Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Safety problem or not?
No, it's not a safety problem. If it is, the pilot needs more training.
No, it's not a safety problem. If it is, the pilot needs more training.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current situation with the PAOM and the status of observers is a bit tricky, in my view. It can give rise to problems, some of which might have detrimental effects on safety.
There can be no doubt that the way that the flight is conducted, especially in connection with anything to do with flight safety is the responsibility of the pilot, in the sense that he carries the can. This is no different from the position of a PIC in command of a multi- flight crew flight. However, the way that the PAOM allows a police helicopter to operate to lower weather and altitude limits than "ordinary" public transport, is surely partly justified because of the assistance that the observers should provide to the pilot. So they are more than "ordinary" passengers. The analogy with cabin crew seems to me to be a good one; indeed observers are perhaps more involved in carrying out the flight than cabin crew.
For me, a CRM issue is the uncertainty about what observers can be expected to do, in different circumstances. This varies not only between Units, but between observers in the same Unit, in my experience.
Current CRM training does not deal well with the "ordinary" single pilot situation - single pilot CRM was an afterthought, and there is precious little guidance about it. The single pilot working with pseudo-crew is even less well dealt with.
There can be no doubt that the way that the flight is conducted, especially in connection with anything to do with flight safety is the responsibility of the pilot, in the sense that he carries the can. This is no different from the position of a PIC in command of a multi- flight crew flight. However, the way that the PAOM allows a police helicopter to operate to lower weather and altitude limits than "ordinary" public transport, is surely partly justified because of the assistance that the observers should provide to the pilot. So they are more than "ordinary" passengers. The analogy with cabin crew seems to me to be a good one; indeed observers are perhaps more involved in carrying out the flight than cabin crew.
For me, a CRM issue is the uncertainty about what observers can be expected to do, in different circumstances. This varies not only between Units, but between observers in the same Unit, in my experience.
Current CRM training does not deal well with the "ordinary" single pilot situation - single pilot CRM was an afterthought, and there is precious little guidance about it. The single pilot working with pseudo-crew is even less well dealt with.
And the "contract" pilot working with the observer "customer" adds another level to the CRM issue! (in as much as pilots have been moved on, as the "customer" did not like them)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA pax
Give the cop extra training, as they are cops NOT pilots after all.
As its been stated, the paom states they are a ' CAA agreed pax'
Many hands or eyes help, but it sounds like it might have been a personal issue, more than a training issue, according to the grapevine.
Give the candidate more training, and dont expect them to fly it.
The pilot does the flying.
As its been stated, the paom states they are a ' CAA agreed pax'
Many hands or eyes help, but it sounds like it might have been a personal issue, more than a training issue, according to the grapevine.
Give the candidate more training, and dont expect them to fly it.
The pilot does the flying.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Support is becoming an evermore demanding environment as more complex equipment is being developed and fitted.
I was always of the view (and argued the point with some vigour) that police observers were pax, no more no less, and the pilot was solely responsible for all aspects of the flight - any additional information offered ie; nav, airspace, hazards etc, I could take, or leave, and make my own informed decision as to what we were going to do, frankly the quality of the police observer was of little interest to me.
However nowadays, having mellowed somewhat, my opinion is that the 'crew' concept is the only way to go - obviously the pilot is still ultimately responsible for the operation of the aircraft but now everyone gets (and expects to get) an input.
It would be difficult to imagine a difficult vehicle pursuit in a built up area next to a busy major airport in a cross force area with the other force helicopter in close proximity, ending up resolving itself successfully without all members of the crew working extremely well together. So in answer to Waldo's initial question it is essential that you recruit the right kind of person who has a natural ability to operate in that complex environment. As Crab so rightly said, if you accept mediocrity just to keep sweet with the HR PC parasites then all you are ultimately doing is devaluing your operational effectiveness (you will also double your unit trainers workload for evermore)
Just to take my theme one stage further. The CAA now requires a fully trained and competent 'crew' member to sit in the LHS whilst the pilot flies on NVIS. If the pilot is required to undertake an Ad-Hoc landing in the sticks for whatever reason that LHS crewman has a definite role to play in the safe operation of the aircraft and believe me if they fail in their duties ie; 'incompetent' I will personally ensure that they do not fly in that position again until the unit NVIS trainers (who, incidentally, are pilots) have been all over them like a rash! and if they're still not up to it then we will have to face up to the fact that some observers will be out of a flying job!
I was always of the view (and argued the point with some vigour) that police observers were pax, no more no less, and the pilot was solely responsible for all aspects of the flight - any additional information offered ie; nav, airspace, hazards etc, I could take, or leave, and make my own informed decision as to what we were going to do, frankly the quality of the police observer was of little interest to me.
However nowadays, having mellowed somewhat, my opinion is that the 'crew' concept is the only way to go - obviously the pilot is still ultimately responsible for the operation of the aircraft but now everyone gets (and expects to get) an input.
It would be difficult to imagine a difficult vehicle pursuit in a built up area next to a busy major airport in a cross force area with the other force helicopter in close proximity, ending up resolving itself successfully without all members of the crew working extremely well together. So in answer to Waldo's initial question it is essential that you recruit the right kind of person who has a natural ability to operate in that complex environment. As Crab so rightly said, if you accept mediocrity just to keep sweet with the HR PC parasites then all you are ultimately doing is devaluing your operational effectiveness (you will also double your unit trainers workload for evermore)
Just to take my theme one stage further. The CAA now requires a fully trained and competent 'crew' member to sit in the LHS whilst the pilot flies on NVIS. If the pilot is required to undertake an Ad-Hoc landing in the sticks for whatever reason that LHS crewman has a definite role to play in the safe operation of the aircraft and believe me if they fail in their duties ie; 'incompetent' I will personally ensure that they do not fly in that position again until the unit NVIS trainers (who, incidentally, are pilots) have been all over them like a rash! and if they're still not up to it then we will have to face up to the fact that some observers will be out of a flying job!
Last edited by Letsby Avenue; 12th Dec 2005 at 10:14.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to take my theme one stage further. The pilot now requires a fully trained and competent 'crew' member to sit in the LHS whilst the pilot flies on NVIS. If the pilot is required to undertake an Ad-Hoc landing in the sticks for whatever reason that LHS crewman has a definite role to play in the safe operation of the aircraft and believe me if they fail in their duties ie; 'incompetent' I will personally ensure that they do not fly in that position again until the unit NVIS trainers (who, incidentally, are pilots) have been all over them like a rash! and if they're still not up to it then we will have to face up to the fact that some observers will be out of a flying job!
and to take your last line....
without the Police... and the observers they supply...there wouldnt be a need for the pilot at all would there?
Hnh
Huntnhound,
I think you are taking Letsby Avenue comments the wrong way.
Looking at your comments about the Police supplying observers so that the likes of me have a job (not for much longer), the observer doesn't need to be a Police Officer, he/she could be a suitably qualified civilian.
FNW
I think you are taking Letsby Avenue comments the wrong way.
Looking at your comments about the Police supplying observers so that the likes of me have a job (not for much longer), the observer doesn't need to be a Police Officer, he/she could be a suitably qualified civilian.
FNW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hunthound - You are indeed reading my comments the wrong way. Two pilots up front is no safer than one pilot and one competent observer. Waldo asked what the implications would be if they took someone on to the unit who, in their opinion, was unlikely to make the grade; in my opinion there would be few, other than to reduce the operational effectiveness of the unit - but if he is maxed out now how is he going to cope with the extra demands that future equipment will bring and how will he cope when, as I said before, he will be an integral part of the crew when operating on NVIS.
Air support is no longer the place for tourists or passengers I'm afraid...
Air support is no longer the place for tourists or passengers I'm afraid...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Two pilots up front is no safer than one pilot and one competent observer....................
That might raise a few comments, by competent, do you mean having an understanding of instrument plates, and rules, air law and airspace regulations, aircraft systems including engine, electrics, hydraulics, avionics etc. When there is an emergency, this knowledge improves safety. The famous Chuck Yeager said that technical knowledge has saved his life on many occasions.
I am all for an observer to be trained to these standards, but the course would be months long, CAA/JAA exams would have to be introduced and continuation training would be hard to fit in. Postings would have to be longer, ideally permanent and most of all, it would be EXPENSIVE.
What do you think, would it be worth the money to train up observers to a 'copilot' standard or would it be easier to employ copilots??
That might raise a few comments, by competent, do you mean having an understanding of instrument plates, and rules, air law and airspace regulations, aircraft systems including engine, electrics, hydraulics, avionics etc. When there is an emergency, this knowledge improves safety. The famous Chuck Yeager said that technical knowledge has saved his life on many occasions.
I am all for an observer to be trained to these standards, but the course would be months long, CAA/JAA exams would have to be introduced and continuation training would be hard to fit in. Postings would have to be longer, ideally permanent and most of all, it would be EXPENSIVE.
What do you think, would it be worth the money to train up observers to a 'copilot' standard or would it be easier to employ copilots??
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA & UK
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to offer any opinions one way or the other on this particular topic. However I would be keen to know how a Police Sergeant recently qualified to JAA CPL(H) with ATPL's passed might be able to serve on an ASU?
Any ideas?
PS Are there any Police Officer Pilots in the UK
Any ideas?
PS Are there any Police Officer Pilots in the UK
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Why couldn't you serve on an ASU? You have the correct licence (my CAA ATPL will not get me a JAA ATPL, only a CPL) and if you meet the minimum experience levels set out in the PAOM you are competetive with everyone else. Being a policeman should give you an extra bit of credability at interview.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hunthound - You are indeed reading my comments the wrong way. Two pilots up front is no safer than one pilot and one competent observer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R1Tamer - get your CV in the post to everybody. I get the distinct impression there are more jobs than suitable pilots at the moment. You might have a snag with lack of hours or experience but if you can get someone across an interview desk, all bets are off.
Wright123 - we are on different grapevines! Mine says the candidate in question was "hopeless!" Personality doesn't enter in to it at that level of performance.
Wright123 - we are on different grapevines! Mine says the candidate in question was "hopeless!" Personality doesn't enter in to it at that level of performance.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT - months of training? Even the old AAC Observer course was only 3 months, including groundschool, and qualified one to tac llmr, recce, recognition, and even to handle the aircraft to the ground safely following the theatrical death of the steely-eyed pilot - ah, them wer't days.
ps - thanx for your helpful comments re strawbs at shawbs!
ps - thanx for your helpful comments re strawbs at shawbs!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
3 months IS months of training. At the moment, our course is only two weeks and people on this force do the course BEFORE they get posted to the unit. This means a block have to run one man/woman light for the duration of the training. Loser units do not like doing that for more than a couple of weeks. If we post in early, then we run a man short on one of the flights, meaning the two bobbies left on flight cannot take any leave. Manpower and money are short everywhere these days.
It's not the basic quals needed to get the police job...it's the experience needed.
Having said that, I am sure the entry levels advertised on certain air support units could be 'massaged' to indoctrinate lesser mortals.
For instance the entry level for any ASU is usually governed by their own ops manual. This is invariably modelled on the national entry level which is a CPL. Normally you won't get a look in unless youve got an ATPL.
Flying eternally over a brightly lit urban area within a tiny force area does not require an ATPL pilot, I would suggest.
On the other hand - applying the same logic to an ASU which encompasses huge tracts of dark rural and inhospitable terrain is a recipe for a disaster.
We fly observers because they are our customers! We taxi drive for them. They are the 'principles'. They committ aviation in various guises, but the majority committ heavily.
I for one rate a good observer very highly on a dark and stormy night trying to get home sometimes.
Ironically, it is them who become more and more sophisticated as police equipment, tasking, CRM, nav systems etc become more sophisticated, burdonsome.
The pilot continues to tread water (relatively).
Only Hampshire employs pilots who are 'policemen' but they are a dying breed down there.
The qualifying is the easy bit....where do they get the experience?
Having said that, I am sure the entry levels advertised on certain air support units could be 'massaged' to indoctrinate lesser mortals.
For instance the entry level for any ASU is usually governed by their own ops manual. This is invariably modelled on the national entry level which is a CPL. Normally you won't get a look in unless youve got an ATPL.
Flying eternally over a brightly lit urban area within a tiny force area does not require an ATPL pilot, I would suggest.
On the other hand - applying the same logic to an ASU which encompasses huge tracts of dark rural and inhospitable terrain is a recipe for a disaster.
We fly observers because they are our customers! We taxi drive for them. They are the 'principles'. They committ aviation in various guises, but the majority committ heavily.
I for one rate a good observer very highly on a dark and stormy night trying to get home sometimes.
Ironically, it is them who become more and more sophisticated as police equipment, tasking, CRM, nav systems etc become more sophisticated, burdonsome.
The pilot continues to tread water (relatively).
Only Hampshire employs pilots who are 'policemen' but they are a dying breed down there.
The qualifying is the easy bit....where do they get the experience?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Only Hampshire employs pilots who are 'policemen' but they are a dying breed down there"
Is this a particularly distasteful joke?
Since the Optica crash, policeman do not fly police aircraft. Hampshire ASU employ civilian pilots.
http://www.hampshire.police.uk/PDF/P...nnel/11803.pdf
Is this a particularly distasteful joke?
Since the Optica crash, policeman do not fly police aircraft. Hampshire ASU employ civilian pilots.
http://www.hampshire.police.uk/PDF/P...nnel/11803.pdf
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
TC,
You must be limited for diversion airfields!
Safety Alts, flight in icing conditions bearing in mind your environment. (Is that legal?)
Of course you will be flying with the relevant fuel reserves at all times, won't you!
ATPL, now is that CAA or JAA?
SS
You must be limited for diversion airfields!
Safety Alts, flight in icing conditions bearing in mind your environment. (Is that legal?)
Of course you will be flying with the relevant fuel reserves at all times, won't you!
ATPL, now is that CAA or JAA?
SS
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
TC, just to clarify
That's CAA ATPL(H) or JAA CPL(H)
Neither with an IR?
SS
Does this conversation ring any bells?!
Normally you won't get a look in unless you've got an ATPL.
Neither with an IR?
SS
Does this conversation ring any bells?!