Police helicopter wasting public funds
Off topic - sorry!
Police helicopter colour scheme:
It is a voluntary scheme which was copied from the military idea that conspicuity needed updating. Devised mainly for training a/c, the then DERA (now QinetiQ (spelling?), decided after tests that the best colour was matt black all over. This was modified by the time it went into production to gloss black - that is why all the hawk training a/c in the UK are this colour.
I don't know why the mil didn't carry over this colour scheme to other trainers.
When the police looked at it, it came as a recommendation from the H.O. as a 'duty of care' issue - avoid this advice at your peril!
The hierarchy weren't too impressed by matt black (too mad max!), so changed it to the next nearest (publicly acceptable)colour which was dark navy blue. Add to that the fact that the DERA trial wasn't designed for police helicopters, and the colour scheme was further bastardised to navy blue with a small yellow section on top, to cater for low level conspicuity offsetting against a dark countryside background.
This scheme has been further diluted by successive police units choosing additional modifications to the original clean lines, and you have today a real mix of paint schemes - for some - the whole idea of conspicuity has gone right out of the window.
Conspicuity relies on 'bigger is better', therefore the greater the navy blue surface area, the more conspicuous the object.
I wonder where these units stand were there to be an accident involving conspicuity???
MD600: when you use capitals on the web, it means you are SHOUTING
Police helicopter colour scheme:
It is a voluntary scheme which was copied from the military idea that conspicuity needed updating. Devised mainly for training a/c, the then DERA (now QinetiQ (spelling?), decided after tests that the best colour was matt black all over. This was modified by the time it went into production to gloss black - that is why all the hawk training a/c in the UK are this colour.
I don't know why the mil didn't carry over this colour scheme to other trainers.
When the police looked at it, it came as a recommendation from the H.O. as a 'duty of care' issue - avoid this advice at your peril!
The hierarchy weren't too impressed by matt black (too mad max!), so changed it to the next nearest (publicly acceptable)colour which was dark navy blue. Add to that the fact that the DERA trial wasn't designed for police helicopters, and the colour scheme was further bastardised to navy blue with a small yellow section on top, to cater for low level conspicuity offsetting against a dark countryside background.
This scheme has been further diluted by successive police units choosing additional modifications to the original clean lines, and you have today a real mix of paint schemes - for some - the whole idea of conspicuity has gone right out of the window.
Conspicuity relies on 'bigger is better', therefore the greater the navy blue surface area, the more conspicuous the object.
I wonder where these units stand were there to be an accident involving conspicuity???
MD600: when you use capitals on the web, it means you are SHOUTING
Guest
Posts: n/a
TC
As
1, No police units have gone for matt black.
2, All police units have diluted the amount of dark paint on their aircraft
3, The Dera trial was just that, a trial and it came out with a recommendation/ theory (but not a proof) on the best colour scheme.
Then I suspect that those units which have added more and more yellow or not even opted for the current fashion would stand fairly well!
As
1, No police units have gone for matt black.
2, All police units have diluted the amount of dark paint on their aircraft
3, The Dera trial was just that, a trial and it came out with a recommendation/ theory (but not a proof) on the best colour scheme.
Then I suspect that those units which have added more and more yellow or not even opted for the current fashion would stand fairly well!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Midlands
Age: 50
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may add some relevant comments to some of the matters raised above.
Firstly high/low visibility speed cameras.
Police forces have the option to keep "some" of the revenue generated from speed cameras (the rest goes to the govenment) as long as the following conditions apply:
1. The cameras must be brightly coloured and placed in clear sight of road users.
2. The cash raised does not go into the main police budget. It goes into a road safety fund which is spent on road safety matters alone, by a partnership of the police and local authorities.
3. The cameras must only be placed where there is a recorded history of collisions resulting in deaths or serious injuries.
Should a force wish to conceal/hide/camoflage cameras then all of the proceeds go straight to the government.
Whilst I am not a fan of speed cameras, preferring the human side of policing, the misconception is that the police forces make money from the cameras. I can state catagorically that they do not, much as they would like to help their massively streched budgets.
The next major point concerns the funding of police forces and therefore "wasting" of those funds.
Police forces work closely with their local Police Authorities. The Police Authority is made up of normal members of the public who collectively are responsible for overseeing the performance of the force, and more critically set the budget given to the police . Since an airbourne asset is such a considerable investment, it (and its performance) is very closely monitored by both the senior officers and the Police Authority. The budget allocates it a set number of hours for the year. Anything over and above those hours incur an additional expense which again has to be agreed by the force's respective authority.
As a result, our ASU maintains records to indicate the purpose of every flight hour spent and also the results, eg. arrests. The aircraft is operated by a crew and just as I can be done for speeding in my marked police car if I cannot justify it, the crew are responsible for ensuring that the time airbourne is used appropriately.
Don't forget that part of the role of the helicopter can include PR, so if they are able to they will accomodate some requests for aerial photography if it doesn't interfere with the normal operations of the helicopter (ie. training flights are carried out to ensure the crew are up to speed. Some of those flights will practice aerial photography/video work which I see the results of when I need pictures of addresses in my more pro-active policing roles.) There is no reason why a crew take pictures of an event for PR purposes whilst using it as a training exercise.
The key to this however, is that the Police Authority could not give two hoots about how many rule 5 transgressions were reported to the CAA. It is not a role the aircraft is in place for unless there is a direct request from another agency, which is then charged to that agency. Unless it is a policing role, a training flight or an objective set by the chief constable, the cost of additional tasking is passed to the organisation requesting it.
Bearing all of this in mind, i can only think of a couple of reasons why the police helicopter in question has allegedly filmed the landing site area 3 times.
Firstly, it is at the request (and expense) of the CAA.
Secondly, the operations from the heli site are dangerous or interefere with the police helicopter.
Sadly, without a report or prosecution being made by the CAA we may never know.
Obs cop
Firstly high/low visibility speed cameras.
Police forces have the option to keep "some" of the revenue generated from speed cameras (the rest goes to the govenment) as long as the following conditions apply:
1. The cameras must be brightly coloured and placed in clear sight of road users.
2. The cash raised does not go into the main police budget. It goes into a road safety fund which is spent on road safety matters alone, by a partnership of the police and local authorities.
3. The cameras must only be placed where there is a recorded history of collisions resulting in deaths or serious injuries.
Should a force wish to conceal/hide/camoflage cameras then all of the proceeds go straight to the government.
Whilst I am not a fan of speed cameras, preferring the human side of policing, the misconception is that the police forces make money from the cameras. I can state catagorically that they do not, much as they would like to help their massively streched budgets.
The next major point concerns the funding of police forces and therefore "wasting" of those funds.
Police forces work closely with their local Police Authorities. The Police Authority is made up of normal members of the public who collectively are responsible for overseeing the performance of the force, and more critically set the budget given to the police . Since an airbourne asset is such a considerable investment, it (and its performance) is very closely monitored by both the senior officers and the Police Authority. The budget allocates it a set number of hours for the year. Anything over and above those hours incur an additional expense which again has to be agreed by the force's respective authority.
As a result, our ASU maintains records to indicate the purpose of every flight hour spent and also the results, eg. arrests. The aircraft is operated by a crew and just as I can be done for speeding in my marked police car if I cannot justify it, the crew are responsible for ensuring that the time airbourne is used appropriately.
Don't forget that part of the role of the helicopter can include PR, so if they are able to they will accomodate some requests for aerial photography if it doesn't interfere with the normal operations of the helicopter (ie. training flights are carried out to ensure the crew are up to speed. Some of those flights will practice aerial photography/video work which I see the results of when I need pictures of addresses in my more pro-active policing roles.) There is no reason why a crew take pictures of an event for PR purposes whilst using it as a training exercise.
The key to this however, is that the Police Authority could not give two hoots about how many rule 5 transgressions were reported to the CAA. It is not a role the aircraft is in place for unless there is a direct request from another agency, which is then charged to that agency. Unless it is a policing role, a training flight or an objective set by the chief constable, the cost of additional tasking is passed to the organisation requesting it.
Bearing all of this in mind, i can only think of a couple of reasons why the police helicopter in question has allegedly filmed the landing site area 3 times.
Firstly, it is at the request (and expense) of the CAA.
Secondly, the operations from the heli site are dangerous or interefere with the police helicopter.
Sadly, without a report or prosecution being made by the CAA we may never know.
Obs cop
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
obs cop
Secondly, the operations from the heli site are dangerous or interefere with the police helicopter
is there a law that says only the police helicopter can opperate in a area ? what if a police helicopter is dangerous to the opperation of a civvy helicopter ? does a civvy helicopter give way to a police helicopter ? and where is the relevent bits in the ano?
you will more than likely not reply as most of the other police pilots/obs have not replied
as you are wrong again
where i have the greatest respect for carr gate asu i cant say the same for other asu s the advise/answers/views given are incorect
i do however belive this thread will be in the national press next week a reporter has been trying to contact a few ppruners for comments
Secondly, the operations from the heli site are dangerous or interefere with the police helicopter
is there a law that says only the police helicopter can opperate in a area ? what if a police helicopter is dangerous to the opperation of a civvy helicopter ? does a civvy helicopter give way to a police helicopter ? and where is the relevent bits in the ano?
you will more than likely not reply as most of the other police pilots/obs have not replied
as you are wrong again
where i have the greatest respect for carr gate asu i cant say the same for other asu s the advise/answers/views given are incorect
i do however belive this thread will be in the national press next week a reporter has been trying to contact a few ppruners for comments
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
md600 driver,
I think you jump to all sorts of conclusions about what Obs Cop was saying. However, steeling myself to answer your questions (before I run and hide)
Article 63 of the ANO says it is an offence to endanger an aircraft. It applies equally to police aircraft as any other aircraft. The person who does the endangering is the one who may be held responsible by a court. It can be a prat with a laser on the ground trying to blind the pilot of an aircraft, the pilot of any aircraft or someone in it - it all depends what they do.
Police helicopters can have priority over other aircraft, although generally, all aircraft have to comply with the Rules of the Air.
A good example of the sort of situation that might interest a police helicopter is something like the case that I mentioned, where an aircraft contravened a TRA specifically created to protect emergency services aircraft. Not only is it of interest to the police helicopter but, in that case, the pilot of the other aircraft is committing an offence by being in the TRA (without permission).
I am not sure how your comment about "the press" is meant - is it some sort of threat, and if so to whom?
I think you jump to all sorts of conclusions about what Obs Cop was saying. However, steeling myself to answer your questions (before I run and hide)
Article 63 of the ANO says it is an offence to endanger an aircraft. It applies equally to police aircraft as any other aircraft. The person who does the endangering is the one who may be held responsible by a court. It can be a prat with a laser on the ground trying to blind the pilot of an aircraft, the pilot of any aircraft or someone in it - it all depends what they do.
Police helicopters can have priority over other aircraft, although generally, all aircraft have to comply with the Rules of the Air.
A good example of the sort of situation that might interest a police helicopter is something like the case that I mentioned, where an aircraft contravened a TRA specifically created to protect emergency services aircraft. Not only is it of interest to the police helicopter but, in that case, the pilot of the other aircraft is committing an offence by being in the TRA (without permission).
I am not sure how your comment about "the press" is meant - is it some sort of threat, and if so to whom?
Last edited by Helinut; 22nd Sep 2003 at 06:52.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Midlands
Age: 50
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
md 600 driver,
calm down, take my post the way it was intended and please don't pigeon hole me with
If you read my post you will find the following,
1. It has been posted on a Rumour Network, where individuals express opinions.
2. I stated 2 reasons that I could see for the videos allegedly being sent to the CAA. I was not saying that these were the only 2 reasons, I was merely trying to put the matter from the point of view of a police officer.
3. I have not supported or condoned the events, I have merely provided some background information concerning police funding. Afterall, the thread heading introduces "wasting public funds". The one thing that had not been mentioned was where the money allegedly wasted comes from.
In response to your comments,
There is a law relating to temporary areas of controlled airspace being established, at certain times, relating to some police helicopter operations. These instances are, from what I aware, few and far between in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise, the law that applies to all VFR aircraft operations is obviously the rules of the air. Police helicopters are no different from any other aircraft in terms of the need to apply them.
If you were flying your friend around, who happened to have a video camera and an aircraft did something which posed a danger to yourselves or any one else, airbourne or otherwise; you would be quite within your rights to video it and forward it to the local police or the CAA. The police are no different in that respect.
Furthermore,
The operation of surveillance equipment, including video cameras is strictly controlled by the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and more recently the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In a nutshell, we are not allowed to target persons with this equipment unless we have a relevant authority (for which there needs to be supporting intelligence or evidence) or there is a spontaneous incident whereby delaying recording to obtain an authorisation would jepardise the gatering of that evidence.
I find it interesting that you are keen to stress that I am wrong again .
Please let me know where you have previously challenged me for being wrong with my opinions and understanding of police ASU's.
I should also like to know what elements of my last post were wrong, bearing in mind the thrust of my post was to provide background information, not challenging the rights or wrongs of the specific incident which started this post.
Whilst you were willing to quickly and inaccurately stereotype and pigeon hole me, I shall refrain from doing the same to you.
Regards
Obs cop
calm down, take my post the way it was intended and please don't pigeon hole me with
you will more than likely not reply as most of the other police pilots/obs have not replied
as you are wrong again
1. It has been posted on a Rumour Network, where individuals express opinions.
2. I stated 2 reasons that I could see for the videos allegedly being sent to the CAA. I was not saying that these were the only 2 reasons, I was merely trying to put the matter from the point of view of a police officer.
3. I have not supported or condoned the events, I have merely provided some background information concerning police funding. Afterall, the thread heading introduces "wasting public funds". The one thing that had not been mentioned was where the money allegedly wasted comes from.
In response to your comments,
There is a law relating to temporary areas of controlled airspace being established, at certain times, relating to some police helicopter operations. These instances are, from what I aware, few and far between in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise, the law that applies to all VFR aircraft operations is obviously the rules of the air. Police helicopters are no different from any other aircraft in terms of the need to apply them.
If you were flying your friend around, who happened to have a video camera and an aircraft did something which posed a danger to yourselves or any one else, airbourne or otherwise; you would be quite within your rights to video it and forward it to the local police or the CAA. The police are no different in that respect.
Furthermore,
The operation of surveillance equipment, including video cameras is strictly controlled by the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and more recently the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In a nutshell, we are not allowed to target persons with this equipment unless we have a relevant authority (for which there needs to be supporting intelligence or evidence) or there is a spontaneous incident whereby delaying recording to obtain an authorisation would jepardise the gatering of that evidence.
I find it interesting that you are keen to stress that I am wrong again .
Please let me know where you have previously challenged me for being wrong with my opinions and understanding of police ASU's.
I should also like to know what elements of my last post were wrong, bearing in mind the thrust of my post was to provide background information, not challenging the rights or wrongs of the specific incident which started this post.
Whilst you were willing to quickly and inaccurately stereotype and pigeon hole me, I shall refrain from doing the same to you.
Regards
Obs cop
What kind of idiot wants to get the press involved???
The headlines of the Daily Blurt will scream things like "Police helicopter targets innocent private pilot" and will only stir up the locals to complain about any helicopter landing anywhere.
It can only be a bad thing.
The headlines of the Daily Blurt will scream things like "Police helicopter targets innocent private pilot" and will only stir up the locals to complain about any helicopter landing anywhere.
It can only be a bad thing.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
md 600,
This might appear off topic I know, but are you by any chance the pilot of the MD600N involved in an airprox with a police helicopter in November 2000?
Thanks.
This might appear off topic I know, but are you by any chance the pilot of the MD600N involved in an airprox with a police helicopter in November 2000?
Thanks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy torque
no i only got mine in 2001 there are lots of md 600 pilots
by any chance are you the twin engined pilot that crashed into a house in wales
do you still work for a asu?
steve
please note i am in no way against any police pilots in any way whatsoever but i might be getting that way now
no i only got mine in 2001 there are lots of md 600 pilots
by any chance are you the twin engined pilot that crashed into a house in wales
do you still work for a asu?
steve
please note i am in no way against any police pilots in any way whatsoever but i might be getting that way now
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8 Pages?
I've been away from PPRuNe for a few days and was amazed to find that this particular topic has gone on to eight full pages. Isn't it time to stick a fork in this topic... it is definately done!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
md 600,
Thanks
No
No
You do appear to be against police pilots already, reading your last but one post in particular. I was just wondering why.
Thanks
No
No
You do appear to be against police pilots already, reading your last but one post in particular. I was just wondering why.
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD600
No....I was that Pilot. I suffered a tail-rotor control failure at 400'agl & crashed into the roof of a house.
From your tone you seem to think that's it's something to be ashamed of. Go read the accident report & then you'll understand that I'm actually very proud of my actions that day.
What has that to do with this thread anyway?
Do I still work for an ASU? Nope I've got myself a better job, with the all important payrise.
Good Day Gents
No....I was that Pilot. I suffered a tail-rotor control failure at 400'agl & crashed into the roof of a house.
From your tone you seem to think that's it's something to be ashamed of. Go read the accident report & then you'll understand that I'm actually very proud of my actions that day.
What has that to do with this thread anyway?
Do I still work for an ASU? Nope I've got myself a better job, with the all important payrise.
Good Day Gents
Last edited by Roofus; 24th Sep 2003 at 00:38.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: lincoln
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD600 it would be great if the press got involved, just think about all those people on that estate and others who are fed up of helicopters landing in back gardens. They could use the photos to send to the planning departments and confirm that permission has not been granted for use as a heliport. Having money is not an excuse to just do as you wish because its fun and that applies to abusing the privilege of working with a police helicopter.
Have you got planning permission?
Have you got planning permission?
Just a numbered other
Fascinating thread, that's kept me out of the sun for an hour.
The originator appears to have thrown his toys out of the cot because some people have asked him some pertinent questions in an attempt to get him to flesh out his allegations.
That, PpruneRadar, is why he is being asked the questions. If he was not going to substantiate his post, then why post it?
There is obviously a lot more to this than the one sided rant from sbigg. Heliport might like to immediately close ranks with a fellow 'persecuted pilot', but we would like more info upon which to base any judgement.
Here are another few questions, which, If the organ grinder is still pouting, perhaps the monkey could answer.
What kind of grown up uses the handle 'Big G'
Why do you think that a residential area is the right place for a heliport?
If you've got the cash to run helicopters, then why live there? (or is the estate vital to your business?)
The originator appears to have thrown his toys out of the cot because some people have asked him some pertinent questions in an attempt to get him to flesh out his allegations.
That, PpruneRadar, is why he is being asked the questions. If he was not going to substantiate his post, then why post it?
There is obviously a lot more to this than the one sided rant from sbigg. Heliport might like to immediately close ranks with a fellow 'persecuted pilot', but we would like more info upon which to base any judgement.
Here are another few questions, which, If the organ grinder is still pouting, perhaps the monkey could answer.
What kind of grown up uses the handle 'Big G'
Why do you think that a residential area is the right place for a heliport?
If you've got the cash to run helicopters, then why live there? (or is the estate vital to your business?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
big gee back let me point out NO PERSON has ever complained on my estate they are down to earth people and have there own life to live. to be honest they like it.
and as far as planning goes it's over 10 years i have been landing on my own and planning can do jack s--- about it
i have never landed on a house i have never took off with the helilift APU still attached AND NOT REPORTED.
OR TOOK OFF WITH TIE DOWNS on. does this ring a bell to the ASU.
ALL I AM DOING IS LANDING A HELICOPTER, I DONT FLY OVER HOUSES TO LAND at any time i can land safe. NOT ON A HOUSE ROOF
and to top all this off the man who says i have been done by the CAA is wrong and stop slaging me down, and this same man has used my helipad haven't you BOB from sherburn. and i have photos
yes i am back and don;t give a s--- about my grammer
I am at helitech wednesday in ha-ppy .come and see me have a chat, i am a good man not done no harm to any one in my life
Graham Snook ask at helitech i will be there REGARDS ALL
BIG GEE
and as far as planning goes it's over 10 years i have been landing on my own and planning can do jack s--- about it
i have never landed on a house i have never took off with the helilift APU still attached AND NOT REPORTED.
OR TOOK OFF WITH TIE DOWNS on. does this ring a bell to the ASU.
ALL I AM DOING IS LANDING A HELICOPTER, I DONT FLY OVER HOUSES TO LAND at any time i can land safe. NOT ON A HOUSE ROOF
and to top all this off the man who says i have been done by the CAA is wrong and stop slaging me down, and this same man has used my helipad haven't you BOB from sherburn. and i have photos
yes i am back and don;t give a s--- about my grammer
I am at helitech wednesday in ha-ppy .come and see me have a chat, i am a good man not done no harm to any one in my life
Graham Snook ask at helitech i will be there REGARDS ALL
BIG GEE
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sbiggee
I was gonna rise to the bait of your obvious critiscm of my crash. However I've tired of exchanging pleasantries with someone who isn't prepared to have a rational discussion.
If someone knows how to post a link, would you kindly throw up the link to the crash report relating to G-SAEW 21 April 2000. Maybe sbiggee can read it & then decide if critiscm is due. I'm fed up of being criticised by people who haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Enjoy Helitech.......
I was gonna rise to the bait of your obvious critiscm of my crash. However I've tired of exchanging pleasantries with someone who isn't prepared to have a rational discussion.
If someone knows how to post a link, would you kindly throw up the link to the crash report relating to G-SAEW 21 April 2000. Maybe sbiggee can read it & then decide if critiscm is due. I'm fed up of being criticised by people who haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Enjoy Helitech.......