Police observers - passengers or crew?
Guest
Posts: n/a
police observers - passengers or crew?
Police air observers are classified, by the CAA and their forces, as passengers. We are, I believe, systems managers on the aircraft and, on many occasions, assist the pilot in the day to day routine of moving and managing the aircraft. Is this a get out clause for the police force involved in the use of the observer? As a passenger our claim in the event of any accident is limited. If the worst scenario occurred our next of kin would be unable to claim more than pennies from the force operating the aircraft. As apssengers we are also unable to claim flight pay! I would welcome views of others in the rotary profession.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arguably, it is in the interests of the police in general for observers to remain passengers. Any flexibility would be lost, you wouldn't get any overtime and would be subject to a regulated FTL scheme of sorts. Would you want to sit exams at Gatwick? - I don't think so.
All Police pilots realise the importance of the observer and acknowledge it couldn't be done without you.
As for flight pay - Surely a police observer is just another specialist job within the police force. Dog handlers or traffic policemen don't get any extra pay. If you do want flight pay I suggest you attend PPSC promptly.
[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 12 December 1999).]
All Police pilots realise the importance of the observer and acknowledge it couldn't be done without you.
As for flight pay - Surely a police observer is just another specialist job within the police force. Dog handlers or traffic policemen don't get any extra pay. If you do want flight pay I suggest you attend PPSC promptly.
[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 12 December 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chip lite - you miss the point. Not withstanding your arrogance and apparent contempt for the Police Officers who presumably work alongside you, the point I believe Oberon is trying to make is that Police Management is currently giving Police Air Observers a raw deal. By refusing them any form of crew status, they are severely under-insured and can be required to work any hours Police Regulations allow - far in excess of those enjoyed by the pilot alongside them. This matter has also been highlighted by the BHAB.
If you are employed as an emergency services Pilot to the level of experience you boast of then you will surely be aware of the supporting role the Police Officer crew give the Pilot, in what can be a harsh and exacting enviroment. Either that or you are long overdue a CRM course. The CAA, via the Police Air Operators Certificate, set very strict regulations for the selection and training of Police Air Observers, and their procedures are closely monitored and checked every six months in as rigourous a line check as I ever received in the Services. The Police Officers who take on this role do so with pride, and would soon find difficulty working with a Pilot who revels in such an unprofessional attitude.
If you are employed as an emergency services Pilot to the level of experience you boast of then you will surely be aware of the supporting role the Police Officer crew give the Pilot, in what can be a harsh and exacting enviroment. Either that or you are long overdue a CRM course. The CAA, via the Police Air Operators Certificate, set very strict regulations for the selection and training of Police Air Observers, and their procedures are closely monitored and checked every six months in as rigourous a line check as I ever received in the Services. The Police Officers who take on this role do so with pride, and would soon find difficulty working with a Pilot who revels in such an unprofessional attitude.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In reply to marco. It would appear that mogwai has put my point across for me. The flight pay is a secondary matter. My main concern is that my employer will not be liable for a reasonable claim of compensation in the event of an accident involving my injury or death. I realise that the BHAB has addressed this point and that police forces were advised to "check their financial state in relation to this matter".
Just to touch on the financial benefits or otherwise of the job that, I admit, I chose to apply for, overtime in many smaller provincial forces is almost non-existent and, with the loading placed upon insurance policies under the heading "hazardous occupations" I believe that many police air observers may well be financially penalised by accepting the post.
In reply to chiplite, I don't know you either but from your diatribe content I am not unhappy with that situation. As mogwai points out, we are line checked every six months, both practical and written examination. My course was six weeks, not the two as suggested. I realise that that in no way affords me the right to any CAA recognised qualification but I work hard to do the best I can in, what to me, is a relatively new area of expertise. I take a pride in what I do and in the efforts I make to improve my skills base. Finally, if there were any route by which I could "put my hand in my pocket" and take a recognised qualification in my role, I would do it.
Just to touch on the financial benefits or otherwise of the job that, I admit, I chose to apply for, overtime in many smaller provincial forces is almost non-existent and, with the loading placed upon insurance policies under the heading "hazardous occupations" I believe that many police air observers may well be financially penalised by accepting the post.
In reply to chiplite, I don't know you either but from your diatribe content I am not unhappy with that situation. As mogwai points out, we are line checked every six months, both practical and written examination. My course was six weeks, not the two as suggested. I realise that that in no way affords me the right to any CAA recognised qualification but I work hard to do the best I can in, what to me, is a relatively new area of expertise. I take a pride in what I do and in the efforts I make to improve my skills base. Finally, if there were any route by which I could "put my hand in my pocket" and take a recognised qualification in my role, I would do it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oberon,
As part of some preparation for a legal case in Oz, I came across a House of Lords or Privy Council case (maybe 3 yrs old) that related to a suit brought by the wife of a police observer killed in an accident. I don't know where my copy is, otherwise I would give you the reference. The status of observer/crewmen was debated at great length and I believe that the case would be determinative in an English court should compensation be sought.
Interestingly, the situation in Australia is different because a helo pilot provided the drafting instructions to define "operating crew", as distinct from flight crew and cabin crew:
operating crew means any person who:
(a) is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft; and
(b) has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft.
[Note This definition includes persons:
(a) who are conducting flight tests; or
(b) who are conducting surveillance to ensure that the flight is conducted in accordance with these Regulations; or
(c) who are in the aircraft for the purpose of:
(i) receiving flying training; or
(ii) practising for the issue of a flight crew licence. ]
Observers etc have a very clear safety of flight function - without them, there is an additional risk that the task at hand would be too distracting for the pilot or even an overload and, in cases where the machine is operated in close confines, there is a risk of rotor strike etc.
After having operated multi-crew helos for over 25 years, I find some of the responses posted to be very disappointing - those who posted them should take themselves and their very much out-of-place egos and drive taxi cabs - at least their behaviour and their manners would not be so surprising.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
As part of some preparation for a legal case in Oz, I came across a House of Lords or Privy Council case (maybe 3 yrs old) that related to a suit brought by the wife of a police observer killed in an accident. I don't know where my copy is, otherwise I would give you the reference. The status of observer/crewmen was debated at great length and I believe that the case would be determinative in an English court should compensation be sought.
Interestingly, the situation in Australia is different because a helo pilot provided the drafting instructions to define "operating crew", as distinct from flight crew and cabin crew:
operating crew means any person who:
(a) is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft; and
(b) has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft.
[Note This definition includes persons:
(a) who are conducting flight tests; or
(b) who are conducting surveillance to ensure that the flight is conducted in accordance with these Regulations; or
(c) who are in the aircraft for the purpose of:
(i) receiving flying training; or
(ii) practising for the issue of a flight crew licence. ]
Observers etc have a very clear safety of flight function - without them, there is an additional risk that the task at hand would be too distracting for the pilot or even an overload and, in cases where the machine is operated in close confines, there is a risk of rotor strike etc.
After having operated multi-crew helos for over 25 years, I find some of the responses posted to be very disappointing - those who posted them should take themselves and their very much out-of-place egos and drive taxi cabs - at least their behaviour and their manners would not be so surprising.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oberon, whatever the legalities that have been arrived at by the powers-that-be it has to be commonsense that Police Observers are crew, in any logical use of the word.
They need to be there in order to conduct the task since the Pilot can't do the stuff that you do. If the observers are not there the aircraft would not fly.
There is a more complex agenda to all this, of course, to do with licencing, regulation, training and COST.
They need to be there in order to conduct the task since the Pilot can't do the stuff that you do. If the observers are not there the aircraft would not fly.
There is a more complex agenda to all this, of course, to do with licencing, regulation, training and COST.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that there is a fine line to be drawn here. By definition the observers are pax, but the fine job they do is a specialisation in itself. Although it would most often be pointless for the aircraft flying without them, they do not often actually take an essential part in the pure aviation aspect of the flight (and therefore good CRM technique is vital where the police requirements conflict with the aviation / safety concern). I don't mean to be demeaning over this. My previous background flying as a team of pilot / crewman meant that a minor brain adjustment was required to operate as the CAA require. The CAA base check (sorry,OPC)requirement for the pilot to do it all by himself (i.e. observers not normally on board) reflects this.
I don't think the cost is the main reason for this "pax" status, rather the piecemeal and experimental way in which police aviation was introduced, at least to the UK. It would perhaps have been better in many respects if a policy decision had been made early on and an "air wing" or similar been formed at national level. This would have allowed economies of scale and better co-ordination etc etc. This could have included crew status for all concerned. I continue to be surprised how forces seems to insist on doing things their own individual way in many respects....not just in aviation. Take the "10" codes for a start!
As it stands, tenure has a part to play when considering costs, training, status etc. Look at the minimum experience and background requirements for a police pilot, set by the forces themselves in PAOM part 2. If a decision were made to increase the qualification requirement for observers to similar levels, it could be done but yes, the cost would be horrendous, it would require a change in policy for many forces and it may not achieve any great benefit as far as the job is concerned.
In my own case (and many others?) a police observer injured in the line of duty would probably come out of it financially better off than I would as a pilot...
------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..
I don't think the cost is the main reason for this "pax" status, rather the piecemeal and experimental way in which police aviation was introduced, at least to the UK. It would perhaps have been better in many respects if a policy decision had been made early on and an "air wing" or similar been formed at national level. This would have allowed economies of scale and better co-ordination etc etc. This could have included crew status for all concerned. I continue to be surprised how forces seems to insist on doing things their own individual way in many respects....not just in aviation. Take the "10" codes for a start!
As it stands, tenure has a part to play when considering costs, training, status etc. Look at the minimum experience and background requirements for a police pilot, set by the forces themselves in PAOM part 2. If a decision were made to increase the qualification requirement for observers to similar levels, it could be done but yes, the cost would be horrendous, it would require a change in policy for many forces and it may not achieve any great benefit as far as the job is concerned.
In my own case (and many others?) a police observer injured in the line of duty would probably come out of it financially better off than I would as a pilot...
------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..
Guest
Posts: n/a
A bit more on the use of the word "crew" Skycop mentions that the observers don't play much part in the pure aviation side of the work, well, that may be the case (although in my experience they give good lookout, at the very least).. but take the cases of a Nimrod or AS Seaking - filled with people doing a task that has nothing to do with flying the aircraft but I'd hesitate to call them passengers, in their hearing anyway.
Good point about the standardisation, though, each force seems to want to re-invent the wheel when it comes to setting up an ASU.
Good point about the standardisation, though, each force seems to want to re-invent the wheel when it comes to setting up an ASU.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would like to refer to the comment made about the amount of training received by Police Observers. The course I completed was 5 weeks, this after completing over tens years of police service. I think I may be correct in saying that if not all Police ASU only recruit from officers who have been HIGHLY recommended by senior officers, and completed their probationary period of 2 YRS.
How's that for training
Remember without observers there would be no need for pilots!!!
[This message has been edited by Hunter Delta (edited 14 December 1999).]
How's that for training
Remember without observers there would be no need for pilots!!!
[This message has been edited by Hunter Delta (edited 14 December 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
oberon,
The case to which I was referring was a British decision, not an Oz one. It was a fight over compensation and dealt with the application of the Warsaw and Hague conventions.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
The case to which I was referring was a British decision, not an Oz one. It was a fight over compensation and dealt with the application of the Warsaw and Hague conventions.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arrived a bit late on this one(strong headwind!) but lots of interesting points. When I started Police flying 3 years ago I was told that the observers weren't part of the crew. As with Skycop and many others, I'd always flown as one of two crew.
As the unit Flight Safety Officer, I teach Flight Safety and CRM on our Unit's Observer courses, emphasizing that they are 'part' of the aircraft's crew, and how to assist in aircraft emergencies.
I was too late to read Chiplite's entry(it had been deleted(I wander why!!)), but from Hunter Delta's comment about the course length then Chip was probably right. My unit's courses are usually 3 weeks and we've just managed to cram one into a fortnight!! They fly one sortie each of Urban Nav, Crime Search and Vehicle Pursuit and that's it. No time to consolidate, so it's very much on the job training. Not the best way, but I suppose it all comes down to money these days.
May the Force be with you!!
As the unit Flight Safety Officer, I teach Flight Safety and CRM on our Unit's Observer courses, emphasizing that they are 'part' of the aircraft's crew, and how to assist in aircraft emergencies.
I was too late to read Chiplite's entry(it had been deleted(I wander why!!)), but from Hunter Delta's comment about the course length then Chip was probably right. My unit's courses are usually 3 weeks and we've just managed to cram one into a fortnight!! They fly one sortie each of Urban Nav, Crime Search and Vehicle Pursuit and that's it. No time to consolidate, so it's very much on the job training. Not the best way, but I suppose it all comes down to money these days.
May the Force be with you!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
In my opinion if anyone is on the aircraft to help in the operation of it in anyway then they are crew end of story. If we take anyone from any trade in the RAF to be a survivor for SAR training then they, regardless of status are crew. Fairly simple. A police observer is operating a defined role in the helicopter and therefore is crew. Any other definitions are just trying to cover poeple's own **** 's and save cash etc. Why must we as an industry produce so much paper for no real reason. It is just as bad in the RAF what with investors in poeple etc.
Hope everyone has a good christmas
Hope everyone has a good christmas
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, Hoist-T-C, but it's a CAA definition and individual Police Forces have had no real say in it. I agree with your view, of course they are crew but it's the way it is for historical reasons i.e. when policemen were first flown on an experimental basis they were pax and that's the way the rules were written. No one knew if Air Support was the way to go in those days so it was all done as an experiment with hired-in aircraft and pilots on a trial basis. Each Police Force seems to have wanted to make their own minds up so there remains no common policy or strategy although things are improving.
------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..
------------------
May the Force be with you - and may Gravity treat you gently..
Guest
Posts: n/a
It would appear that this subject has provoked some interesting comments. My thanks to all those that took the time to reply, and that includes those with opinions either way. After all, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I can't personally see any changes to the status of police observers' from passenger to crew but then, I'm doing a job I thoroughly enjoy so it does not cause me much loss of sleep! Happy flying to all those police passengers out there and, to those of you who fly with us, thanks for keeping us up safely. To all those of you who took part in this forum thank you, Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Millennium.
OBERON
[This message has been edited by OBERON (edited 30 December 1999).]
OBERON
[This message has been edited by OBERON (edited 30 December 1999).]
Just a numbered other
Police observers. Crew or Pax
Let me run this one by you.
Just suppose you are a police observer in a helicopter unit in the formative days of police air support.
You are quite rightly concerned as to how you will stand in terms of insurance cover in the unlikely event that an accident occurs and you are disabled.
Mindful that an accident has already occurred in Scotland, and that the various bodies involved are arguing as to whether the observer is crew (enjoying unlimited cover) or a passenger (subject to the Warsaw Convention, limiting liability), your unit, and your union (Police Federation) ask advice.
Best advice, from specialist lawyers is that as the aircraft will be owned and operated (under a Police Air Operator’s Certificate) by the Police, then the Warsaw Convention cannot apply, as no element of ‘hire or reward’ can be said to exist.
Unfortunately this is not supposition. The East Midlands Air Support Unit’s AS355N did crash almost three years ago, killing one policeman and disabling for life another.
And guess what. Those same specialist lawyers, now acting for an insurance company facing a large payout have conveniently forgotten their words of 7 years ago and about faced.
Reason. Warsaw Convention applies – payout £80000. Warsaw Convention does not apply – payout £lots more.
What does the team think. You out there Flying Lawyer?
Just suppose you are a police observer in a helicopter unit in the formative days of police air support.
You are quite rightly concerned as to how you will stand in terms of insurance cover in the unlikely event that an accident occurs and you are disabled.
Mindful that an accident has already occurred in Scotland, and that the various bodies involved are arguing as to whether the observer is crew (enjoying unlimited cover) or a passenger (subject to the Warsaw Convention, limiting liability), your unit, and your union (Police Federation) ask advice.
Best advice, from specialist lawyers is that as the aircraft will be owned and operated (under a Police Air Operator’s Certificate) by the Police, then the Warsaw Convention cannot apply, as no element of ‘hire or reward’ can be said to exist.
Unfortunately this is not supposition. The East Midlands Air Support Unit’s AS355N did crash almost three years ago, killing one policeman and disabling for life another.
And guess what. Those same specialist lawyers, now acting for an insurance company facing a large payout have conveniently forgotten their words of 7 years ago and about faced.
Reason. Warsaw Convention applies – payout £80000. Warsaw Convention does not apply – payout £lots more.
What does the team think. You out there Flying Lawyer?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is, would the aircraft go and work without the police observer?
If the answer is no, then you have reasons to suggest that the observers are crew.
Do they perform functions essential to the operation of the aircraft?
If the answer is yes, the observers can be argued to be crew.
Is there UK aviation legislation recognising them as crew? I am guessing not. The situation is similar to here in Aus. They are not licensed, but are really the whole reason why the operation is using a helicopter. Aerial suppourt to police operations.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who is fitted out like a driver, with helmet, flying suit and safety training around helicopters essential to safe operation and operational purposes is crew.
Thats my two cents
If the answer is no, then you have reasons to suggest that the observers are crew.
Do they perform functions essential to the operation of the aircraft?
If the answer is yes, the observers can be argued to be crew.
Is there UK aviation legislation recognising them as crew? I am guessing not. The situation is similar to here in Aus. They are not licensed, but are really the whole reason why the operation is using a helicopter. Aerial suppourt to police operations.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who is fitted out like a driver, with helmet, flying suit and safety training around helicopters essential to safe operation and operational purposes is crew.
Thats my two cents
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Best advice, from specialist lawyers is that as the aircraft will be owned and operated (under a Police Air Operator’s Certificate) by the Police, then the Warsaw Convention cannot apply, as no element of ‘hire or reward’ can be said to exist."
This strikes me as a red herring as not all Police helicopters are (a) owned or (b) operated by the Police Force concerned.
I think that you'll have to argue your case in court using the arguements above, and also that they are trained in aviation related matters (CRM, navigation, etc.)
This strikes me as a red herring as not all Police helicopters are (a) owned or (b) operated by the Police Force concerned.
I think that you'll have to argue your case in court using the arguements above, and also that they are trained in aviation related matters (CRM, navigation, etc.)