Police officers 'Commandeering' civ helos - opinion?

[STANDTO]

Let me give you a set of circumstances:

A police officer in the Uk in a county without air support, needs to search an area for a missing person or vehicle.

He knows someone with a helicopter, and so rings them up. The pilot agrees to this and gets airborne with the police officer.

They are up there for an hour, searching for a missing person.

Questions:

Is this legal?

Does the pilot need an ATPL(H) even though no written contract of or for transport is entered in to?

If the A/C crashed, what would the insurance position be?

Is the Police officer, who is not a trained air observer but effectively co ordinating the search, in any sort of position? ( This is notwithstanding the primacy of the pilot)

I'd be grateful for advice either on the thread or by email or PM as soon as possible. I think I need to provide some advice to our senior managers!!!!!

[Helinut]

Like most of these things it will probably end up depending upon the facts of the case, but it is an interesting one.

First thing that occurs to me is what "the public" would think of the police force after the accident. Not a strictly legal issue, but how would the force argue that what it had done was sensible.

Because it involves some sort of police work, I see no reason why a PAOC is needed per se. If a police force wanted to hire a helicopter from an AOC holder to, for example, do some aerial photography or search for someone, then as long as the helicopter was operated in acordance with the AOC and the normal ANO rules, I do not see a problem. Under an AOC, I have done work for police forces and other enforcers in the past.

If they just asked a nice kind PPL(H) who had a helicopter if he/she would take a nice policeman for a helicopter ride, again I can't see what rule would be broken either, but there could be some peripheral questions raised. It would be necessary to show that there was no "valuable cosideration given or promised", to quote Article 130. So no going easy on the pilot's next speeding offence!

I guess it may be OK as an exceptional event, but it surely cannot be sensible if regularly carried out. These days officer "health and safety" is a big issue. I am sure that someone like the Police Federation would ask for the risk assessment that justified using a private operation and pilot of unknown quality.

Flying Lawyer's thoughts would be interesting too.

All this would need to be done in accordance with all the standard low flying rules, cos none of the PAOC exemptions would apply.

I wonder what the aircraft insurance company would say though, or the police officer's life insurance company. I can imagine them trying to wriggle like hell after an accident to avoid having to pay out.

The other thing that occurs to me is a legal question about what difference it might make that you are not on the UK mainland - definitely don't know the answer to that one.

Email me if you want to make it less hypothetical!

[misterbonkers]

This question has appeared recently atr the realms of the CAA.

Basically, Skywatch is an initiative to get aircraft owners to be willing to help out in such situations as missing persons.

A good friend of mine recently became on of the first helo supporters with his bell 47.

The CAA were not very happy and did deem it commercial work. But they have agreed to turn a blind eye so to speak as it is for a good cause.

The police/authority don't commandere (sp?) they just ask 'if you are flying in THIS area will you keep an eye out for.... (pretty please).

But, as a very soon to be commercial helo pilot, i wander, is it taking potential work away from the likes of myself who could (with an AOC) charter a helo to the authorities and then start to recooperate my expenses so far?)

[Letsby Avenue]

This is pretty straightforward. The pilot has no exemptions under the PAOC and therefore has no easements, he must therefore comply entirely with the ANO.

The policeman would at all times be JUST a passenger and at no time would he be in a position legally to dictate the course of action taken by the Captain

If the pilot is getting any sort of remuneration then he must be suitably qualified with the correct licence ie; CPL(H) minimum and operating iaw a company AOC.

If the pilot is doing it for free (including the fuel) then a PPL is sufficient. (notwithstanding any caveat in the hull insurance)

If the A/C crashed then it rather depends on the above as to the stance taken by the insurance company.

In other words I agree with Helinut!

:cool:

[Helinut]

Misterbonkers story is pretty much the sort of reaction you would expect from the CAA in a case like this. I am not 100% sure, but I think it got a fairly cool reception from some parts of the Police too. Which is why STANDTO's original post was interesting because it was a rather different response from a different part of the Police community.

Not sure about the "deemed to be commercial work" though. The CAA would surely have to prove it was public transport as defined in the ANO - without "valuable consideration" I can't see how they could make it stick.

[john du'pruyting]

I suspect that the biggest problem here would be insurance cover for the policeman rather than any 'is the trip legal' type point. The well aired difficulties in the east midlands case show just how difficult it can be to extract money out of an insurance company who think they have found a loophole. The force would have a duty of care to their officer. Oh s**t, helinut has already said all this, so I'm with him.:)

[Thomas coupling]

Legally I suspect this practice is fine. Much to the consternation of the CAA:D
However from a practical point of view it is a non starter:
What height is the search going to be done at? We do this every day and need to be 'low' level WITH 40 zoom cameras:confused:
And still we aren't able to find the misper!!
The PC would also need individual contacts 'checked out' and this requires talking to ground troops to identify individuals. He hasn't got a licence to transmit from the air to the ground on UHF above 500':eek:
He won't have dedicated VHF police channels in the a/c either.
So he's stuck really -about as useful as a chocolate ash tray!!

Commercially -he's on a sticky wicket because 'favours' run out and the private operator of the helo is going to want paying eventually. Then we are definitely on a sticky wicket when money changes hands!

Good idea at the time - the C Constable showed initiative, good use of facilities, forethought, etc. Complete waste of time in the long run though.
Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc. Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant relaying of messages to the local constabulary, or transmitting blind on UHF across neighbouring force areas:eek:
What a complete load of B***ks.

[PANews]

Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc. Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant


The trouble is that Sky Watch has got off the ground and there are now upward of 150 of them.

So it is really a case of close your eyes to them or watch and perhaps direct them a little .....

IMHO closed eyes aint no good ....

... but that is a little off the original question. On that I can add nothing new. The CAA has leant backwards so insurance calls the tune.

[helmet fire]

Doesn't this now make all over flying aircraft a potential adversary (and thus target) for the bad guys??

:eek: :eek:

[STANDTO]

Basically I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the police and general aviation worlds, but I do know more than the average plod. I agree withone of the replies that the pax on this occasion would in reality be about as much use as t*ts on a kipper, as we say out here!

Let me throw in another couple of parameters:

Some of the search is carried out over water

The a/c (fixed or rotary) is operated under a permit to fly

I think what I am going to suggest is that we examine closely our insurance situation, and issue a policy . I would never wish to deny anyone a jolly in an aircraft, however it was dressed up, but the bottom line, as we have seen before, is when it blunts in, the problems really start.

Please keep posting

[md 600 driver]

i know of one time this has happened

some years ago a north yorkshire police officer asked a owner of a 500 to look for a missing person

the flight went well unfortunately the person was not found untill later when it was too late

the police asked a local owner no money offered or inducements to assist in a life saving opperation

no it was not me but if i was asked the same i would help

thankfully we now have profesionals in our area in carr gate and it would never be required but the offer stands [please bring blue flashing lght and the night sun and of course the flight suit and leather jacket

steve

[Bearintheair]

Given the problems with insurance payouts over police helo crashes (thankfully rare) that were fully certified for police ops and operated iaw the police AOC, I would expect the insurance companies to take a big step backwards for any claim for a case like this.
Whether the pilot was receiving cash or not and even if he is operating within the normal rules of the ANO he is still conducting police work and we all know how the insurance companies will use any excuse to keep our cash !!!!
Finally, the police force concerned in this would, I believe, be operating against Home Office policy, another excuse for the insurance companies to drag their heels !!!!

With regard to Skywatch, I can't see a problem for them if all they do is keep their eyes out whilst airborne and report something back but I think they should check with their insurers if they are going to get airborne specifically to carry out search tasks.
As an aside, do they carry an observer with them ? Its impossible to carry out an effective ground search and a proper lookout if you are flying single pilot.

[PANews]

THE OTHER SIDE?

I notified Sky Watch of the pprune interest in their operation and pasted some of the earlier text over. Thiis was received this morning.


Dear Bryn ... thanks for the info.
I can't get on the pprune network - but for your info and if you would like to post it on my behalf the Sky Watch response is as follows. (and would you copy me any response that refers please?)

Sky Watch's Opinion
Such a flight would be legal if the aircraft was operating inside the
requirements of the Air Navigation Order with an Air Operator's Certificate, or a Police Air Operator's Certificate - and flown by a Commercial Pilot or ATPL.

BUT - the policeman involved would negate any insurance policies which he had taken out in respect of his life or injuries because of the normal "light aircraft" exclusion clauses. Whenever police officers have been flown in Sky Watch aircraft the force has taken out special insurance for the individual officer. However because of the complications of this - and the side issue of blowing the officer's personal insurance - and possible compensation claims in the event of an accident - Sky Watch's policy nowadays is never to carry passengers other than Sky Watch volunteer personnel - members of the public, or civil or military services personnel will not be carried.

Also the Home Office have pointed out that any police officer requesting aircraft co-operation would be in breach of strict Home Office and Police rules forbidding the use of non-police air operator certificate aircraft on police operations.

Therefore Sky Watch no longer offers its co-operation to the police - even with aircraft in the organisation which operate under an Air Operators' Certificate - and anyway the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that it does not want it and has circulated all police forces warning them off (even though some serious police opinion says that it is crazy not to use in some simple ways a resource of 150 aircraft and helicopters - particularly as the trials with North Yorkshire Police proved
the service worked well).

Sky Watch will not provide free voluntary community air service where the work involved is already covered by a commercial operator, or where a commercial operator would normally be engaged.

Hope this helps,

Kind regards
Arnold Parker, gaffer, Sky Watch

The only paragraph I may take issue with is the one where Arnold states

Also the Home Office have pointed out that any police officer requesting aircraft co-operation would be in breach of strict Home Office and Police rules forbidding ........

I would see these as guidlines rather than strict rules ... after all some forces still use Cessna 172s for police work no matter how often the Home Office wrings its hands.

[StevieTerrier]

Isnt there something similar in the States? I seem to recall Indiana Jones (in his civvy guise as Harrison Ford) rescuing people in his Bell 407. Perhaps one of our New World cousins can enlighten us on how it works over there?

[STANDTO]

nothing in this post is intended to put the willies up an airman trying to rescue a person in distress under their own steam - I am more concerned about misguided plods flitting about in things they don't really understand, oblivious to the consequences if it happens to blunt in.

[Mstern1908]

In the US there is a "public use" exemption from all FAA and other local aviation enfocement activity, including maintenance for a/c and operations by the government or police organizations. A good explanation of this is at the ALEA Airorne Law Enforcement Assoc. www.alea.org) website. In order to have this exemption the mission must be flown at the direction of sworn police or fire personel and any other "necessary" personel for the mission, which can include a pilot for the public need and convenience. I current fly police search and rescue missions for Eagle 1, a retired military helicopter unit. see. www. eagle1sr.homestead.com This unit is completely privately funded, but directed by the sponsoring police department. Donations are needed and appreciated. Also, more recently after Sept 11 here in the states, the US Coast Guard and other federal, state and local law enforcement offices have utilitzed private aircraft and pilots to fly patrol, coastline defense and other related homeland security flights. In each event, there is substantial training involved and even not required by law, usually the aircraft and pilots are trained and flown to military standards, beyond most general aviation capabilities. Historically in the US since WWII we have had the Civil Air Patrol, made up of civillian aircraft and pilots who operate organized search and rescue as well as coastline defense missions with their own independent command structure, but overall command of the US air force. I am also a practicing attorney. In most cases pilots would fall under the "firefighter" rule and be exempt from most liability as a person serving the public good. It encourages volunteerism, rather than punishing it. Also, most requested agencies would cover the insurance, and the pilot or a/c owner's insurance would be secondary. The real issue is who pays first for what (pilot liability vs.passenger liability vs. third party liability vs. hull, etc.), not overall coverage. Igor Sikorsky was proud that his inventions, including improvements and production of the helicopter were used to save lives, not destroy them. This is the type of use of our talent that should be encouraged, not denigrated in any way. Sterno.

[PANews]

I am again the carrier of a message ... raw nerve touched here by someone in Wales ...

Dear Bryn
Thanks for your help in this. Would you kindly add the following - and send
me any response please?
Kind regards and thanks
Arnold

Sky Watch
Just a couple of notes of clarification because some folk are commenting on Sky Watch without knowing much about it.

For example the comment : "Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc.
Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant .....

Does the correspondent mean "Line Search" ... "Expanded Square Search" ... "Sector Search" ... "Creeping Line Ahead Search" .... etc - which are covered in the Sky Watch Manual and training exercises?
The manual was produced with input by RAF Search & Rescue personnel, Police Aviation Experts, Military, Channel Islands Air Search, etc. and Sky Watch (after only a year of operation) is now up to the standard of getting its approval for "Declared Facility" status via Sea Safety and HM Coastguard.
Individual Sky Watch crews are not classed as of operational standard until they have located a five foot square flag on a stick inside twenty five square miles of mixed countryside using the Mk.1 Eyeball only ... three times out of three on three separate exercises.
Sky Watch is not a full time dedication - our pilots only carry out
observations when they safely and conveniently can - probably about half an hour for every five or so hours of normal flying. Sky Watch observation is only carried out with a minimum of two crew - the pilot whose prime responsibility is the safe operation of the aircraft - and the Observer to deal with the task.
Our basic role is limited to "Observe & Report" - calling in any
incidents to ATC for relay of a 999 call to the relevant emergency services - and then clearing off when the professionals have the job in hand. But we will help out on other community and humanitarian work where we can.
Sky Watch's relations with ATC are excellent and co-operative. We actively search for missing persons, livestock etc, monitor dangerous areas (eg coastlines, rivers, flood plains, rail lines). We don't need anyone's permission because we are operating legally in free airspace. We will launch for any emergency where an eye in the sky can help - but ATC are always kept aware of our operations and we will immediately clear the scene if professional air units need to cover it.
Generally Sky Watch pilots are well experienced (average 500+ hours) with an extensive core of particularly highly experienced colleagues including ex-service personnel, ATPL's, Commercial Pilots, Instructors and CFI's - and more instrument and IMC ratings than you can shake a stick at.
Anyone who would like a list of the twenty odd incidents where Sky Watch has helped this year are welcome to one if they just e-mail me with their post address to [email protected] and I'll also send a collage of the pro-aviation press coverage that has resulted from Sky Watch's work in the community.
Although we have only been going a year we have already become acclimatised to the British obsession with knocking anything new - but on the other hand we have in aviation a lot of people who feel that the fact that they can fly means they have been well blessed with more of life¹s good stuff than most other people - and helping out on Sky Watch is a way of paying a bit back.
Sky Watch is happy to answer any reasonable queries addressed to it.
Kind regards
Arnold Parker

Definitely sensitive!

It does remind me of that sector of society [particularly in the police] that maintains that no-one can do a police persons job as well as a policeman ... usually when addressing the subject of civilian observers. As if each future police person has its backside stamped with the fact at birth and has its brain removed at the hour of retirement.

Strangely enough not so.

We are all born civilians and many of us die in the same state ... if we are lucky.

[STANDTO]

Personally I quite agree that a police observer doesn't need to be a police officer. There are some quite useful bits, for example, when in a pursuit, knowing what it feels like to be up the **** end of a car at 130 on the GROUND, and what it feels like to point a gun at someone, when containing a firearms incident. However, quite often, police air observers have never specialised in these areas themselves, which negates this.

Bottom line is that more emergency air cover is needed and I think Skywatch is an excellent idea. How much of a help would something like this be with a missing child. Sussex are now looking at early intervention with the media, broadcasting messages of missing kids as early as possible. Integrate eyes in the air and thngs get even better.

Going back to my original post, I think the big issue is - what happens when one drops out of the sky?

[Thomas coupling]

So let me get this right:

A child is missing, has been for some hours now. In the mainland Uk, which is served by 52 police forces, 43 of which now have air cover; who actually calls who out?

When that somebody gets to the last known location, having been given all the relevant details by whoever, they commence a search (because the police unit isn't/cant get airborne!).
What height do they fly at, what type of search do they fly (dependent on the type of misper - decides on the type of search (alzheimers do certain things, children do other types).

How do they identify their 'target'? How do they report their findings?

I've heard briefly about this idea, some months ago...thought it was a joke! Somebody as having me on!

Never heard any other unit mention it because their area is always covered by their helo/plankwing. When exactly would this 'reserve' force be called upon???
Who pays for it?
Do they fly around for a couple of hours free of charge.
Are they on standby, or does the facility that calls them out just keep ringing down through the list until someone answers the phone and happens to be free (with their buddy the observer)?

C'mon pull the other one Bryn........smell the coffee:D

[STANDTO]

Thomas, I have read your profile and it appears we are essentially in the same industry!

It appears to me that Skywatch is trying to do something worthwhile in a reasonably structured format. To fail to embrace that is ignoring a protentially useful asset.

Look at the LAPD and GMP websites and compare their air cover. GMP actually has a bigger area to cover with one machine than LAPD does with dozens more.

In the UK, air support is never likely to reach the situation where a chopper is just looked at as another police vehicle. If, within CAA guidelines, we can work towards a properly coordinated, voluntary body of pilots with access to expensive aircraft then I think we should look closely at it.

I have to say, Thomas, that fifteen years ago, most chief constables would have looked upon the idea of air support units with the same amount of derision as you appear to view Skywatch. This isn't a personal attack so don't take it the wrong way.

Look at it another way: You know how wealthy you have to be even to own an R22! Its nice to see these well to do people wanting to put something back into society.

However, if Skywatch is going to go anywhere, then I think a memorandum of understanding needs drawing up with each of the UK police forces. The questions of insurance, whether or not an a/c is working under police coordination or not when they are on task.

lets not be too blinkered about this

[MBJ]

Is this legal?
NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE AN AOC AND A COMMERCIAL LICENCE

If the A/C crashed, what would the insurance position be?
PROVIDED ABOVE YOU SHOULD BE OK PROVIDED YOU WERE OPERATING WITHIN THE ANO RULES

Is the Police officer, who is not a trained air observer but effectively co ordinating the search, in any sort of position? ( This is notwithstanding the primacy of the pilot)
NONE WHATSOEVER - TALKING BALLAST ONLY..AND HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE HIS PERSONAL COMMS IN THE AIR EITHER.

There is a get out in the ANO which permits you as a pilot to do almost anything for the purposes of "Saving Life" but I would suggest great care in taking on an Ad Hoc task unless you are VERY sure of the circumstances.

[PANews]

TC and MBJ

Before we leap to the attack of Sky Watch please recall some of the things that they say of themselves. Most of them appear above in their own words.

The CAA has looked and is [reasonably] happy.

The group [and in 150 souls there may be black sheep] are actually talking about being good citizens and having a look out of the window as they fly [thats probably a good idea at the best of times] and if they see something reporting it via ATC.

No more than that 98% of the time.

The remainder is to take interest in what information they receive from the media [or whatever] and to look out of the window with that in mind - usually using an observer to do that.

No hot lines, just the same as if a fire engine cop car or ambulance turned up at the house opposite me ... and what ... I ignore it? No - and neither would you. Taking it a step further ... a search for a missing child... if Joe Public turns up to search on the ground on foot or in a car who is complaining?

OK so ...... Sky Watch have aeroplanes, and it seems a set of rules that tell them to scoot when PLOD turns up....

North Yorkshire [where the core of Sky Watch is based] do not.

[bladeslapper]

Have I got this right or do I detect a touch of bitterness and the presence of a few chips on the shoulders.......

It seems that there are those supposedly professional pilots who would instantly ban any activity that might detract from their paid work and at a stroke elect to double their pay because they think they are worth it. (find the evidence in many other threads)

It all seems very sad.

Of course professionals are trained appropriately (hopefully) to do a job with whistles and bells kit and may they long continue with their valuable role. However, if for some remarkable reason I am the only pilot around and mine is the only aircraft able to help and I receive a specific request to help in a life threatening event, then subject to making decisions about conditions and my own limitations as a pilot and the limitations of my aircraft, then I would respond to the best that circumstances and my ability allows until other help arrives. (Just as if you are at the scene of a car crash or a fire etc). And no I would not expect payment, but then it would probably be a once in a lifetime event, so the incurred cost is no big deal.

By the geographic nature of UK, it is not far from anywhere to here so the times when this kind of event might happen are going to be rare. Why people should get their knickers in a twist over this whole issue beats me.

If I wanted to fly in a Police / EMS / military role, I would have taken the appropriate career path. I chose a route thru life that now allows me to fly an aircraft for my personal use. At no time do I wish to be involved in the above type operations. However just as I have no wish to fight fires or be a paramedic at the scene of an accident, one is bound by a sense of duty to fellow 'man' to do the best in an awful situation.

Do we hear paramedics complain when you have just spent 10 minutes trying to stem the blood loss from a severed artery.

The air law is right to require higher levels of competancy etc for "professional" operations in the air...........but I do wish some people would quit their whinging and grow up !

[STANDTO]

I spoke to Arnold Parker today, and I think he needs recognition as a bit of a pioneer!

The trials with N yorks went quite well, but the whole issue of AOC's and insurance put a nail in the carriage of police officers - which answers my original post!

However, the general idea now is that it is a few extra pairs of eyes and ears either on routine flights (eg over large expanses of estuaries where people are known to get stuck) or, in response to general information from the emergency services. Even then, the police, for example cannot ask for specific help as that could be construed to be procuring the use of an aircraft.

Other groups, such as radio hams, can provide services in extreme circs. Why not aircraft owners? To me, the sensible thing to do would be to bring them under some sort of control. An asset is an asset whatever way you look at it.

[bladeslapper]

T.C.

You appear very touchy and anti skywatch.....I know little / nothing about skywatch, not a member and so comment no further on their activities.

I think you missed my point which was that one would be duty bound subject to the caveats I gave, to respond to a SPECIFIC request. That specific request would clearly be a route of last resort (life at risk) and therefore such a request would need to be qualified in what was required and how it would be carried out. In those RARE (I used that word in my text) circumstances then anything is better than nothing !

Knowing about search patterns, use of particular radio nets etc etc etc is quite superfluous in these circumstances.

Having said that it would perhaps be interesting for someone of your experience and knowledge to expand on the clearly complex subject of your aerial role to quell the cynical voices in earlier submissions to the thread.

[misterbonkers]

Urm, well I think Skywatch is a good initiative.

As for the Home Office and their opinions/statements etc;

1) Skywatch is a superb idea so they were bound not to like it

2) They wouldn't know a good idea if it slapped them in the face

3) North Yorks Police don't have enough funding to warrant a heli and yet have to cover a massive area of varying terrain and population densities so any extra help they could get FOR FREE has to be a good idea. The Home Office could even give a bit of extra funding so the pilots could have seminars etc on effective procedures/training. Such funding is bound to be well below the cost of a helo unit.

But hey, lets wrap everything in big Labour Red tape.

Aviation without politics would be bliss but boring.

[parker]

1. Thank you for all the interest in our initiative.
2. Sky Watch's main operations are limited to "Observe & Report" - calling in any incidents to ATC for a 999 call to emergency services - and then clearing off once the professionals have the matter in hand.
3. Sky Watch's contribution has proved helpful, with commendations from the police, fire service and coastguard.
4. If anyone would like a list of the incidents we have helped out with, e-mail your post address to [email protected]
5. Sky Watch pilots are very experienced - we've lots of ATPL., Commercial, CFI's, Instructors, ex-military, etc. - and more Instrument and IMC ratings than you can shake a stick at. Our aircraft range from gyrocopters and microlights through to helicopters and executive jets.
6. Sky Watch works to a manual produced from contributions by experts of RAF Search & Rescue, police air units, military, Channel Islands Air Search, etc.
7. Sky Watch has been appointed the Air Division of Sea Safety, the consortium of voluntary marine organisations.
8. Sky Watch is in the process of obtaining "Declared Facility" status via Coastguard and Sea Safety.
9. Pilots mainly join Sky Watch because they feel that being able to fly means they have been blessed with more of life's good stuff than most people - and they see Sky Watch as a way of paying a bit back.
10. Sky Watch has proved that it is possible for simple light aircraft to make a practical contribution to the community, and for some simple air tasks a £3m /£2,000 an hour helicopter is not strictly necessary.
11. Sky Watch has every respect and support for the professional air units.
Kind regards
Arnold Parker - Sky Watch

[PANews]

Arnold,

You managed to tame your old machine to speak to the
world!

I feel 'Super-Fluss' all of a sudden!

I must say your list of your 'puddle jumpers' appears to suggest that they may include some intelligent types! Mind you they all took some sort of test to fly didn't they!

Regards.

Bryn

[Thomas coupling]

I'm happier with that Arnold. If all you are doing is just passing on some basic info regarding an incident on the ground, then that's fine. Sort of thing anyone would do anywhere.
I was concerned that you were getting involved in searches or observations which caused you to follow the situation at length. With continuous transmissions to ATC etc.

By the way, anyone spotting an incident on the ground which intimated a threat to life, or 'danger' should transmit a pan call.

PS: If the N Yorks constabulary needed specific air cover to follow up a situation like this, all it would take is a phone call to one of its 2 neighbours and it would get cross border support instantly.

[ueo]

I think you’re getting all hot under the collar TC about nothing – It equates to the 100s of mobile phone calls from the M1 when various motorists witness an incident and a patrol car is sent along to check it out. What’s the difference?

I have lost count of the amount of house fires I called in to ATC when flogging from one end of the country to another – In fact it all sounds rather public spirited if you ask me! (which means the death knell from the government of course, citizens thinking for themselves and all that!):rolleyes:

[Thomas coupling]

Have you patented yourself UEO...able to identify house fires en route...miraculous comes to mind...bull**** too:D :D :D

There's a slight difference between jamming the local police switchboard and jamming the local ATC with superfluous calls...don't you think?

Interesting handle though:p

[parker]

I honestly think this thread has run its course. I'm the gaffer of Sky Watch and even I am getting fed up with coming onto the site about it - but poor old Thomas Coupling just won't seem to let it drop and his go at UEO really needs replying to.
Spotting fires - domestic and industrial - is no problem. We've called two in - both in remote areas - and we got a commendation from the fire service on one of them - they reckoned the early warning saved the incident from becoming a serious drama.
"jamming the local ATC with superfluous calls" is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Sky Watch has called in 22 incidents so far this year ... hardly jamming ATC.
We're flying legally in free airspace - people like what we are doing - it's no problem to anyone except unless we are touching a sensitive nerve by showing that it is not stricly necessary to be a superman dressed up in a fighter pilot's crash helmet and a Top Gun flying suit to be able to look out of an aeroplane window.
Let's just call it a draw and all just get on with what we are doing.
Kind regards, Arnold Parker, Sky Watch

[Low N aahhR]

Have to confess to only having scanned the posts thus far, so apologies if these points have already been raised, but... I thought that the ANO required that " any aircraft flying in support of a police authority must be operated under the auspices of a PAOC"

The get out clause for anything like that would be "for the purposes of saving life". Not sure if a miss' per' search would classify as that unless there were a few more specifics.

I'm not trying to be a party pooper but it's the sort of approach that could be made to any of us and could drop us in the plop.

Keep the blue above the brown!

[STANDTO]

Blimey, the powers that be have actually listened for once.

Posted in this weeks orders - Thou shalt not commandeer civilian air assets!

Another victory for common sense. Thanks for your help, all

[B Sousa]

Someone mentioned Mr Ford in above posting. Not having first hand knowledge, but from what I heard he did a wonderful job out of his own pocket. We have a "Good Samaritan " Law here that helps cover some things. However this is the states and the big word here is Liability. People normally wont dare do anything that would risk financial exposure. Commandeering of Aircraft sets off big bells and whistles.
From what I have seen and experienced, folks die here all the time as others wont hang it out a bit.

[old heliman]

Don't know if this helps but having looked at the ANO I see that article 7(1) says that a flight by a UK reg a/c in the service of the police a public transport flight - no mention of money at all!!!

Also 7(2) says that it can't fly unless under an AOC or PAOC.

Happy and safe New Year to all.:)

[Helinut]

Good Post, Old Heliman!! I thought that I had the PAOC relevant bits of the ANO fairly clear, but you are absolutely right.

I have heard tell of Police Forces without Air Support using private aircraft and police officers nominated as "observers" flying as pax. Certainly suggests such flights would be a bit risky (for the pilot that is).:cool:

[Max Contingency]

Thought I'd drag this one to the top as I have just heard that Grampian Police used a non POAC helicopter today to assist them in a search for a missing person (unfortunately found dead). Does anyone own up to being the crew or knowing the status of the aircraft?

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

Helinut.

I know of Police observers being carried in a civilian F/W aircraft, but it was operated on an AOC, so thats legal.

[Helinut]

Prof,

Sorry for the delay - been on 4 weeks leave away from the PC ! :D :D

The interesting thing for me was old heliman pointing out that private flights "in the service of the Police" might not be legal. I have flown AOC flights for the police myself in the past, and I see no problem with them.

[SASless]

I have had the State Police on two occasions ask me to fly them in pursuit of criminals and did so without a second thought. One was a kidnapper and a second was after a police officer was shot. The company I operated for....when told of the first event....never batted an eye and told me to continue to support the police upon request as a matter of being a good neighbor and as a service to the community.

I might add that kind of cooperation leads to a warm working relationship when the odd Nimby whined about our landing at the company regional office in a local business park. The investigating officer appeared....pointed out the offended person's business.....and suggested we might avoid that direction when operating from the pad. We agreed to do just that...the officer tipped his hat...reminded me I had missed the morning coffee chat at the police aviation hangar...and that I should drop by more often.

We also flew searches for missing persons....all paid for by the company....as well as doing the flights for terminally ill persons that wanted to ride in a helicopter. Those were the most rewarding flights I have ever done.....particularly for the children.

[Helinut]

SASless,

I could not understand your post - good common sense and a sensible way of enforcing the rules - THEN I saw where you were posting from!!

Forgive our Pom pre-occupation with navel-gazing and incessant reference to obscure regulations, but it is the environment that we operate in!!