Value of Police Helicopter Support Confirmed
Guest
Posts: n/a
We don't have dual use police cars and ambulances in the UK so why helicopters??? They don't provide the same services.
In America the only dual use I can think of is the LA fire department that does EMS. There isn't any EMS with Police unless someone can tell me different.
With regards to having the same brand of helicopters thoughout the country, why?? The police force have BMW and Volvo cars. You must have competition or otherwise the government would find itself being ripped off. This is the reason that everything goes up for tender. Find the best aircraft and the maintenance that will go with it. How often have you bought a car only to find that it costs more to run than the brochure stated???
Companies that are winning the contracts are going for the same aircraft. But you end up with a mix of aircraft throughout the country. The same goes for if there is a technical which requires a grounding of a certain aircraft. Imagine all the aircraft being the same and them all being grounded.
Yes, the government should equally finance both but look around, the medical services in the UK are miles behind the Police services. When was the last time you saw a NEW ambulance??? You see new Police cars every time the plates change.
In time I hope the UK has a fleet of police and EMS aircraft, a mix use aircraft can not be good for either service.
In America the only dual use I can think of is the LA fire department that does EMS. There isn't any EMS with Police unless someone can tell me different.
With regards to having the same brand of helicopters thoughout the country, why?? The police force have BMW and Volvo cars. You must have competition or otherwise the government would find itself being ripped off. This is the reason that everything goes up for tender. Find the best aircraft and the maintenance that will go with it. How often have you bought a car only to find that it costs more to run than the brochure stated???
Companies that are winning the contracts are going for the same aircraft. But you end up with a mix of aircraft throughout the country. The same goes for if there is a technical which requires a grounding of a certain aircraft. Imagine all the aircraft being the same and them all being grounded.
Yes, the government should equally finance both but look around, the medical services in the UK are miles behind the Police services. When was the last time you saw a NEW ambulance??? You see new Police cars every time the plates change.
In time I hope the UK has a fleet of police and EMS aircraft, a mix use aircraft can not be good for either service.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rotorbike :
To answer your question, money.
It's been calculated that the WHOLE of the UK could have adequate air ambulance coverage using just 26 strategically placed air ambulances. The money from central or local government just isn't there, because the political will isn't there. The statistics to make a case are perhaps there. For example 46% of air ambulance callouts are to road accidents, a fatal RTA costs the taxpayer in the region of £1million. If the life were saved, would that cost reduce, and if so does it then become economically viable to get into providing air ambulance cover ?
Combining the two services in an area where usage is light allows for increased utilisation of the aircraft, leading over the long term to lower cost to both parties ( police and air ambulance ). Police budgets pay for their share, because charity fund raising isn't seen as an acceptable way to run a police service.
As for new jam sandwiches every time the plates change, the police are different from all the other emergency services since they're primarily used as a proactive, constantly visible service. Fire engines and ambulances don't tour the countryside 24 hours a day touting for business as it were. This means police vehicles tot up the miles quicker than others and therefore need replacement more often. As an example, I was once told by a traffic officer that to do a reasonable job he needed to drive about 120 miles in an 8 hour shift. Each car used like this does 360 miles per day, and if used for say 48 weeks a year clocks up about 121000 miles. Does that help ?
To answer your question, money.
It's been calculated that the WHOLE of the UK could have adequate air ambulance coverage using just 26 strategically placed air ambulances. The money from central or local government just isn't there, because the political will isn't there. The statistics to make a case are perhaps there. For example 46% of air ambulance callouts are to road accidents, a fatal RTA costs the taxpayer in the region of £1million. If the life were saved, would that cost reduce, and if so does it then become economically viable to get into providing air ambulance cover ?
Combining the two services in an area where usage is light allows for increased utilisation of the aircraft, leading over the long term to lower cost to both parties ( police and air ambulance ). Police budgets pay for their share, because charity fund raising isn't seen as an acceptable way to run a police service.
As for new jam sandwiches every time the plates change, the police are different from all the other emergency services since they're primarily used as a proactive, constantly visible service. Fire engines and ambulances don't tour the countryside 24 hours a day touting for business as it were. This means police vehicles tot up the miles quicker than others and therefore need replacement more often. As an example, I was once told by a traffic officer that to do a reasonable job he needed to drive about 120 miles in an 8 hour shift. Each car used like this does 360 miles per day, and if used for say 48 weeks a year clocks up about 121000 miles. Does that help ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
From following the thread so far, I think most people would like to see both Police and EMS aircraft publicly funded.
One of the problems facing the EMS sector compared to the police is the lack of a common voice. The police have various ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) committees which look specifically at police aviation, together with a dedicated Home Office adviser on police aviation. These combined provide a powerful lobby on the police side.
In contrast the ambulance services (and indeed the Fire Services) have not yet combined in the same way. BHAB (British Helicopter Advisory Board) are doing their best in representing the other emergency services but they do not have the same clout or funding arrangements as the police yet.
Individual police forces and ambulance trusts have to make the choice whether to have air assets or not. With Home Office grants available for the police the choice is somewhat easier and there are few forces which haven't gone down that route. The parochial nature of police forces does mean, however, that the aircraft are not necessarily in the right place operationally. Greater regionalisation of assets would make better use of the aircraft and be more cost effective but until inter-force barriers are removed we are stuck with the present system.
For the ambulance trusts to fund their own aircraft, it would mean losing services in other areas, so it is in their interest to encourage charitably funded services.
One of the problems facing the EMS sector compared to the police is the lack of a common voice. The police have various ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) committees which look specifically at police aviation, together with a dedicated Home Office adviser on police aviation. These combined provide a powerful lobby on the police side.
In contrast the ambulance services (and indeed the Fire Services) have not yet combined in the same way. BHAB (British Helicopter Advisory Board) are doing their best in representing the other emergency services but they do not have the same clout or funding arrangements as the police yet.
Individual police forces and ambulance trusts have to make the choice whether to have air assets or not. With Home Office grants available for the police the choice is somewhat easier and there are few forces which haven't gone down that route. The parochial nature of police forces does mean, however, that the aircraft are not necessarily in the right place operationally. Greater regionalisation of assets would make better use of the aircraft and be more cost effective but until inter-force barriers are removed we are stuck with the present system.
For the ambulance trusts to fund their own aircraft, it would mean losing services in other areas, so it is in their interest to encourage charitably funded services.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer:
1. The Nr Fairy hit the nail on the head, really.
Some time ago (1991, I think), a report by Sheffield University more or less pulled the plug on a national, government influenced HEMS facility . Its main concern being that there was no hard evidence to suggest that the casualty survived because of the helo trip. Might they not have survivied the ambulance journey also? This is also not common knowledge: It's cheaper (for the NHS (gov't)) for someone to die than it is to treat them and and help them recuperate!
It's emotive because the public feel very strongly about the issue of saving lives and helping human beings who are suffering (the humanitarian argument). So it is easier to tug at their heartstrings from a charitable point of view than it would be to raise taxes to pay for 26 helicopters and their running costs!! Hard decisions...someone's got to take them!! [that'll rock someone's boat no doubt].
2. Surely that pic of yours is the simulator for the LAPD air group???? Shouldn't it be on a plinth?
Rotorbike: I wouldn't want any other helo flying job anywhere. It's the best even in this climate!!
VFR: police costs: subjective. Depends where you draw the line for running costs. Do you take into account crew pensions / support depts (admin, HR, etc.).
It's a difficult one, I'm not shying away but if I was pressed to comment, then I would estimate about: £600,000/annum for a single a/c, mid usage rate, Unit.
------------------
Thermal runaway.
1. The Nr Fairy hit the nail on the head, really.
Some time ago (1991, I think), a report by Sheffield University more or less pulled the plug on a national, government influenced HEMS facility . Its main concern being that there was no hard evidence to suggest that the casualty survived because of the helo trip. Might they not have survivied the ambulance journey also? This is also not common knowledge: It's cheaper (for the NHS (gov't)) for someone to die than it is to treat them and and help them recuperate!
It's emotive because the public feel very strongly about the issue of saving lives and helping human beings who are suffering (the humanitarian argument). So it is easier to tug at their heartstrings from a charitable point of view than it would be to raise taxes to pay for 26 helicopters and their running costs!! Hard decisions...someone's got to take them!! [that'll rock someone's boat no doubt].
2. Surely that pic of yours is the simulator for the LAPD air group???? Shouldn't it be on a plinth?
Rotorbike: I wouldn't want any other helo flying job anywhere. It's the best even in this climate!!
VFR: police costs: subjective. Depends where you draw the line for running costs. Do you take into account crew pensions / support depts (admin, HR, etc.).
It's a difficult one, I'm not shying away but if I was pressed to comment, then I would estimate about: £600,000/annum for a single a/c, mid usage rate, Unit.
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In answer to the question about why Government fund Police Helicopters and not EMS may I put forward this (possible) answer:- Figures for crime (and the police ability to conbat it) are published on a regular basis and the contents of these reports and statistics are used by ALL political parties to their own ends whilst campaigning for your vote. No similar statistics seem to be available for accidents etc. The general public seem to worry, and respond, much more to statistics on crime than they do for accidents. As for the comment about "using the police helicopter to catch speeding motorists? I certainly haven't been involved in catching speeding motorists in the sense of the member of the public doing 45 in a 30 zone but the driver doing 100 in a built up area is a different story. Sometimes a pursuing police car can exacerbate a situation but a helo can stay with the car (sometimes unknown to the driver co ordinating resources to bring a situation to an end with no injury. I'd call it preventative medecine, no accident, no injury, no need for an ambulance wheel or rotor propelled!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We actively track speeding motorcyclists thru our force area, using the old fashioned vascar and the later Laser system. Cannon fodder comes to mind.
Considering 16 of them died in our area last fiscal year, I hope we have contributed to keeping that number to a minimum.
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Considering 16 of them died in our area last fiscal year, I hope we have contributed to keeping that number to a minimum.
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ummm... TC, are you saying you use the laser speed detection system from the Helicopter? Surely the velocity of the target will be subjective to the velocity of the laser device (and therefore the helicopter), how do you accurately prove that for a Court?
And with the Vascar, you will need two reference points on the ground of a known distance apart, that distance again will have to be proven to a Court's satisfaction - seems complicated?
And with the Vascar, you will need two reference points on the ground of a known distance apart, that distance again will have to be proven to a Court's satisfaction - seems complicated?
Guest
Posts: n/a
First time I have heard of this apart from for (poorly reasoned?) publicity purposes. I don't think it would stand in court, although video evidence of bad driving has been used on a number of occasions.
I have flown quite a few sorties where this has been done and the rider has undoubtedly deserved all he got, for example one rider we videoed used very high speed (we thought around 80 plus) in built-up areas, wheelying whilst overtaking against oncoming traffic over double white lines etc. This particular individual also had an illegal exhaust, number plate and black visor to boot. When pulled up he denied all knowledge but he was unaware his reckless antics had been recorded for about ten minutes previous to him spotting the helicopter.
For a technical speeding offence to be upheld if laser equipment were used, the ground speed of the aircraft would need to be verified for evidential reasons and I don't know of any equipment able to do this and record it as yet. Any airborne "speed trap" using ground markers would require the aircraft recording equipment to be verified as time-base accurate, just like any patrol car speedometer must be.
As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist and motorcyclist I must say I am unhappy about victimisation of any one group just because of the vehicle they happen to choose to drive. I agree that some motorcyclists are over confident and a danger but so are many car drivers. As a family man I do tend to drive more steadily than perhaps I did some years ago and my bike is ALWAYS legal, however when out on my motorcycle I now do tend to avoid certain areas if possible because of the known police policy in same. If I can't avoid those areas I make sure my driving is as good as I can make it.
I have flown quite a few sorties where this has been done and the rider has undoubtedly deserved all he got, for example one rider we videoed used very high speed (we thought around 80 plus) in built-up areas, wheelying whilst overtaking against oncoming traffic over double white lines etc. This particular individual also had an illegal exhaust, number plate and black visor to boot. When pulled up he denied all knowledge but he was unaware his reckless antics had been recorded for about ten minutes previous to him spotting the helicopter.
For a technical speeding offence to be upheld if laser equipment were used, the ground speed of the aircraft would need to be verified for evidential reasons and I don't know of any equipment able to do this and record it as yet. Any airborne "speed trap" using ground markers would require the aircraft recording equipment to be verified as time-base accurate, just like any patrol car speedometer must be.
As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist and motorcyclist I must say I am unhappy about victimisation of any one group just because of the vehicle they happen to choose to drive. I agree that some motorcyclists are over confident and a danger but so are many car drivers. As a family man I do tend to drive more steadily than perhaps I did some years ago and my bike is ALWAYS legal, however when out on my motorcycle I now do tend to avoid certain areas if possible because of the known police policy in same. If I can't avoid those areas I make sure my driving is as good as I can make it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TC,thanks for that answer, however one always seem's to lead to another , and at the risk of ruffling feathers yet again, I must ask, Why do Police Helios need to be fitted with Laser/ Vascar equipment? when it could never ever be used in any succesfull prosecution against even the most irresponsible driver, be they M'cycle or four wheeler, the cost of supply and fitting and maintaining such equipment, plus the additional fuel used to get it into the sky, surely would if removed, then allow the Police Helio's to help more with the Ambulance Service, which everybody on this thread, seems to agree needs more financial help. Or could it be a case where Police budgets and extra's from Jack Straws office has to spent within budget periods, after all,the Police on bicycles or in Helio's are servents of the public, they are funded by the public purse, so why not spread the net to encompass the Air Ambulance side as well, PLEASE don't think that I am trying to get at you people, but if you are carrying equipment that has no use in the prosecution of your task, what else could you remove?
Guest
Posts: n/a
So what's the truth?
Are police helicopters used for trapping speeding motorists as TC says? Or is TC winding us up as John D'P thinks?
IF what TC says is correct, then I'm with Vfrpilotpb.
It would be a disgraceful use of public money by the Police. They always whinge about not having enough money/manpower in their fight against crime, yet have unlimited funds to spend on trapping motorists.
Are police helicopters used for trapping speeding motorists as TC says? Or is TC winding us up as John D'P thinks?
IF what TC says is correct, then I'm with Vfrpilotpb.
It would be a disgraceful use of public money by the Police. They always whinge about not having enough money/manpower in their fight against crime, yet have unlimited funds to spend on trapping motorists.