Rule 5 / Police Air Support / Snitching
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fortyodd - without doubt I meant it to apply to everybody. If you look at my postings on the Rule 5 thread, you will see that I am a hanging judge where Rule 5 is concerned! I am in no way anti-police, in fact I think it would be a great job, second only to flying EMS.
The point is I am trying to make is that just because we have exemptions, be it for Plod operations or filming for Auntie Beeb, we still must not lose sight of the fact that we have a responsibility to those people on the ground to land clear of their houses / gardens / children at all times.
In fact always having a landing area in reach is one of the basic concepts we have drilled into us as students - perhaps as the years go by, and the donkey(s) keeps humming above us we lose sight of this a little?
The point is I am trying to make is that just because we have exemptions, be it for Plod operations or filming for Auntie Beeb, we still must not lose sight of the fact that we have a responsibility to those people on the ground to land clear of their houses / gardens / children at all times.
In fact always having a landing area in reach is one of the basic concepts we have drilled into us as students - perhaps as the years go by, and the donkey(s) keeps humming above us we lose sight of this a little?
Guest
Posts: n/a
SkyCop
You say "If a policeman (airborne or not) sees a pilot breaking the law he would technically be failing in his duty by NOT reporting it."
Is that right? If there are any policemen who are Pruners, I'd be interested in their comments. I thought they were entitled to exercise their discretion. Perhaps not.
"Because the police are now aviating they do have an increasing awareness of aviation law."
That must be true, but should a civilian employee pilot help them in any way, either by drawing attention to another pilot's misdemeanour, or advising them on the relevant aviation regulations?
You emphasise "Please note that, in common with most UK police pilots, I am not a policeman but a professional pilot."
True - but you can't have it both ways.
Police pilots should decide whether they are 'one of them, or one of us?'
If police pilots want people to recognise that distinction, then they shouldn't cross the line.
Is there a danger that civvy pilots spending lots of time working with policemen 'go native' or at least, start thinking like policemen?
When I'm driving, I'm instinctively cautious when I see police traffic cars - even if I'm doing nothing wrong. (How many people are comfortable being followed by a police car?)
Should our reaction be the same when we see a police helicopter?
You say "If a policeman (airborne or not) sees a pilot breaking the law he would technically be failing in his duty by NOT reporting it."
Is that right? If there are any policemen who are Pruners, I'd be interested in their comments. I thought they were entitled to exercise their discretion. Perhaps not.
"Because the police are now aviating they do have an increasing awareness of aviation law."
That must be true, but should a civilian employee pilot help them in any way, either by drawing attention to another pilot's misdemeanour, or advising them on the relevant aviation regulations?
You emphasise "Please note that, in common with most UK police pilots, I am not a policeman but a professional pilot."
True - but you can't have it both ways.
Police pilots should decide whether they are 'one of them, or one of us?'
If police pilots want people to recognise that distinction, then they shouldn't cross the line.
Is there a danger that civvy pilots spending lots of time working with policemen 'go native' or at least, start thinking like policemen?
When I'm driving, I'm instinctively cautious when I see police traffic cars - even if I'm doing nothing wrong. (How many people are comfortable being followed by a police car?)
Should our reaction be the same when we see a police helicopter?
Guest
Posts: n/a
hi steve terrier
yes this was me who was fined
£1300 i pleaded guilty.i have been landing helicopters in my back garden since 1992 also it is close to st james's hospital and used by other helicopter users to take sick to hospital they is also use of a car to get them there it has open fields but one is a playing field
and does not get used often i am a safe pilot with many licences and over 2000hrs
day night bad weather jungle artic dessert
and mountain i have flown all over the world
i keep myself to myself and never done wrong to any one i have helped a lot of pilots to build confidence with flying helicopters but when some one dose not like you bang' they get you one way. the names are adolf D H and R H say no more this is a bit of my story forgive my grammer
your truly graham snook
[This message has been edited by [email protected] (edited 12 May 2001).]
yes this was me who was fined
£1300 i pleaded guilty.i have been landing helicopters in my back garden since 1992 also it is close to st james's hospital and used by other helicopter users to take sick to hospital they is also use of a car to get them there it has open fields but one is a playing field
and does not get used often i am a safe pilot with many licences and over 2000hrs
day night bad weather jungle artic dessert
and mountain i have flown all over the world
i keep myself to myself and never done wrong to any one i have helped a lot of pilots to build confidence with flying helicopters but when some one dose not like you bang' they get you one way. the names are adolf D H and R H say no more this is a bit of my story forgive my grammer
your truly graham snook
[This message has been edited by [email protected] (edited 12 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A bit of a wind up? St James' hospital has a dedicated landing site for bona fide emergency service helicopters.
I flew for a police unit and there were a couple of occasions when we saw light aircraft "beating up" the beach well below 500'. The police observers I was with were both PPL holders (and both ex traffic). They chose to exercise discretion and give the pilots concerned a word in their ear rather than prosecute. They got the message and hopefully passed it on. Our only concern was flight safety and neither pilot could complain about his civil liberties being infringed as they knew they were doing something they shouldn't have been. It doesn't matter to me if I'm in a police helicopter or driving my car, if there's someone doing something stupid I'd rather let them know than read about the consequences in the newspapers.
I flew for a police unit and there were a couple of occasions when we saw light aircraft "beating up" the beach well below 500'. The police observers I was with were both PPL holders (and both ex traffic). They chose to exercise discretion and give the pilots concerned a word in their ear rather than prosecute. They got the message and hopefully passed it on. Our only concern was flight safety and neither pilot could complain about his civil liberties being infringed as they knew they were doing something they shouldn't have been. It doesn't matter to me if I'm in a police helicopter or driving my car, if there's someone doing something stupid I'd rather let them know than read about the consequences in the newspapers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
may be i do not understand the last post are you saying st james hospital is near a beach . leeds is 50 mile inland, in another police force area. so why was you there ? do you go often on jollies to the seaside ? as a taxpayer can i please come too
Guest
Posts: n/a
Steve Terrier: Have you seen the size of the Greater Manchester suburbs (particularly at night), or Newcastle, or Birmingham, East Mids, Chiltern, etc etc. 90% of the helo territory is "built up". If we applied your reasoning the aircraft wouldn't be able to fly! Other threads have discussed in detail, the risks associated with helos. You know that flying them is probably safer than driving a car (crashes/100,000 hours). The chances of a helo falling out of the sky over a built up area has been factorised by the CAA such that is is an acceptable risk. The U.S. as you may know, bias their ops towards singles patrolling cities and they seem happy with it (so, too do the public). Look at their accident record!
Crime occurs where people live..helos were brought in to keep up with the rise in crime, so it is inevitable that we will be operating over suburbia!
VFRpfr/ooh/er/ah: Got the wrong guy I'm afraid, regarding CCTV and 800' poles, try another contributor?
Wrong password: well said.
[This message has been edited by Thomas coupling (edited 13 May 2001).]
Crime occurs where people live..helos were brought in to keep up with the rise in crime, so it is inevitable that we will be operating over suburbia!
VFRpfr/ooh/er/ah: Got the wrong guy I'm afraid, regarding CCTV and 800' poles, try another contributor?
Wrong password: well said.
[This message has been edited by Thomas coupling (edited 13 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A BIT UPWIND WHAT IS
i am not talking about emergencies i am talking about people coming from other citys
for treatment ect and the police should use there helicopter for crime. that's what they are paid for and not intimidating
helicopter pilots.
i am not talking about emergencies i am talking about people coming from other citys
for treatment ect and the police should use there helicopter for crime. that's what they are paid for and not intimidating
helicopter pilots.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TC, I am sorry if I made a mistake with past comments/post re CCtv, as you are obviously a highly professional police pilot, will you let us all know, how you are so sure that your helicopter will never have any form of transmission/gearbox/blade/control problems which God forbid would give you only non controllable vertical travel only , and how you are so sure that when you land in a heap with the remnants of power thrashing your blades to death,that these very large fragments wont hurt or harm any of us civvies, because at the time you were hovering low above our house's, or will it be alright because you have seen the booklet from the CAA on relative figure's?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vfrpilotpb
As someone who lives in central London, I frequently see Met Police helicopters flying, and occasionally hovering, overhead. I accept (as did TC) that there is a risk that a sudden major mechanical failure might cause a helicopter to crash, with fatal consequences. However, experience and statistics show the risk is extremely remote, and it is one which I am more than happy to accept when balanced against the value of the helicopter in preventing crime and detecting criminals.
The chances of being a victim of crime are infinitely greater than being struck by a falling helicopter.
Police cars and other emergency vehicles responding to calls have been involved in accidents, some of which have sadly been fatal. Do you say they should be restricted to the speed limits, and obliged to comply with all road traffic laws en route to an emergency?
Provided they are being used to prevent/detect crime, and to apprehend people who have committed criminal offences, Police helicopters have my full support.
I emphasise crime because, in my view, detecting road traffic offences does not even justify the cost, far less the risk.
Police helicopters are flown by experienced professionals, the majority of whom are ex-military pilots with thousands of hours flying in a huge variety of different environments. Why not credit them with some ability to make a sensible judgment about what is, or is not, a justified risk in any given circumstances?
As someone who lives in central London, I frequently see Met Police helicopters flying, and occasionally hovering, overhead. I accept (as did TC) that there is a risk that a sudden major mechanical failure might cause a helicopter to crash, with fatal consequences. However, experience and statistics show the risk is extremely remote, and it is one which I am more than happy to accept when balanced against the value of the helicopter in preventing crime and detecting criminals.
The chances of being a victim of crime are infinitely greater than being struck by a falling helicopter.
Police cars and other emergency vehicles responding to calls have been involved in accidents, some of which have sadly been fatal. Do you say they should be restricted to the speed limits, and obliged to comply with all road traffic laws en route to an emergency?
Provided they are being used to prevent/detect crime, and to apprehend people who have committed criminal offences, Police helicopters have my full support.
I emphasise crime because, in my view, detecting road traffic offences does not even justify the cost, far less the risk.
Police helicopters are flown by experienced professionals, the majority of whom are ex-military pilots with thousands of hours flying in a huge variety of different environments. Why not credit them with some ability to make a sensible judgment about what is, or is not, a justified risk in any given circumstances?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer, a couple of points :
You are quite right to say that there have been fatalities with Police road vehicles being involved in accidents. Unfortunately, some of these have involved nothing more than chasing "joyriders" in stolen cars. How do we define when it is and when it is not safe for a Police driver to break the law? In fact, do Police drivers have exemptions to the Highway Code / RT laws?
As you also state, the majority of Air Support pilots are ex-mil. As a result, they are very mission-orientated. They have also flown in a lot of situations that in civvy life would be either illegal or just plain dangerous (single-engined through / over the clouds, cloud breaks in a Gazelle equipped with nothing more than a Zip lighter and a BBC2 aerial, that sort of stuff) So, if the observer says "lets go look at that over there" (there being a completely built-up area with nowhere to go in the event of a problem) the natural response is going to be to go and do it - because that is todays task. The problem I see is that the flying is undertaken as some sort of quasi-military operation - when they are subject to civvy rules and regs (with certain exemptions)
And related to that you say "Why not credit them with some ability to make a sensible judgment about what is, or is not, a justified risk in any given circumstances?"
Well...not really.
Firstly, risk taking and helicopter flying don't go together. Secondly, The PAOC lays down the rules about what they can and can't do whilst flying air ops. It is not up to the pilot to arbitrarily decide that today he will hover over a built-up area at MAUW with no emergency landing area available. If he does, and he comes unstuck, then he should have to face the music. And if it was your house he landed on, would you still feel the same?
TC - I hear what you are saying about the size of built-up areas. I'm not saying don't fly over them. My point all along has been that any helicopter -police or civvy has to fly with a view to landing clear at all times. If Police Ops conflict with this, then either the rules or the ops should be changed.
As for the Americans, when I was over there it seemed there were Squirrels going down on every street corner (just avoiding the schools, of course). Yes, singles are accepted by the FAA and the public. But whereas in the UK we citizens may be at danger from the odd speeding joyrider or shoplifter, the citizens of LA have to deal with the possibility of coming face to face with a gun-toting crack-crazed lunatic on a daily basis. So I can see they may be more understanding of a helicopter crashing whilst patrolling their streets. Do we really have the heavy-duty crimes to justify it in the UK? I think not. If we did, the skies would be full of newscopters too. Even G-OITN was mothballed due to having no juicy stories to film.
You are quite right to say that there have been fatalities with Police road vehicles being involved in accidents. Unfortunately, some of these have involved nothing more than chasing "joyriders" in stolen cars. How do we define when it is and when it is not safe for a Police driver to break the law? In fact, do Police drivers have exemptions to the Highway Code / RT laws?
As you also state, the majority of Air Support pilots are ex-mil. As a result, they are very mission-orientated. They have also flown in a lot of situations that in civvy life would be either illegal or just plain dangerous (single-engined through / over the clouds, cloud breaks in a Gazelle equipped with nothing more than a Zip lighter and a BBC2 aerial, that sort of stuff) So, if the observer says "lets go look at that over there" (there being a completely built-up area with nowhere to go in the event of a problem) the natural response is going to be to go and do it - because that is todays task. The problem I see is that the flying is undertaken as some sort of quasi-military operation - when they are subject to civvy rules and regs (with certain exemptions)
And related to that you say "Why not credit them with some ability to make a sensible judgment about what is, or is not, a justified risk in any given circumstances?"
Well...not really.
Firstly, risk taking and helicopter flying don't go together. Secondly, The PAOC lays down the rules about what they can and can't do whilst flying air ops. It is not up to the pilot to arbitrarily decide that today he will hover over a built-up area at MAUW with no emergency landing area available. If he does, and he comes unstuck, then he should have to face the music. And if it was your house he landed on, would you still feel the same?
TC - I hear what you are saying about the size of built-up areas. I'm not saying don't fly over them. My point all along has been that any helicopter -police or civvy has to fly with a view to landing clear at all times. If Police Ops conflict with this, then either the rules or the ops should be changed.
As for the Americans, when I was over there it seemed there were Squirrels going down on every street corner (just avoiding the schools, of course). Yes, singles are accepted by the FAA and the public. But whereas in the UK we citizens may be at danger from the odd speeding joyrider or shoplifter, the citizens of LA have to deal with the possibility of coming face to face with a gun-toting crack-crazed lunatic on a daily basis. So I can see they may be more understanding of a helicopter crashing whilst patrolling their streets. Do we really have the heavy-duty crimes to justify it in the UK? I think not. If we did, the skies would be full of newscopters too. Even G-OITN was mothballed due to having no juicy stories to film.
Guest
Posts: n/a
StevieTerrier (aka Vfrpilotpb?)
I can't work out whether you are doing a 'wind-up' or are serious.
If it's a wind-up - nice one Stevie!
If you're serious - what a load of ill-informed b*llocks!
Just what experience have you actually acquired in your "15 years in the game."
You've obviously got a chip about ex-mil pilots, and don't sound like you've done much AOC work with an active operator.
'So, if the observer says "lets go look at that over there" (there being a completely built-up area with nowhere to go in the event of a problem) the natural response is going to be to go and do it - because that is todays task.'
Just what sort of experience are you basing this so-called knowledge on?
Have you been rejected for police flying, or was it a non-starter?
"Firstly, risk taking and helicopter flying don't go together."
What rubbish. Any sort of flying involves taking a degree of risk. Some would argue that helicopters pose more of a risk.
Flying involves risk assessment and risk management.
"Secondly, The PAOC lays down the rules about what they can and can't do whilst flying air ops."
Do you seriously think that the rules can cater for every conceivable situation?
I'm very suspicious that someone who claims to be a professional pilot seems to have less understanding of Police Ops than FL who is a PPL.
[This message has been edited by enntwo (edited 13 May 2001).]
I can't work out whether you are doing a 'wind-up' or are serious.
If it's a wind-up - nice one Stevie!
If you're serious - what a load of ill-informed b*llocks!
Just what experience have you actually acquired in your "15 years in the game."
You've obviously got a chip about ex-mil pilots, and don't sound like you've done much AOC work with an active operator.
'So, if the observer says "lets go look at that over there" (there being a completely built-up area with nowhere to go in the event of a problem) the natural response is going to be to go and do it - because that is todays task.'
Just what sort of experience are you basing this so-called knowledge on?
Have you been rejected for police flying, or was it a non-starter?
"Firstly, risk taking and helicopter flying don't go together."
What rubbish. Any sort of flying involves taking a degree of risk. Some would argue that helicopters pose more of a risk.
Flying involves risk assessment and risk management.
"Secondly, The PAOC lays down the rules about what they can and can't do whilst flying air ops."
Do you seriously think that the rules can cater for every conceivable situation?
I'm very suspicious that someone who claims to be a professional pilot seems to have less understanding of Police Ops than FL who is a PPL.
[This message has been edited by enntwo (edited 13 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
It never ceases to amaze me, how much time you folks in the UK can spend beating a minor topic to death. Having flown in law Enforcement and in the Military (in the US) I can tell you that 99% of the COPS over here wouldnt waste their time on a situation such as started this thread.
I will also tell you that 99% of complaints against pilots here, are from other Pilots who know so much more. (noise, low level etc)
It also appears most of Law Enforcement drivers in the UK are non Police types so maybe it stands to reason that they get that wannabe syndrome, or maybe We over here are too busy chasing bad guys to deal with the petty crap.
As to the Homeowner/Helicopter pilot and for others if you get a chance to visit California, stop by a place in California called Cameron Park. Its on the map just east of Sacramento.. The runway was built with taxi ways leading into the residential area. Many people commute to work by Airplane. That means taxiing from your attached hangar/Garage to the runway and thus to wherever. Maybe a development like that in the UK would alleviate problems..
[This message has been edited by B Sousa (edited 13 May 2001).]
I will also tell you that 99% of complaints against pilots here, are from other Pilots who know so much more. (noise, low level etc)
It also appears most of Law Enforcement drivers in the UK are non Police types so maybe it stands to reason that they get that wannabe syndrome, or maybe We over here are too busy chasing bad guys to deal with the petty crap.
As to the Homeowner/Helicopter pilot and for others if you get a chance to visit California, stop by a place in California called Cameron Park. Its on the map just east of Sacramento.. The runway was built with taxi ways leading into the residential area. Many people commute to work by Airplane. That means taxiing from your attached hangar/Garage to the runway and thus to wherever. Maybe a development like that in the UK would alleviate problems..
[This message has been edited by B Sousa (edited 13 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the US perspective, B Sousa.
There are undoubtedly differences between the attitudes to avation in general, and helicopters in particular between the UK and the US.
Our rules are far more complicated than the FAA equivalents, and far more restrictive. As you've probably read, some people (even some pilots) get very hung up about whether someone else has technically breached Rule 5 (low flying) - regardless of whether there was actually any risk/danger to anyone in the particular circumstances.
As you know, these are open forums, so I'm sure you'll bear in mind that not everyone who claims to be a professional actually is, and (even if they are) they may have their own axe to grind. N2 makes this point very well in his post above.
I suggest you take the recent descriptions of police helicopter pilots gung-ho flying and disregard of safety with a very large pinch of salt.
Hope we'll be reading some more contributions from you - why not start a new topic?
[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 14 May 2001).]
There are undoubtedly differences between the attitudes to avation in general, and helicopters in particular between the UK and the US.
Our rules are far more complicated than the FAA equivalents, and far more restrictive. As you've probably read, some people (even some pilots) get very hung up about whether someone else has technically breached Rule 5 (low flying) - regardless of whether there was actually any risk/danger to anyone in the particular circumstances.
As you know, these are open forums, so I'm sure you'll bear in mind that not everyone who claims to be a professional actually is, and (even if they are) they may have their own axe to grind. N2 makes this point very well in his post above.
I suggest you take the recent descriptions of police helicopter pilots gung-ho flying and disregard of safety with a very large pinch of salt.
Hope we'll be reading some more contributions from you - why not start a new topic?
[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
FL, despite how some of my comments are worded, I do give credit in great buckets to the mil/pro Heli pilots, what I find unable to accept, is the mere fact that a high percentage of the Police Pilots who answer these threads seem to have gone native in their attitude to any form of comments that do not agree 100% with their views, or actions,( this is typical of the Police who we all see on the ground, in cars and on motorcycles) the majority of these pilots, do appear to have a very blinkered view when it comes to explaining what their action's would be if the transmission, rotors or controls left them with one way out, would any sort incident be worth one life, Because some one, somewhere has compiled the figures to show that an incident would only happen in 100,000 hours of flying does that make it acceptable! In my mind no, it cannot ever be an acceptable trade off, for after all the helicopter is only a tool to be used, these Police Pilots have gone to great lengths to tell us that they have thermal imaging cameras with power zooms, we all know a camera can bring something from a mile away to be viewed as though in the next room, so with all this ultra high tech equipment and micro links to ground staff, why the need to hover at very low height, with all the added risks attached to that sort of flying? It isnt just the public who are at risk, the crew themselves are also at high risk, at low hover heights.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Souza: aaah, schucks big guy, you didn't have to comment like that did you? Go back to what you've written, look at the way you've written it....
and then perhaps it'll dawn on you why we Brits hold our yankydoodledandy counterparts over the water with such...what is the word I'm looking for?
VFR: joking and sniping apart, have you ever considered posting on the wannabees board instead?
------------------
Thermal runaway.
and then perhaps it'll dawn on you why we Brits hold our yankydoodledandy counterparts over the water with such...what is the word I'm looking for?
VFR: joking and sniping apart, have you ever considered posting on the wannabees board instead?
------------------
Thermal runaway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tc, I dont need to be a wannabee, but its sad when you dish out comments, and seem unwilling to answer the simple questions, that are asked in responce! just tell me how many possible fatalities are acceptable in the wake of the possibility of a serious mechanical fault occuring at a low level hover @ Mauw.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess it did sound a bit harsh, but thats just my nature. After thirty some years of eatin dirt at speed Im used to takin hits ...
Hope nobody is offended.
The thread just seemed a bit petty over some poor dude who sounds like he will be getting life in prison for making a normal approach to landing. OK, he flew over some houses. And yes he could have had an engine failure, as many Helicopters can daily. Much of my Helicopter flying either Military or Law Enforcement required flying over places that should an engine have failed, I would have been toast. Over the past few years of tour work, nothing has changed. I believe it goes with the territory. I think I would be a bit upset to have an entire SWAT team come after me for making a decision on which way to land.
And Im sure some of the above are correct in that things are a bit more restrictive in the UK. Further that the licensing procedures are very extensive. I guess thats means if we meet in the air over Africa, watch out, I only have an FAA license.
Relax guys, this is just fun........
Hope nobody is offended.
The thread just seemed a bit petty over some poor dude who sounds like he will be getting life in prison for making a normal approach to landing. OK, he flew over some houses. And yes he could have had an engine failure, as many Helicopters can daily. Much of my Helicopter flying either Military or Law Enforcement required flying over places that should an engine have failed, I would have been toast. Over the past few years of tour work, nothing has changed. I believe it goes with the territory. I think I would be a bit upset to have an entire SWAT team come after me for making a decision on which way to land.
And Im sure some of the above are correct in that things are a bit more restrictive in the UK. Further that the licensing procedures are very extensive. I guess thats means if we meet in the air over Africa, watch out, I only have an FAA license.
Relax guys, this is just fun........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vfrpb
Why don't you do something positive? How about you swallow a little pride, ask one of these nice police pilots if you can vist their unit and spend a few hours actually doing some first-hand fact-finding?
You may even learn something new.
I'm a professional, or at least I try to be. My best advice to any other pilot is to follow what a respected instructor taught me long ago. Thus, the day I think I know it all and have seen everything I shall quit flying.
Incidentally, I think you'll find that civil certification standards are far more stringent than a 1 in 100,000 probability of failure. Please do not make fatuous comments about the number of 'acceptable' casualties. The only casualty rate acceptable is Nil. That's what we should all be working to. I don't believe the standpoint of the regulatory bodies is any different because of the job the police or civil SAR units do: it is still classified as Commercial Air Transport, just the same as BA, easyJet etc etc.
[This message has been edited by Multp (edited 14 May 2001).]
Why don't you do something positive? How about you swallow a little pride, ask one of these nice police pilots if you can vist their unit and spend a few hours actually doing some first-hand fact-finding?
You may even learn something new.
I'm a professional, or at least I try to be. My best advice to any other pilot is to follow what a respected instructor taught me long ago. Thus, the day I think I know it all and have seen everything I shall quit flying.
Incidentally, I think you'll find that civil certification standards are far more stringent than a 1 in 100,000 probability of failure. Please do not make fatuous comments about the number of 'acceptable' casualties. The only casualty rate acceptable is Nil. That's what we should all be working to. I don't believe the standpoint of the regulatory bodies is any different because of the job the police or civil SAR units do: it is still classified as Commercial Air Transport, just the same as BA, easyJet etc etc.
[This message has been edited by Multp (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Enntwo - thanks for your input. Are you by any chance an ex-Mil Police pilot?? If you had taken the time read my earlier postings properly, you would see I have no particular problem with Police Ops - in general - or ex-Mil pilots. I have worked with some great pilots and some idiots - both civvy and Mil trained. I have no chip problem with ex-Mil pilots, only with pilots who take unnecessary (in my opinion) and illegal risks. (and try to justify it by saying that it is the nature of the job) Risks that may end up with them landing on somebody’s roof. Or worse.
To address your other points :
My experience - not that it is relevant to a discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of hovering over a built-up area - I have over 2,000 hours of UK AOC flying. What about you? Straight out of the Mil and in to PAS??
Police ops. Presuming you are a police pilot, and you were tasked to go hover over the city centre. Would you say, “Sorry can’t do that - I couldn’t land clear in the case of an emergency” or would you do it regardless? (this is obviously a rhetorical question...) Would any police pilot refuse?
So you don’t agree that risk-taking and helicopter flying don’t go together? I agree that flying helicopters is a risky business at the best of times, that is exactly the point. Why make it more risky than it already is? Not just for you - who knows and accepts the risks - and the crew, but for anybody who happens to be below you at the time. If I have an engine failure in a 206 in the cruise over open ground, I will (should) be able to land it without incident. Acceptable risk, with a laid down procedure in the FM. If I am over the city centre at the time - not a very good chance of a suitable outcome. Unacceptable risk (and illegal to boot if no suitable landing area).
As for the PAOC rules not catering for every conceivable situation - I have not been talking about every conceivable situation , but about the requirements to fly without endangering the people or property you are supposedly protecting.
As for having less understanding of Police Ops than FL, perhaps you could enlighten me? What hugely important task is it that these Police Helicopters perform that makes it OK for them to operate in potentially dangerous flight regimes - in contravention of the ANO? Because it is operationally desireable? It may be operationally desireable for a civilian in a filming helicopter, for example, to do the same. That would get the same response from me. It is not for you or me or FL to say that, in the cause of fighting crime, we will accept the risk of a helicopter landing on our heads, no matter how small that perceived risk. The helicopter is a great tool. However just painting “Police” on the side doesn’t turn it into an infallible flying machine.
Before I jump off my soapbox (first checking that the area below is clear) let me ask you one thing : Do YOU think that hovering over the city centre with no landing area available in case of an unrecoverable emergency (tail rotor maybe) is operating within the rules as stipulated in the ANO?
Danger! This is not a wind-up.
To address your other points :
My experience - not that it is relevant to a discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of hovering over a built-up area - I have over 2,000 hours of UK AOC flying. What about you? Straight out of the Mil and in to PAS??
Police ops. Presuming you are a police pilot, and you were tasked to go hover over the city centre. Would you say, “Sorry can’t do that - I couldn’t land clear in the case of an emergency” or would you do it regardless? (this is obviously a rhetorical question...) Would any police pilot refuse?
So you don’t agree that risk-taking and helicopter flying don’t go together? I agree that flying helicopters is a risky business at the best of times, that is exactly the point. Why make it more risky than it already is? Not just for you - who knows and accepts the risks - and the crew, but for anybody who happens to be below you at the time. If I have an engine failure in a 206 in the cruise over open ground, I will (should) be able to land it without incident. Acceptable risk, with a laid down procedure in the FM. If I am over the city centre at the time - not a very good chance of a suitable outcome. Unacceptable risk (and illegal to boot if no suitable landing area).
As for the PAOC rules not catering for every conceivable situation - I have not been talking about every conceivable situation , but about the requirements to fly without endangering the people or property you are supposedly protecting.
As for having less understanding of Police Ops than FL, perhaps you could enlighten me? What hugely important task is it that these Police Helicopters perform that makes it OK for them to operate in potentially dangerous flight regimes - in contravention of the ANO? Because it is operationally desireable? It may be operationally desireable for a civilian in a filming helicopter, for example, to do the same. That would get the same response from me. It is not for you or me or FL to say that, in the cause of fighting crime, we will accept the risk of a helicopter landing on our heads, no matter how small that perceived risk. The helicopter is a great tool. However just painting “Police” on the side doesn’t turn it into an infallible flying machine.
Before I jump off my soapbox (first checking that the area below is clear) let me ask you one thing : Do YOU think that hovering over the city centre with no landing area available in case of an unrecoverable emergency (tail rotor maybe) is operating within the rules as stipulated in the ANO?
Danger! This is not a wind-up.