Police Helicopters - Automatic right of way? (Updated) The Law

[Jump Complete]

Yesturday I was flying an aerial photography aircraft. The site was close to, but not in, the ATZ of a regional airport. I was recieving a FIS from them. Approaching the site, having passed the relevent details to the controller, I was told "G-**, there is a police helicoptor operating over the city, low level, you will not be allowed to interfere with their operation."
I just replied, "G-**, Roger."
The photgrapher, (who is my boss, and also a experienced private pilot, said,"Well what else can you say to that?"
Now, obviously, apart from collision aviodence, if something had been said along the lines of "We are on a job, we need to continue on this heading, can you vacate the area for a while.." etc I would have complied, out of airmanship and courtesy. The question I have is, do they have any legal right (I did not see any relevent notams during the flight planning, although that had been 4 hours previously) to the airspace? Or do I technically have the same right to be there as the police helicoptor, again assuming that there isn't any TRA in force?

[df1]

I too would be keen to know about that issue.

I used to fly from Wolverhampton (formerly Halfpenny Green), and recall, on numerous occassions, being advised to go-around live-side due to the police helicopter operations there. Whether it was just bad luck on my part for being in the wrong place at the wrong time I don't know. But my knowlege of Air Law would suggest that I would have had right of way as an aircraft making approach to land (one particular go-around I made from being in ground-effect!). As my experience of the circuit grew and ear became better accustomed to the radio a learned to anticipate the situation and would be prepared. I really didn't mind as they seemed a friendly bunch and i'm sure were on important calls.

But yes, good question.

[Jump Complete]

df1-
I too, wouldn't have minded. I'm sure they are a friendly bunch who are just trying to do their job, and I'm not anti-police either. But ATC (they too are friendlyand helpfull at the airport in question) put strong enthasis on the not in phrase "You will not be allowed to interfere..." It just felt a little high handed and smacked of some police commisioner sending a notice to ATC to pass that message on to pilots who might get in the way...
Whether they have the legal right to or not is irrelevent of course, I wouldn't have aurgued about it, but being virtually ordered to keep out of the way in open FIR did slightly rankle.

[1261]

Generally speaking UK ATC will apply the same priority to police helicopters as to all other traffic, unless the police helicopter has indicated that his flight has priority. This is usuallly done with the use of a slightly different callsign; commonly "Police 51" will indicate a non-priority flight where "Blue 51" has priority.

Hope this helps....

[AlanM]

First of all the controller sounded a little brisk and short with you - and I am not sure why.

All he had to say was that there is priority traffic approaching.

1261 - I think the whole of the UK has changed from using the Blue c/signs. Certainly in the South East it has.

In the LCTR/LCity zone we have two Police Helicopters operating - "Police 251" and "Police 252". They are the Met ASU aircraft and are always Category B. The new rules are that they must say their flight priority with the callsign. (See the UK AIP for a list of the priorities.) However, it has been agreed that the Met Police are always Cat B so they drop the bravo bit. If they are positioning home and low priority they are "P251Zulu" (the lowest Cat) or they can upgrade themselves to "P251Alpha". This means they have absolute priority - even over scheduled IFR traffic. The other two helicopters at Luton and Benson working for the Thames ASU are Police 381 and 382 and they also use a one letter suffix to denote their flight priority. The crews are given the authority to use Cat Alpha as necessary.

Other users of this system are Helimed. We have Helimed 27 based in the London Hospital and Helimed 24 at White Waltham. They use excatly the same flight priority system. They can be Cat Alpha even when positioning sometimes - if they have to pick up a specialist medical team before going to an incident.

So - to finally answer your question, the CAA have invested the police pilots the authority to fly at Category Alpha, and even set up TRA's (Temporary Restricted Areas). Must be something in the ANO I guess.

The police/helimed that we deal with are excellent operators. They appreciate the job we do and try not to mess us around.......too much!:rolleyes:

[df1]

Jump Complete,

Yes, it does seem unusual to be told "not" to do something! I myself have never experienced that. Its not like the usual "remain clear of......", or "negative, maintain......".

A question would be "what constitutes interference; do normal rules of separation and avoidance apply?".

My reply to ATC would have been the same as yours, although I know some that would have questioned the order, asking for clarification as to how to avoid "interference".

Jump Complete, did you have to alter your flight path at all?

[AlanM]

Although I wasn't there, it sounds a bit like the controller got a bit excited!

Depends on the task of the police heli - he may want a sterile area - or be on a "fluid" operation - i.e. a stolen car which will move quickly, and erratically and the pilot may not have time to keep informing ATC.

The police helicopters have a job to do, but as an ATCO I always ask if they can accept other traffic nearby. i.e. During the Mayday protests in London 4 helicopters were all wanting to be on site within 0.5 miles of the rally. (3 news heli's!!) The police who happy to let 2 others be there at the same time. They are always flexible and help us out - but still fulfill their task. They tend not to be bothered about transits.

Where did this happen then!!?!?! You say you were outside the ATZ - but were you in a Control Zone/CAS?

:eek: :sad:

[david viewing]

Hmm this might be co-incidence, but yesterday I was VFR near a big regional airport talking their radar when I got a call addressed direct to me from an unrecognised callsign which I foolishly answered with 'go ahead'.

There followed a long dictation about 'attending an incident' most of which was unintelligible through being stepped on by other traffic. Even more foolishly, I asked him to repeat. At this point radar told me to shut up which I did.

After a few moments I realised that this must have been low level helicopter traffic and that he wanted me to relay to radar for him. I also realised that I should have referred the call immediately to radar instead of answering him directly, which I did because a) was unprepared and b) thought it was some kind of emergency.

A few minutes later he contacted radar directly and dictated what sounded like the same message involving a priority routing or something of the sort.

So I ended up feeling a right clot and radar, if you're reading this, I'm sorry.

[Jump Complete]

Some interesting replies there, nice to know I'm not alone in feeling that it was a odd way of doing things. To clarify, when I was told this, I hadn't arrived yet on site, and had simply passed my details in the standard way plus brief details on my mission.
I generally find ATC to be helpful and relaxed there.
df1 My 'flight path' were the obits over the site, with the photography giving me left/right straight on instructions for his shots. In the event whilst we were operating the police helicoptor was about five miles away so there was no confliction.
The airport was a regional in class G airspace but I was operating about a mile away from the ATZ, close to the extended centre-line. (We has just finshed when the controller started to ask if I was staying any longer as he had an airliner joining-fair enough!)

Of course I appreciate that in an event like tracking a stolen car etc they'll need to do whatever they need to do, but it seemed like a heavy way of telling me I may be required to let him through! (after all I wasn't actually stopped from being there!)

[phnuff]

From my experience of flying from Luton where the Chiltern (may be wrong name), helicopter operates from, I can honestly say that for he most part, both police helicopter & ATC are very reasonable and the police have happily waited for me to land or taxi etc. On occasion, they have, or it seemed to me, been granted priority when taking off and required at some scene with urgency.

I must admit " you will not be allowed to interfere with their operation." sounds a bit 'abrupt' and maybe there was something going down that warrented such a response - these days, who knows.

[ecj]

I think this would be a suitable topic for GASIL.

Perhaps those who were affected might like to send their thoughts to the Editor, GASIL at CAA Gatwick.

That way, an official view is obtained, and the topic is brought into a much wider domain.

In the meantime, apply good airmanship to any [potential] incident which might occur.

Keep ATC informed of your intentions. They are their to help YOU.
If in any doubt, don't be afraid to ask.

THINK AIRMANSHIP

[TurboJ]

It is a myth that the pilot of the police helicopter is a police officer. To my knowledge they never have been and never will be. Police forces contract out the job of pilot to private firms. Not only does this make life cheap for the police force in question, it gives the job of flying the machine to somebody who is not interested in the police activity on the ground. This is the job of the observer, who is a police officer and operates the equipment.

Many a police recruit have left Hendon and commented, "I want to go and fly the helicopter, its why I joined" Yeah right.....not before me !!!

[ecj]

I think you will find that about 20 years ago Police Officers did in fact operate as pilots. I can recall that an Optica crashed [spun in?] in the Bournemouth area killing both crew. I don't know whether the aircraft commander was a PPL or CPL holder.

All this was before Police AOCs etc.

[Captain Stable]

TurboJ, while you are fundamentally correct, in some forces it is arranged that the commander of a police aircraft (who may be the pilot or the observer as the operational commander) have powers of arrest whilst in the air.

Pilots of some forces, whilst still civilians, have powers of arrest.

Seems odd, I know, but it is theoretically possible for them to arrest you over the R/T. You need, of course, to be committing an arrestable offence, but you may find that, whilst you are technically obeying the law of the air, obstructing a policeman in the commission of his duty is an offence. If they then decide to go all the way and arrest you, they can order you to land at a mutually satisfactory airfield and to present yourself at such-and-such a place for further "debriefing".

[PPRuNe Radar]

Don't have my law book to hand .. useful as a door stop usually ;) All opinions are mine and should not be taken as legal fact. Where is Flying Lawyer when you need him ??

But there is if I recall no general exemption for police aircraft from the Rules of the Air in the ANO (save the generic dispensation for the saving of life which applies to all aircraft anyway and low flying exemptions, etc).

Within Controlled Airspace and ATZs, then the rules applicable to ATC would come in to play. In these cases ATC can instruct you to remain clear, avoid certain areas, etc. However these would not apply outside Controlled Airspace and ATZs.

If not under the jurisdiction of an ATC unit, then the Rules of the Air are arguably those which both you AND the police aircraft must comply with. Airmanship and common sense also have a part to play of course and if you are aware of a police activity it is probably good manners and citizenship to do what you can to assist by remaining clear. But you cannot legally be told to keep clear unless there is a Restriction of Flying area established.

Indeed if you are in a balloon, glider, or airship, you could perhaps claim a counter charge against the police aircraft if he doesn't give way to YOU ;)

[df1]

Captain Stable,

Getting arrested over the R/T Sounds like something that would only happen to me!!:* Only joking!

How would that conversation go? "G-****, you are under ARREST. You do not have to say anything! Anthing you do say will be taken down [presumably on CVR!?] and may be used against you. " / I say: " Sorry, station calling - READABILTY ZILCH" and promptly set 7600 on the txdr!

Do you think it would work ;)

Or can an EC-135 out run a PA28 at full chat?

[witchdoctor]

As a fellow aerial photographer, this thread is proving most interesting. Although I have operated within about 1nm of the North East ASU helicopter over Newcastle, ATC did nothing more than advise us as to the presence of the helicopter and to maintain a good lookout. Should we have been instructed/advised to reposition to make way for the police, I would have happily done so - anything which assists in putting more scum behind bars the better - but it would appear that ATC were unnecessarily dramatic about it all in this instance. Sometimes I think ATC treat everybody in a light single as some drooling simpleton who clearly cannot exercise good judgement and airmanship.

[MightyGem]

I've been flying for Merseyside for six years now and can't ever recall ATC telling someone that they can't come near us.

[Thomas coupling]

Captain Stable:
The only powers we have as civvy drivers, is citizen's rights. This means practicing these rights only when an arrestable offence takes place.
Interfering with a police helicopter in the course of its duties is not necessarily an arrestable offence, unless a breach of the peace occurs, I believe. Even Police officers can't arrest for this obstruction, agan unless a breach of the peace occurs.
They can invite the other pilot to land somewhere and 'warn him' of his actions, but that is it.

There is probably an air and maritime law that protects this particular area.

We rely on common sense to get our job done. If we were prosecuting a job, OUTCAS, for instance, and a puddle jumper ignored or refused to move away from our intended route, then we would have to back off due to flight safety! The job may be lost as a result.
I would attempt to chase that pilot up to determine what happened, after I landed, just to clear up the situation.

However, if I invoked my priority call sign, (c/s, ******alpha)
(a) it would have to be justifiable, and
(b) it would require that other pilot to back off, INCAS only.


We are not special, we simply practice something which is not fully understood by some.

PS: Not all police pilots are contract pilots, the lucky ones amongst us actually work full time for the police authority.:D

[whoateallthepies]

ANO Rule 17 (1)

(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.

(g) Sub-paragraph (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator's certificate.

So we all have to give right-of-way to the Police.

The PAOC also exempts Police aircraft from most of Rule 5 (Low Flying).

I also think the comments from ATC in this case were a bit alarmist but I think he/she was only trying to be helpful (as ATC invariably are).:ok:

[Helinut]

Outside CAS and ATZs wth ATC, the normal Rules of the Air apply and police aircraft have no special priority. ATC may ask someone else to keep clear, but the airspace is uncontrolled. If the situation was as suggested, then ATC did not have control of any aircraft OCAS.

In CAS, ATC operate levels of priority, known in the trade as Categories. AlanM ran through the gist. Because the movements of aircraft in CAS are controlled, it is possible for ATC to exercise their control to give priority to certain traffic.

Following a big incident, a TRA or similar may be invoked. Usually, the police ask for it, but CAA DAP grant the restriction and promulgate it via a NOTAM.

Police pilots are not police officers, but this is not because of any prohibition, but because police officers don't have the minimum flying experience required by the CAA. Some are employed by contractors and some directly employed by police forces as civilian staff. The pilots of police helicopters do not have powers of arrest, but the aircraft is being operated in the service of the police (obviously) and is (usually) tactically commanded by a police officer (observer) who has the normal powers of that office.

[Anton van Dellen]

Police helis also undertake casevac work at the request of the ambulance service, mostly at very short notice. Much appreciated!! :cool:

[Captain Stable]

As a former police driver (in a non-standard capacity and non-standard environment - details withheld to protect the guilty :cool: ) I was assured that, in the force for which I was working, I had powers of arrest whilst on operational duty.

I can also confirm the exemption from both the 500' and the 1500' rules. I recall one operation we carried out which gave cause to us (me and the boys in the back) wondering how a conversation in court might go:-

"Captain Stable, would you like to inform the court exactly why you were flying over the city at 200 feet above ground level?"
"Certainly - because I can :p "

We also had the option of invoking the Official Secrets Act, the Defence of the Realm Act and a host of other stuff. CAA FOI's didn't like visiting us and inspecting the Discretion Reports because they all said "Due Operational Reasons" and nobody told them any more than that. I hate to see a grown CAA man cry... :{ :E

[AlanM]

Going back to the original part of the question......

....surely the police have no real use of flight categories outside CAS.

After all - jump complete was outside CAS and not in an ATZ so therefore could have not spoken to anyone anyway - and no-one would have known!

I still think that the controller could have said what he wanted another way - but was probably a bit pi$sed off at you being near the extended centreline!

No police helicopter pilot I have ever met or worked has ever been arsey on the RT about such a thing.

[SASless]

Captain Stable....the Lord does work in wondrous ways! Tell me you never giggled inside...or alllowed even a wee grin to escape!

[whoateallthepies]

Helinut

Read the ANO rule 17.
A police aircraft always has right of way. (See my reply above):rolleyes:

[StevieTerrier]

About a month ago Man United were playing at Old Trafford (think it was Real Madrid) and I was passing by working Manchester. It was about 1 hour before kick-off, and a TV helicopter was en-route to Old Trafford. He had a Non-Standard Flight number (how many of you know about that requirement, I must admit it was news to me, I should get out more..) so thought he was OK.

Air Traffic simply told him he couldn't go there, because the Police Heli was operating there, too bad for you Sir. The Pilot pointed out that he had an NSF no., still no joy. He tried a couple of various tacks, but ATC were having none of it, and basically just left him hanging out to dry, with nowhere to go. In the end they were ignoring his calls which were getting more pitiful by the minute .."but our customer has paid for the hour before kick off, I dont know what to do now...."

However, the Lancs Bizzies saved the day for our boy, saying that they were happy for Mr TV to operate above them provided they kept at 2000', which is where they wanted to be anyway.

So well done Mr. Plod (might even have been Mighty Gem??) and no marks to Manchester for a very intransigent attitude on this occasion.

[AlanM]

Well don the plod!! Creep Creep!!

With regard to the NSF numbers..... In the LHR/LCY zones a NSF is always SUBJECT traffic loadings. As I said before, we had the same problem with the May Day protests in London. We could only safely accomodate a max of three helis. As they were all in the City zone which is Class D we could of just given traffic info. Indeed, the policeman was asking how many were in the zone etc and getting conerned and asked for no more if poss. Therefore a compromise between all could be reached, giving the news gatherers 20 mins each etc. However, I had a whinging BBC crew keep saying "But we are going live at 1803hrs - we must go back in the zone". Eventually another heli (G-OITN i think!) offered to pull out for 10 mins.

Now - I was luckily not busy for 5 mins and with lots of traffic info we achieved the task. MAYBE Manchester were really busy and this is all low priority stuff, so I can understand it if they were under the cosh.

Oh and for the record - I watched the news on my break and they DIDN'T go live to the helicopter. Gits!!

[mainecoon]

stevie
on the radio atc are not allowed to discuss the operation of high priority aircraft on the rt with anybody including the pilot of such aircraft , in the case you talk of police 15

they do not have to inform us about thier operation at al but the crews are all switched on and understand the problems involved
therefore they very often will suggest a way around the situation that will not compromise thier ops

so before you dis my pals on approach try to get the full picture first

[StevieTerrier]

Mainecoon -

No offence intended to your pals in approach who generally do a great job - , BUT on this occasion I think they were somewhat lacking for two reasons :

1) The telly-heli had been provided with an NSF number, so ATC must have known what his intentions were - if not, then the system is sadly inadequate.

2) AlanM points out that the NSF authorisation is subject traffic loading. I dont think that two helicopters, both flown by professional crews, way off any approach / departure paths to MCR, could be considered high traffic density, do you?

Actually the posting was meant to be a pat on the back for Mr. Plod rather than a poke in the eye for Manch. But there you go, just another pilot-ATC misunderstanding, I guess!
:ok:

[mainecoon]

take your point stevie but if they have priority ie class b or if the most serious class a the nsf number means nothing , the cops can do what they want without regard to air tradjic or anyone our hands are tied

and with respect the heli tele talking about how his clients have paid for the slot will become annoying when we can do nothing about it

thanks for the reply though the dialogue always helps

regrds

[Thomas coupling]

Captain UnStable: I don't know who you are or where you are from because your profile is very scant. But,

You amaze me with your latest response:

If you thought you suddenly became 'James Bond' because you were a police pilot...they must have seen you coming:O

First of all, police pilots are never and will never be vested with special powers to arrest people whilst on operational duties:=

Secondly, if you flew 200' over a built up area in a police helo...you wouldn't want to be telling anyone, let alone pprune et al :( [the minimum is 300', and only when absolutely necessary]

Third, if you genuinely believe there is some mystery surrounding 'discretion reports and the secrets act' then you really need to put your toys away and go outside to play!!!

Hopefully you have moved on now to some admin job in MI6 or somewhere :O

[Helinut]

whoateallthepies,

I think you are jumping to one or two unwarranted conclusions about Rule 17 of the Rules of the Air.

The exemptions for police ops are to allow a police aircraft to formate on another aircraft for police purposes, such as obtaining the aircraft registration for some reason. As with so many things about police ops, the exemption is found in the law, and the restrictions under which police pilots can use the exemption are in the PAOM (CAP 612). They don't amount to a general exemption from the Rules of the Air for police ops. If you think about it, it would be crazy to have any class of aircraft exempt from the Rules of the Air.

..... Which does not mean that when we are on task OCAS we wouldn't like you to choose to give us a wide berth, if you can. In a rather similar way to how most pilots would react to, for example, aircraft doing aerial photography.

[What Limits]

If you think about it, it would be crazy to have any class of aircraft exempt from the Rules of the Air.

All military aircraft are!

[Hingeless Rotor]

As I understand it, in Australia pilots have the powers of a “Senior Constable” (that was “constable”) as written in the ACT whilst in command of an aircraft. I’m not sure if this could be expanded to include an arrest over the airways, but officially you can “tie” up a passenger (open to SASless interpretation) if he/she was threatening you or your passengers in any way.

In the not so distant past, many police pilots in Victoria did the 18 week basic training that would otherwise allow them to be put out on the beat. They were given “freddies” (Badges and numbers etc) as a member of the police force. There job was to fly the aircraft. This has since changed.

Interesting read………

[Ascend Charlie]

In NSW, the pilots are (or were) fully trained and uniformed flatfoots (flatfeet?) with all the powers of a regular copper. We all went through the Copper Refinery for the basic course - 3 months when I did it, now one year. But we didn't really use the powers of arrest, being parked behind the controls. Usually got a ground unit to make the arrest, kept us out of court and in the air. If we ever had to go to town in uniform, we hoped like crazy that we were never called upon to do something copperish.

In flight, we could declare police priority in controlled airspace, and on the highest level we could push jumbos out of the way. Never used that one myself, preferred to negotiate with ATC without pulling rank. By being nice about it, we usually got where we wanted to go.

As far as another aircraft demanding his "right of way" and blasting through a police operation OCTA, fortunately I never met anybody who was this big a d1ckhead. Somebody might be curious, and some choppers chartered by the press for photos will push the limits, but none that i heard of got completely in the way.

And trying to arrest another plane over the radio would be a real hoot. I think you would need a Huey gunship to have any credibility.:8

[glencoe]

Not knowing the full details of where & when - I am unable to give a reason as to why this happened. However, due to certain situations (again, not knowing the full facts of the incident the Police were attending), there can be inmplmented a "No Fly Zone".

These sorts of restrictions are normally in place for a major incident, a VIP movement or if it is believed that the presence of another aircraft will hinder the operation. As you can imagine, there are not that many times this "restriction" is used, but it has been known.

Hope this goes some way of clearing up the matter.

Mac

[Thomas coupling]

Under certain circumstances, the police can invoke (only through consultation with the Rescue Co-ord Centre (RCC)at Kinloss) either a:
Temporary Danger Area, or a Temporary restricted flying area around a crash scene etc.
This is done to minimise aeriel deconfliction while the job in hand can be dealt with.
Common sense...I would have thought?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To those of you that are of the Police Pilot persuasion in the UK and Oz it seems that you operate under a set of rigid and fixed rules when it comes to having the right of way. Most of you would probably hurl your lunch if you ever got involved in a police freeway chase in Los Angeles. You could have police helicopters from different jurisdictions along with state police helicopters and as many as ten or more news ENG helos following the same action. Everybody jockeying for position much like the National Air races but for helicopters.

:ok:

[Pub User]

What Limits

Military aircraft are not exempt from Rules of the Air.

They are exempt from certain elements of the Air Navigation Order, so long as they are flying in accordance with Military Flying Regulations, which contain basic rights-of-way rules identical to the civilian ones.

The only big difference is the so-called '500ft rule', which is replaced by several hundred pages of military low-flying regulations.

[whoateallthepies]

Helinut

Sorry that you think I am jumping to conclusions about rule 17 but maybe you should read it more closely.

Yes 17(1)(c) refers to aircraft in formation --- read on.
17(1)(e) refers to an aircraft having right of way maintaining it's course and speed.

17(1)(g)Both of those paragraphs(c and e) do not apply to a police aircraft.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, in which case I need educating. How do you interpret this rule?

[Another KOS]

whoateallthepies:

If you are interested in another's interpretation:

It is a well known principle that the only person that can rule what a regulation means is a Judge - all other positions are interpretation, including that of the person who wrote it.

Helinut is probably correct in that the alleviation (contained in 17(g)) was given to police aircraft only for the purpose of carrying out the task allocated to them.

An alleviation is only as broad as it needs to be to permit the exempted activity - in my opinion (which is no better than yours) you are reading far too much into the words.

[Flying Lawyer]

[1] Police pilots do not have power of arrest.

TC is right. A civilian pilot flying police aircraft in the UK does not have a police constable's power of arrest. If Captain Stable was flying abroad the law might be different.
We all have the right to make a 'citizen's arrest' in certain limited circumstances, but they are more limited than a police constable's.

There are circumstances in which a pilot of another aircraft might be reported and prosecuted for 'Obstructing an (airborne) police officer in the execution of his duty', but the pilot would only be guilty if his obstruction was 'wilful' not accidental.


[2] Police aircraft do not have automatic right of way.

Rule 17 doesn’t require ‘interpretation’ in the sense suggested aboves; it needs understanding. Unfortunately, parliamentary lawyers who draft our laws are notoriously reluctant to use plain English.
The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
Rules for avoiding aerial collisions
17.—(1) General
(a) ..........
(b) ..........
(c) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.
(d) ..........
(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has the right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.
(f) ..........
(g) Sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.

Sub-paragraph (g) allows 'police aircraft' to formate on another aircraft without the agreement of the other commander (the rest of us can only do so if he/she agrees) and, secondly, to alter course and/or speed even if it's the aircraft with right of way. NB: It doesn't change what the rest of us have to do.

So, to answer the point made by whoateallthepies:
No, sub-section (g) does not mean "we all have to give right-of-way to the Police."
All it means is that while the rest of us must maintain our course and speed if we're the aircraft with the right of way, a police aircraft may change course and/or speed even when it's the aicraft with right of way.

Two scenarios involving you and a police aircraft:
(1) Because of your respective positions/course, you have right of way.
The police pilot must take action to avoid you because you have right of way. You are required by law to maintain course/speed whilst he does so.
(2) Because of your respective positions/course, the police aircraft has right of way.
You must take avoiding action. However, the police pilot may, or may not, maintain his course/speed because he's not required by law to do so.
Don't be too alarmed. Unless there's a good reason, the police pilot will maintain his course/speed in accordance with good airmanship, and he's not exempt from the requirement in sub-section (1)(a) to take all possible measures to ensure he doesn't collide with you, nor (1)(b) not to fly in such proximity to you as to create a danger of collision. :D

[3] Rule 5
Aircraft flying in accordance with a police air operator's certificate do not have to comply with certain specified provisions of Rule 5:
(1)(a)(ii)
(1)(c)
(1)(d)
and
(1)(e).

In the case of aviation legislation, most of the fault for rules and regs with numerous sub-sections and cross-references which are so difficult to understand lies with the CAA, not with the parliamentary lawyers. The CAA ethos is to impose lots of restrictions, which then require a series of exemptions/qualifications; it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to reduce them into an easily understandable form.
Compare, for example, our absurdly long and complicated Rule 5 with the FAA equivalent: FAR Section. 91.119 is a model of simplicity, easily understood by anyone - and a much more sensible rule IMHO.
Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators. :rolleyes:
Aviation legislation in the UK is unnecessarily complicated. I work with it daily, but frequently have to read provisions several times to understand what they mean. Sadly, I see so signs of improvement.
I’ll get off my hobby-horse :D - hope the law is now clear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lu Z
I wouldn't worry too much about police pilots in the UK, Lu. Most are ex-mil, and those who aren't are very experienced civvy operators.
Your description of chases in LA made me smile - you're absolutely right. :D I flew an ENG helicopter in LA for a week a few years ago and, when there's a chase, the sky is suddenly full of helicopters which seem to appear from nowhere. When the chase ends, everyone orbits overhead. I never saw the stop and inevitable short pursuit on foot, I was too busy avoiding a mid-air! ;)


(Edited to remove the history/development of the Rule 17 which, on reflection, wasn't necessary.)

Tudor Owen

[Another KOS]

Flying Lawyer:

You might properly have prefaced all of your remarks with in my opinion to avoid the implication that what you are saying is absolute. It requires a court of law to establish the exact meaning of any regulation - as you will no doubt agree.

I think that those of us who have read and considered the alleviation built in to Rule 17 for police operators would agree with your interpretation (for that is what it is – albeit an informed one).

However, on a more interesting topic: FAR Section. 91.119 is a model of simplicity, easily understood by anyone - and a much more sensible rule IMHO.

Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators.I would like to put forward an alternative view. As you are no doubt aware, ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air, is the basis for compliant text in all signatory States (and is absolute over the high seas). Therefore: FAR 91.119(a) is compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 3.1.2; FAR 91.119(b) is compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 4.6 a; FAR 91.119(c) is less than compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 4.6 b (compliance would see 500’ as an absolute level); FAR 91.119(d) removes, for helicopters, compliance with (b) and (c) and consequently, with ICAO.is that filed as a difference? Not in my 30/4/99 version of SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEX 2 (NINTH EDITION).

Now comes the rub, the simplicity that you point to removes the applicability of regulations to helicopters and replaces the rule with the objective without hazard.

This alleviation permits any helicopter (single or twin - reciprocal or turbine) to fly over cities (and anywhere else) at any height, with impunity – has anyone ever heard of a prosecution in the US of a pilot who crashed into a building? (It should however be added that FAR 135.203 restricts the freedom of flight over cities to 300’.) I would argue that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules.

Do you still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?

Is it worthwhile continuing this discussion in a new thread?

[Helinut]

Someone must have been listening to Flying Lawyer. :)
The CAA have just added a second consultation round to their website re: their proposal to change Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air, all about low flying.

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/document.asp?groupid=362

I suggest that anyone interested in UK aviation has a good look. My initial reaction is that the proposal is a remarkable improvement on the existing Rule 5. It is actually written in English for a start, unlike the existing Rule 5! :cool: :ok:

The only problem I have found so far is that police aviation is not exempt from the "flying over crowd" rule: at the moment police flying has such an exemption from the current "crowd" rule.

In general, when police aviation gets an exemption it is usually limited. The exemption from the normal rule only exists while the aircraft is being flown within the terms of the PAOC. The PAOC requires compliance with the Police Air Operations Manual. This sets out all sorts of restrictions and requirements that must be followed. If a police pilot does not follow the PAOM, he is not operating in accordance with the PAOC, and therefore cannot use the exemption from the basic rule.

[Flying Lawyer]

Another KOS
I intended my explanation to be read as 'the law.' There was no need to preface my remarks with a caveat on this occasion. The law is clear, although clumsily drafted, and does not require interpretation. I suppose, to be pedantic, my illustrations of the application of the law were in my opinion.

No, the 'alleviation' in FAR 91.119 does not permit helicopters to fly over cities or anywhere else "at any height with impunity."
Firstly, that is not what the 'alleviation' says.
Secondly, it must be read in conjunction with the over-riding 'endangering' provisions/sanctions. From memory, I think reckless flying etc is covered in FAR 91.13 or thereabouts.
The 'alleviation' is not a defence to endangering. If a US pilot endangers, he can be prosecuted by the FAA and will be convicted if the court considers 'objectively' it was dangerous- even if he/she 'subjectively'didn't think so.

I don't agree that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules. The rules are clear.
Do I still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?
Yes. (In conjunction, of course, with our own 'endangering' provisions.)

I agree that if we are to pursue this aspect, it's probably better discussed in a new thread. Good idea. I'll look out for it. :ok:

[Another KOS]

Flying Lawyer:

You are being too defensive of the the FAA:FAR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface…May I respectfully suggest with the absence of (b) and (c) for helicopters, there is no low flying provision and all that is left is endangement - ipso facto there is no rule.

There is also the question of non-conformance with ICAO - without filing a difference!

[Flying Lawyer]

Another KOS
Defending the FAA? :confused:
I merely expressed my opinion that FAR 91.119 is a far better provision in every sense than our Rule 5. With respect, and only in my opinion of course, you appear to misunderstand the effect of the concession for helicopters in sub-section (d).

"ipso facto there is no rule."
There is a rule. Helicopter pilots must not fly below the minimum heights specified in (b) and (c) unless they can do so "without hazard to persons or property on the surface…" The concession doesn't give helicopter pilots in the US carte blanche to fly as they wish; it contains a very important 'unless' proviso which must be satisfied before they may avail themselves of the concession.
You may not approve of the FAA low flying provisions and/or you may think there should be a minimum height in all circumstances (save emergency or 'official' helicopters), but they are nonethless rules.

Helinut
Thanks for the heads-up re the latest Rule 5 consultation. The second round was due to begin last February, and I hadn't noticed it had now begun.
Simplifying aviation legislation to make the rules easier to understand and apply has been a hobby-horse of mine for years. Perhaps we're getting somewhere at last? Rule 5 is a good place to start - only 10,000 more to go! :D

[whoateallthepies]

Flying Lawyer

Many thanks for your expertise on rule 17.
I always thought it was not written very clearly but your explanation is very clear.

I flew police helicopters for a few years but of course always adhered to rule 17, never feeling that I had any more right to a particular piece of airspace than anyone else. (Which is the case).

A police pilot's workload can be quite high and their lookout degraded due to the nature of the job. I think all pilots should bear it in mind when operating close to police operations.

[Flying Lawyer]

A police pilot's workload can be quite high and their lookout degraded due to the nature of the job. I think all pilots should bear it in mind when operating close to police operations. http://bestanimations.com/Careers/Law/Police/Police-06.gif

http://www.jetthrust.com/vote/pics/img3e7e95d9d1437.jpg

[truncheon meat]

As one of those lucky coppers who get to fly in police aircraft as observer there are several points to clarify. The Category system is intended to help ATC decide what priority we believe the task should be given.

Normal transits (returning from task or repositioning) will be routine whereby the polioce aircraft will have no precedence over any other aircraft and will stick to heli routes or any route as dictated by ATC.

Normal police tasks supporting officers on the ground will be Cat B and we would "hope" that we may be given some priority on these tasks. These could include searching for missing persons, vehicle pursuits and suspect searches.

Cat A should only be used where life is at risk and we would then expect to be given priority in most cases. I personally have only called Cat A on two occasions in 5 years and that was dictated by restrictions from ATC which would otherwise have prevented us from completing the task. On most occasions there is no requirement to call Cat A as ATC are very good at coordinating us with other traffic. Obviously this only applies in controoled airspace but on our unit we have an excellent liaison with ATC who regularly visit us and even fly with us to assure them that we are doing what is necessary and not just messing people about for the fun of it. We are conscious of the disruption we sometimes cause but, to be honest, you would get out of the way for an emergency service vehicle on a blue light run on the ground, we are doing the same job but just a little higher!

One final thing, Turbo's comment that as a non police officer, the pilot is not interested in what's going on below is way off the mark. The pilot must concentrate on flying the aircraft and on the task on the ground and take into consideration factors from both to ensure that a) The aircraft remains in a safe flight configuration and b) The observers and police officers on the ground have the best chance of successfully completing the task at hand. Our pilots are as keen as they can be to get the job done with due regard for safety and good airmanship and, often it's like having a third copper in the cab.