Police observers - passengers or crew?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
442: You can rest assured that I also think this subject matters a great deal and I have no doubts that you have a very valid claim against the Insurance Company in question. Clearly, the best legal advice your employers were given at the time was seriously flawed or indeed wilfully negligent and I suggest that this is the line you should take to redress this tragic situation in the courts. I also think that the Chief Constable at the time should have fully satisfied himself that all was in order before committing his policeman to the air support unit, not do have done so was negligent. As an aside, your local MP is a highly experienced QC. If you haven’t already done so can I recommend that you contact him and brief him fully on the facts of the case so that you might gain some representation in parliament?
I apologise for, what in retrospect, looks like a flippant comment, it was not meant to offend. Having said that, however, I still maintain that if the main thrust of your claim is that you were crew at the time and not pax – then it will fail, and that would be a travesty. I wish you the very best of luck..
[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: PurplePitot ]
I apologise for, what in retrospect, looks like a flippant comment, it was not meant to offend. Having said that, however, I still maintain that if the main thrust of your claim is that you were crew at the time and not pax – then it will fail, and that would be a travesty. I wish you the very best of luck..
[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: PurplePitot ]
Thomas, I've put a link to this on the National Air Support Forum. Only had the one reply so far.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: MightyGem ]
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: MightyGem ]
Last edited by Heliport; 29th Jun 2002 at 23:27.
Just a numbered other
PP
I had time to read your 24/9 post but not to reply until now. Now I find it edited!
To answer the (now edited out) points, I can see that the Strathclyde findings could apply to 442. My argument is that that would be wrong, as so many circumstances were different, from ownership of the helicopter, to the role of the police observers on board.
To blindly accept that Andy was not crew because a couple of hapless pioneers of police aviation were deemed passengers, would be ridiculous.
Of course those who stand to pay out a large sum of money will wriggle to avoid it. They must be made to face up to their responsibilities. This thread was started to energise debate on the subject, and it has certainly done that.
Yes PP, your views are as valid as mine or anyone elses, and I have not attacked your right to place them here. I merely objected to your arrogance . quote: OK – This is my last post on the subject / Will this thread never end? unquote. You must defend those views in open argument, not simply expect the rest of us to shut up and agree with you!
I had time to read your 24/9 post but not to reply until now. Now I find it edited!
To answer the (now edited out) points, I can see that the Strathclyde findings could apply to 442. My argument is that that would be wrong, as so many circumstances were different, from ownership of the helicopter, to the role of the police observers on board.
To blindly accept that Andy was not crew because a couple of hapless pioneers of police aviation were deemed passengers, would be ridiculous.
Of course those who stand to pay out a large sum of money will wriggle to avoid it. They must be made to face up to their responsibilities. This thread was started to energise debate on the subject, and it has certainly done that.
Yes PP, your views are as valid as mine or anyone elses, and I have not attacked your right to place them here. I merely objected to your arrogance . quote: OK – This is my last post on the subject / Will this thread never end? unquote. You must defend those views in open argument, not simply expect the rest of us to shut up and agree with you!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ARK & 442.
An interesting but disturbing thread - could other civil cases not be used to assist ?
If civilian SAR aircrewmen are not deemed to be flightcrew, then they must be either aircrew or cabin crew, otherwise there is no point in taking off, because without them it is impossible to attempt a mission. Therefore they are part of the crew and are covered by the appropriate legislation (Operations manual, ANO, AOC etc) and insurance, even though they are unlicenced.
Without quoting the details, two accidents involving Civil SAR crews were investigated by the UK AAIB, and ALL AIRCREW (licenced & unlicenced) had all the usual post accident checks - medical, recency, currency, competence etc. etc.
I would suggest that "passengers" would not be subjected to the same line of investigation - therefore, it would seem that the case has already been made covering "crew" of any description.
Hope that this may assist.
To PP. don't touch that mouse or keyboard.
SARcastic
An interesting but disturbing thread - could other civil cases not be used to assist ?
If civilian SAR aircrewmen are not deemed to be flightcrew, then they must be either aircrew or cabin crew, otherwise there is no point in taking off, because without them it is impossible to attempt a mission. Therefore they are part of the crew and are covered by the appropriate legislation (Operations manual, ANO, AOC etc) and insurance, even though they are unlicenced.
Without quoting the details, two accidents involving Civil SAR crews were investigated by the UK AAIB, and ALL AIRCREW (licenced & unlicenced) had all the usual post accident checks - medical, recency, currency, competence etc. etc.
I would suggest that "passengers" would not be subjected to the same line of investigation - therefore, it would seem that the case has already been made covering "crew" of any description.
Hope that this may assist.
To PP. don't touch that mouse or keyboard.
SARcastic
Just a numbered other
clearto..
It sure does. I'd advise anyone who makes their living flying in helicopters to get a clear decision in writing, as to where they will stand in the event of the unthinkable.
Rest assured, that just as in Andy's case, they will wriggle and squirm to avoid paying out.
I'm sure Andy will win in the end, but is it right with the accident now over three years ago that he must fight in the courts to get compensation for an accident that, no matter where the fault lay, it sure as hell was not with him.
PP I knew you were really on side all along. You just can't resist an argument, can you?
It sure does. I'd advise anyone who makes their living flying in helicopters to get a clear decision in writing, as to where they will stand in the event of the unthinkable.
Rest assured, that just as in Andy's case, they will wriggle and squirm to avoid paying out.
I'm sure Andy will win in the end, but is it right with the accident now over three years ago that he must fight in the courts to get compensation for an accident that, no matter where the fault lay, it sure as hell was not with him.
PP I knew you were really on side all along. You just can't resist an argument, can you?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken the bull by the horns and put this matter in front of my federation reps who, I admit, to my surprise, have seen red and taken it to a national level. I hope that something will get done. Personally, I don't want flight pay or the such, I just want to make sure that, should the unthinkable happen, as unfortunately it sometimes does, I or my next of kin will be fairly treated in compensating for any disability or loss.
I'll update you when I get further details from the Police Federation.
I'll update you when I get further details from the Police Federation.
Just a numbered other
OBERON
Well done. I hope your colleagues (and paramedics) countrywide are going to take this up too. The more noise you make the better. To have to go to court more than 3 years after a tragic and traumatic accident to fight for compensation is disgusting.
Look forward to seeing the federation's answers. They will of course be more than familiar with 442's case as they were obviously involved. My memory is that their promises of support after the accident evaporated as the costs mounted, so better a difinitive answer now than following 442's frustrating and painfull path.
Good luck
Well done. I hope your colleagues (and paramedics) countrywide are going to take this up too. The more noise you make the better. To have to go to court more than 3 years after a tragic and traumatic accident to fight for compensation is disgusting.
Look forward to seeing the federation's answers. They will of course be more than familiar with 442's case as they were obviously involved. My memory is that their promises of support after the accident evaporated as the costs mounted, so better a difinitive answer now than following 442's frustrating and painfull path.
Good luck
Best of luck in this. Many people earn their living in aircraft, and it's important that the "system" realises that you don't have to be a pilot - or even in a trade listed in the ANO, to be part of the operating crew of an aircraft.
I wonder how many aircrew trades the armed forces have between them that wouldn't be listed in the ANO !
G
I wonder how many aircrew trades the armed forces have between them that wouldn't be listed in the ANO !
G
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have put an update on the Air Support Forum and thought it would be worthwhile doing so here.
My federation rep has done some sterling work in the investigation of this matter and has presented it to the Police Federation National Health & Safety Committee. It is hoped that they will take it up and run with it on our behalf. If they decide against it then it is planned to table it as a motion to be discussed by the Police Federation Conference. Whichever way it goes, I hope we will get this obvious injustice into the limelight.
A meeting has also been requested with our Police Authority to obtain their views on the matter, including their proposals for any compensation to observers within our force who may suffer in the event of any accident.
I will update both forums when I hear more but, in the meantime, if any other police observer would care to go to their federation and put pressure from more than one branch, please feel free. If anybody wants to e-mail me and use me to contact our federation rep with the research answers, please do so.
My federation rep has done some sterling work in the investigation of this matter and has presented it to the Police Federation National Health & Safety Committee. It is hoped that they will take it up and run with it on our behalf. If they decide against it then it is planned to table it as a motion to be discussed by the Police Federation Conference. Whichever way it goes, I hope we will get this obvious injustice into the limelight.
A meeting has also been requested with our Police Authority to obtain their views on the matter, including their proposals for any compensation to observers within our force who may suffer in the event of any accident.
I will update both forums when I hear more but, in the meantime, if any other police observer would care to go to their federation and put pressure from more than one branch, please feel free. If anybody wants to e-mail me and use me to contact our federation rep with the research answers, please do so.
Just a numbered other
Surprise surprise.
With 4 weeks to go to the court case, the insurers are beginning to talk money.
Hopefully a just end is in sight. How much do we think fair for the ruined career of a man in his 30s?
With 4 weeks to go to the court case, the insurers are beginning to talk money.
Hopefully a just end is in sight. How much do we think fair for the ruined career of a man in his 30s?
police observers
I have spoken to a friend who is an observer ,who says that as policepersons first they can be called upon to "work" without hours restriction/limitation unlike as per pilots.Would any pilot accept that another member of his crew has been working long hours without proper rest,and then get airborne to do a job??What stones would be upturned at a subsequent Inquiry if there was an accident,even unrelated to the Observers work patterns? 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post Ark Royal
Good news for 442.
Surely the status of obervers ought to be sorted out once and for all. Whatever is decided, at least everyone will know where they stand and avoid the sort of additional distress which 442 had to suffer on top of everything else.
sycamore
"policepersons" ?!?!?!?
Good news for 442.
Surely the status of obervers ought to be sorted out once and for all. Whatever is decided, at least everyone will know where they stand and avoid the sort of additional distress which 442 had to suffer on top of everything else.
sycamore
"policepersons" ?!?!?!?
police observers
Policepersons covers the male and female of the species .I was I hope being non -sexist/P/C,otherwise I could have used @#%>&&,**&£33@@##+, or even##&**@5$4F**,for good measure;just being polite to the poleeth! 
Delighted to hear that, at long last, the insurers bowed to the inevitable.
Chatting about this case with some of our observers, one of them made the point that if their role required some form of FTL compliance then Chief Constables might consider it cheaper to go down the direct-employed-civilian path to filling the non-pilot seats in the aircraft. Beancounting in the modern police world being, of course, more important to some than operational proficiency...
Mighty Gem:
Some of us would consider reading and posting things on your alternative forum if your duty-Cerberus would let us in. I applied, giving my background and quals, and received a snottagram in return saying No Entry, Not Known Here. Well, you're not going to get to know people if you won't let them talk, are you?! Nah, I'll stick to PPRuNe where I can filter out the Walters myself, thanks.
Chatting about this case with some of our observers, one of them made the point that if their role required some form of FTL compliance then Chief Constables might consider it cheaper to go down the direct-employed-civilian path to filling the non-pilot seats in the aircraft. Beancounting in the modern police world being, of course, more important to some than operational proficiency...
Mighty Gem:
Some of us would consider reading and posting things on your alternative forum if your duty-Cerberus would let us in. I applied, giving my background and quals, and received a snottagram in return saying No Entry, Not Known Here. Well, you're not going to get to know people if you won't let them talk, are you?! Nah, I'll stick to PPRuNe where I can filter out the Walters myself, thanks.