots are involved says this is much more extensive and deliberate than a mere chance encounter and an opportunist camera operator.

Gonna be a juicy story, that's for sure!

In real life, operational decisions are the customer's to make, until the flight becomes illegal or unsafe.And filming people sunbathing in their gardens most certainly falls into that category, as does launching to film a set-up sex scene.

[OafOrfUxAche]

Man, this case is going to make heli-dogging so much riskier. I might have to get into drones instead...

[John R81]

Man, this case is going to make heli-dogging so much riskier. I might have to get into drones instead...


:O:O:O
:D:D:D


I can't say more, I have to clean-up the tea I just spat over my paperwork

[Hughes500]

John

You have been rumbled now, have to look for another hobby !!!!!!:eek:

[St Johns Wort]

I'm going to reserve judgement until I've viewed the tapes.

[4468]

I'm going to reserve judgement until I've viewed the tapes.
.........quite a few times!🤓

[paco]

"And filming people sunbathing in their gardens most certainly falls into that category, as does launching to film a set-up sex scene."

Not unless they were within 500 feet etc. The prosecutor said that those cameras had a range of 2 miles.

Phil

[jumpseater]

Perhaps there's film from the ground with a large chopper in the background too.

[ericferret]

I was at the Guild of Aviation Artists Exhibition on Monday and one of the pilots involved had four paintings on show. I have a very nice aviation picture drawn by him in my house.
I also worked with him a number of years ago and had the greatest respect for him as a pilot and an individual. I cannot imagine what it is like to have something of this nature clouding your life for several years. I do not have any idea where the truth lies in this case. I just hope it works out for him.

[Fareastdriver]

Way back in the seventies infra red Night Sun was being trialled. This took the form of a filter over the normal lamp which made the beam invisible apart from those wearing I/R night vision goggles. Came the time that this kit had to be flown and the results assessed. For my sins I was nominated as the trials pilot and we commenced the night flying phase;

In the middle of June!!!

To avoid stray sources interfering the aircraft was blacked out internally and externally so I was on NVs to fly the aircraft. The safety pilot had nothing so he just sat it the middle of a black hole ready to turn up the instruments lights and recover should I go all wobbly.

There is not a lot of dark around the Hampshire commuter belt so we had to stray farther south to the Downs and the coast. Nothing much on the Downs but the sand dunes on the coast would sometimes get quite interesting.

"Corr! Look at them two down there", from the crewman.

I would look over "They're doing well," I would concur.

"What are they doing, what are they doing?" from the LHS because he couldn't see anything.







"Stop John; there's a helicopter up there."

"Don't worry; it's dark, he can't see anything."

[John R81]

How did you know she called my name?

[Heathcliff]

I cannot imagine what it is like to have something of this nature clouding your life for several years. I do not have any idea where the truth lies in this case. I just hope it works out for him.



I cannot imagine what it is like to be sunbathing and have anyone, let alone the police, filming you with neither your knowledge nor consent.


I hope it works out for the people who had their privacy violated in this way (I am not talking about the ones who had staged it).

[ericferret]

Innocent until proven guilty, I will wait.

[ShyTorque]

I cannot imagine what it is like to be sunbathing and have anyone, let alone the police, filming you with neither your knowledge nor consent.

Hmm....from the opposite perspective, I've discovered that I appear in a number of films where the footage was taken without my knowledge or consent. Then put on YouTube! I'm certainly not a criminal; I was doing my job, flying a helicopter. But I did have my clothes on.

[Dan Dare]

I've discovered that I appear in a number of films where the footage was taken without my knowledge or consent. Then put on YouTube!

Similarly, but from the other side of the radio. I feel violated and want compensation!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hmm....from the opposite perspective, I've discovered that I appear in a number of films where the footage was taken without my knowledge or consent. Then put on YouTube! I'm certainly not a criminal; I was doing my job, flying a helicopter. But I did have my clothes on.

CAA audit this week, and Shy you've given me something to be thankful for !!

SND

[fatmanmedia]

All have been cleared of all charges

Helicopter sex film PCs cleared of misconduct - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40830133)

Fats

[ShyTorque]

CAA audit this week, and Shy you've given me something to be thankful for !!

SND

Glad to be of service! :)

[Heathcliff]

I am confused. The pilots involved were totally unaware each time they were hovering over naked people? They claim they didn't know Pogmore was filming, but they must surely have been aware they were flying, deliberately, over naked people, and taking their time about it. This isn't what police aircraft is for.


Is there a story with more information?

[jayteeto]

Heathcliffe , why "surely they would know?"

My line training was very clear that I wasn't to watch the camera screen and fly the aircraft. Our helicopter had a Velcro screen that was put up to limit your view

[pants on fire...]

I have no interest in second guessing the decision of the Jury, nor debating the actions of the crews. Does anyone know if there is a site on the Internet to view these videos? Solely in the interests of forming an entirely unprejudiced, independent, personal viewpoint, of course.

[ShyTorque]

I am confused. The pilots involved were totally unaware each time they were hovering over naked people? They claim they didn't know Pogmore was filming, but they must surely have been aware they were flying, deliberately, over naked people, and taking their time about it. This isn't what police aircraft is for.
Is there a story with more information?

The pilot flies the aircraft by looking forwards and at the flight instruments as required and not at the camera screen. As JT2 wrote, the monitor side view is screened off from the pilot. The pilot doesn't know what the camera is actually being aimed at because it can be scanned through 360 degrees in azimuth and anywhere below the aircraft, in effect anywhere within a hemisphere. Even if he was made aware he certainly wouldn't know whether any particular shot is being recorded or not. The video recorder controls are not in the view of the pilot. In the AS355 I flew they there were in the rear of the cabin.

[MightyGem]

I wasn't to watch the camera screen and fly the aircraft.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

South Yorks Police don't seem happy though.

[chopjock]

jay
My line training was very clear that I wasn't to watch the camera screen and fly the aircraft.

That seems a bit daft to me. Filming pilots usually look at a screen to help with framing the shot. Surely a police pilot could contribute in a similar way...

[4468]

But you're not a police pilot, are you chopjock?

In fact the last I heard, you weren't even a professional licence holder? You were never qualified to fly a helicopter for the purpose of aerial work?

Maybe things have changed?

I accept that flying a drone may allow you to also look at a TV screen. As keeping lives safe is generally not involved.

[Sir Korsky]

They knew what they were doing. They just thought they'd get away with it..again.

[jayteeto]

SirK, I didn't say that they didn't know what they were doing.

Chopjock, you are wrong, a pilot may be capable of "helping" the shot, but he should be doing the flying. My point is in reply to some statements of 'fact' here, saying that the pilot MUST have been aware. Probably, but not certainly. And that mylord is the case for the defence.

Modern day courts normally require a degree of certainty before a conviction. If there is a possibility of error, even a small one, you often get away with it. Therefore these guys are now officially innocent.

In the big scheme of things, this is a minor offence. If you are angry and upset about it, do some research on how many people get away with rape and murder, even though they are bang on guilty

[chopjock]

4468,

Are you suggesting one has to be a police pilot in order to comment on this thread?
Are you suggesting one must have a professional licence in order to comment on his 25 years experience in aerial filming techniques?
LOL

[Homsap]

Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Section 68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in
a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy, and—
(a) the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only
with underwear,
(b) the person is using a lavatory, or
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in
public.

i rest my case!

[Bell_ringer]

i rest my case!

Is your case exposed or covered with underwear? :E

Are said underskants FLIR resistant? :eek:

[MaxR]

So, to clear up Section 68 1 (c) - which are the ones normally "done in public"?

[Heathcliff]

"In the big scheme of things, this is a minor offence. If you are angry and upset about it, do some research on how many people get away with rape and murder, even though they are bang on guilty "


Anything is minor in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't make it irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't make those culpable any the less guilty.


Thank you, ShyTorque. I still find it very hard to believe that these pilots flew without being told where they were going or why, and without any knowledge at all of what was happening below them - but the jury believed they did, and they have access to more evidence than we do.

[PDR1]

Well I guess that settles it once and for all - in so far as the English courts are concerned the front-seat crew are merely drivers and are neither in responsible for nor in charge of an aeroplane in flight.

So from a purely legal standpoint passengers are entitled to ignore what they say and (if they should try to use force to bully or coerce passengers into doing things they don't wish to do) take any and all proportionate actions to defend themselves against unlawful abuse by the aircrew.

I can't see any other interpretation that could flow from this judgement.

PDR

[ShyTorque]

Thank you, ShyTorque. I still find it very hard to believe that these pilots flew without being told where they were going or why, and without any knowledge at all of what was happening below them - but the jury believed they did, and they have access to more evidence than we do.Heathcliff, please don't try to twist what I wrote. I never said that, nor did I infer it. Obviously the pilot of a police helicopter knows where he is going and why!

I wrote that the pilot doesn't necessarily know where the camera is being pointed and whether or not recording is taking place.

It appears that you believe that the SY police helicopter was launched specifically to look at naked people "going about their business" as it were. I'd be extremely surprised if that could ever take place. It certainly couldn't have occurred at the ASU I worked at. The hierarchy of one police force I flew for put up some road signs stating "police helicopter speed enforcement". The biggest objectors were the police at the ASU. The helicopter never "patrolled" for any reason, let alone specifically for speed enforcement, because the flying hours were very strictly controlled and the reasons for launch logged, in some detail. The last thing needed was for the public to think they were being "spied on" without good reason.

[Thomas coupling]

Pogmore was a known deviant, his 'colleagues' knew this for years.
Each time these incidents took place you can bet your bottom dollar that all / some of the crew on board knew what he was doing. Even if the pilot couldn't see the footage (which I doubt), the crew would be talking about what was going on - bit of banter - lads talk - nudge nudge......
They probably ran the tapes after getting back to base for some further titilation.
Only, this unit got caught - simples. And the CPS decided to make an example of them but it didn't quite turn out to be a full blown 'clean sweep'.

It might not be a big case in the grand scheme of things but it is the thin end of the wedge and if cops of all people were allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour - what next?

[jayteeto]

No no no no no no!

I'm not trying to say this type of offence should be ignored, the police should be condemned even more for any offence committed.

Some people have ZERO idea about police aviation. Let's put it simply for those of less knowledge. The observers take a job, the pilot doesn't NEED to know any details, other than a location. The observers say where they need to be geographically. If the pilot can do it aviation legally and safely, he does, if not he doesn't and says why. He doesn't need to know ANYTHING about the job. Many undercover type jobs are like this. This doesn't mean he isn't in command of the aircraft, he most absolutely IS in command. He is not the mission commander. There is a huge difference.

Do I THINK they knew what was going on??? Yup!

Was there a scenario where they may not have known??? Yup!

Can you say with 100% certainty they knew??? Nope!

If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Not Guilty

My quote about the big scheme of things was totally misunderstood. Kim Jong Un / Mugabe / ISIS are carrying out genocide and people aren't arsed. This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is.

The fact is, these people were found not guilty, guess what??? That means they are actually not guilty. I'm sure anyone who says they are may actually be committing an offence.........

[Thomas coupling]

Jayteeto.

It's TC you're talking to hear - I know exactly what goes on in them thar choppers!
Why do you insist on repeating they were all not guilty. Incorrect, Pogmore resigned once the cat was out of the bag so as to distance himself from the Service. He was a COP when he broke the law. He was a civvy when he was found guilty. Semantics.
And be careful about making the public out to be eejit's. They know very well the scale of the incident compared to Mugabe - FFS.
It is the principle of the matter that is in focus here.

Those we hold uppermost in our respect - should be seen to be whiter than white.

I say again - thin end of the wedge.

[jayteeto]

Pogmore? I'm not talking about him, or the cops. I'm talking about the pilots. The cops can see the screen and can see if the video is running. The two who got off STILL got off and that means not guilty, despite what you think/know about what goes on.

[Heathcliff]

"Heathcliff, please don't try to twist what I wrote. I never said that, nor did I infer it. Obviously the pilot of a police helicopter knows where he is going and why!"

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But the pilot will have been directed to fly to a certain place, and hover for a certain amount of time. Presumably a reason is given for this? There will have been some communication from the police in the aircraft? As for Pogmore being a 'deviant', it is concerning his colleagues did not express concern about this earlier.

"It appears that you believe that the SY police helicopter was launched specifically to look at naked people "going about their business" as it were. I'd be extremely surprised if that could ever take place."

I would hope it wouldn't, but in the case of the extrovert couple, they knew they were being filmed, and Pogmore knew when they would be *ahem* in the act. Perhaps he just happened to be in the air, and then somehow managed to divert the pilot over the teddy bears in the woods by claiming one of them was a hiding criminal. It would be interesting if there were any cockpit recordings of these flights!

"The last thing needed was for the public to think they were being "spied on" without good reason. "

But they were - in these many incidences.

"This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is."

One couple. The others weren't. The fact worse things happen does not belittle what has happened here - by those we - foolishly or otherwise - trust to enforce and uphold the law.

As I said, the jury will see and hear evidence we never will, so they must have had a good reason for finding the pilots not guilty of collusion. From my own experience, much more goes on in a court room than gets into the papers!

[jayteeto]

My comments on the eejits are nothing to do with Mugabe, that was a separate comment. I'm talking about the "experts" commenting on who is MISSION commander and what the pilots MUST have known.

Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........

On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)

[Flaxton Flyer]

My comments on the eejits are nothing to do with Mugabe, that was a separate comment. I'm talking about the "experts" commenting on who is MISSION commander and what the pilots MUST have known.

Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........

On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)

And on the AA Unit I flew on, I knew what every job was before we set off. Point being, just because you didn't know what the job was at YOUR unit doesn't mean that was the way it happened at the SY unit.

[Thomas coupling]

jayteeto - you're getting all emotional now! Since when do the lads keep info away from the pilot due to sensitivities?
Is it in case your pilots can't cope emotionally if it involves kids and might turn it down because they'd burst into tears perhaps?

Where I came from laddy - the pilot expected to be told at the very least the outline of the job and everything short of top secret doo - doo's (which was very rare).
Can't do your job properly - half cocked.

[homonculus]

Running an interhospital transfer system we operated a strict Chinese wall whenever we could; pilots not told clinical details, medical team not told weather, crew duty hours etc. Not because we would burst into tears, but so each side did their job thoroughly and safely and didnt push it. AAs that dont when they can reduce safety IMHO. As to police operations, I have no opinion because I have never flown those missions

However, this isnt really important or relevant. If the charges reflected what occurred it would have been wrong and the public would have a right to feel aggrieved. The reputation of the police would be diminished. However senior police and the CPS brought charges - correctly - and after a trial the verdict was not guilty. Justice has been done and hopefully no other observers will be tempted and the public can be reassured.

Whether a number of posters on this thread believe they know better and do not accept the verdict of the courts is totally unimportant

[jayteeto]

You are still twisting my words. If they said they didn't always know, like I didn't, then they have a slim, but valid, excuse. Since when has the truth mattered in British courts???????

Emotional?? Really?

[jayteeto]

Burst into tears?
If you are heading to a baby in cardiac arrest, you don't cry. You MIGHT push the weather limits though. It's called human nature.

Please don't insult me like that

[jayteeto]

Before anyone takes offence at my British Court statement, I have attended the public gallery loads of times. It's actually so bad, it's amusing to watch. Try it before commenting, the truth is irrelevant

[Thomas coupling]

Ah c'mon jayteeto - we go back too far for you to assume I insutled you - shooting the breeze, that's all :hmm:
I have lost count of how many hems trips I did - 300 - 500? Perhaps 20% involved kids:
Suicides.
drownings.
shootings.
domestics.
mispers.

It goes on and on. Maybe the first half dozen tweak the heart strings but after that it's just another job. If you're telling me that as a hardened hems/AA driver you might still get suckered into making dodgy decisions because of the status of the child - you're in the wrong business.

The chinese wall situation Homonculus is on about may work during the outbound leg but what happens once on scene. Will the crew protect your emotions then? I think not. You will be privvy to the status of the patient - you process it and then you act professionally.
If you have been ex mil (you were - right?) you will know where I'm coming from.

Next people will be telling me they treat women differently if they are part of the crew. :rolleyes:

Homonculus - I think the verdict is done and dusted. No question. But remember this, the cops look after themselves. Always have done, always will. If senior management found a fly in the ointment in this case (which they did), they sterilise it quickly (which they did) and remove guilty person from the Service to make it look like no cops were involved. That person went on to be prosecuted for illegal activity while in the line of duty.
A blunt instrument - but it has worked here it seems....................

[Sky Sports]

If pilots can't see the monitors and don't look down at the incident, how do they follow pursuits and other such incidents?

I thought pilots sat on the inside of orbits specifically so they could watch the incident and stay over the top?

[jayteeto]

Pursuits?
They were shagging during pursuits?

SOME sensitive jobs are not briefed to all the crew. You just hover in an area and you get told left/right/forward/back. It's not difficult.

Look, I'm not saying they didn't know what was happening, read my posts properly. Yup means yes.......

And as for you TC......... I have no heart, I very rarely get upset at a scene. But some pilots will consider allowing a slightly lower limit if certain triggers are involved. Whilst the majority won't, it is easier to apply a blanket "blackout" to get a consistent standard. With a 490ft cloud base, it's hard to say stop, but we do in our company. No external pressures make the call easier. It might not be for you and me, but not everyone is you or me :cool:

[homonculus]

Sorry to go off thread TC, but on the inbound leg the patient should have been stabilised. There is no indication for scoop and run. If the guys in the back cant cope then they should be replaced. The driver's only decision is then weather, and if the weather is a no no the boys in the back should be able to do a land transfer. I will stand by for flak

[Thomas coupling]

Homonculus - with your immaculate medical credentials, I for one would never question your concern for the impact of the medical predicament on flight safety. In fact I applaud your (the medical world) attitude towards Safety Management.
But 'normally' the lads (HEMS/AA pilots in UK - unlike some other countries) don't tend to bog down under this type of external influence, I would suggest.

I remember once going to a job where mum, dad and baby boy (18 months old) were on holiday in the middle of no-where and dad was carrying the little lad around on his shoulders - they were staying in a quaint old cottage with hanging beams and dad forgot! The child head butted one of the beams and stopped breathing. Dad did CPR until we arrived with the paramedic who told us we had to go to the childrens hospital much further away rather than the local one due to complications.
The cops had a very difficult job peeling the mother off the airframe because I simply couldn't take this very seriously ill child's mother with us because of payload issues. The paramedic was looking at me and his watch all the time but never once got emotional.
Pressure is there but we learn to live with it.

Meanwhile back to topic: I see today that Pogmore got a jail sentence.
So for the record - The crew didn't get off. One of them went down for it.:D

[hoistop]

What was the sentence?

[MightyGem]

12 months jail:
Former police officer jailed for using helicopter to film naked sunbathers and people having sex | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/helicopter-sex-videos-film-naked-sunbathers-south-yorkshire-police-officer-jailed-guilty-adrian-a7882191.html)

[Nige321]

It ain’t over yet... (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6752791/Police-helicopter-crew-ignored-crime-fighting-film-couple-having-sex-garden.html)

A police helicopter crew filmed a couple having sex on their patio and a mum sunbathing naked with her two bikini-clad teenage daughters when they were supposed to be fighting crime, a misconduct hearing has heard.

PC Matthew Lucas, 43, a serving officer with South Yorkshire Police, and former officer Lee Walls, 48, are accused of making illegal recordings between 2007 and 2012.

Although both men were acquitted in court for misconduct charges in 2017, they now face fresh scrutiny after it was claimed their original interviews were untruthful.

[Cabby]

Noticed in todays hard copy of The Sun that a member of the NPAS management team was giving evidence at a disciplinary hearing.
Couldn't find the sun link web link but its also in this paper online. Its expected to last 7 days. Wonder who's paying the legal bill?
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/south-yorkshire-police-helicopter-crew-flew-too-low-when-they-filmed-couple-having-sex-in-garden-1-9621980