US ‘Public Use’ aviation – what are the airworthiness implications?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While this discussion may be interesting, it will have no effect on any government agency on any continent. The US will continue doing things the way they are, regardless of what any European, or American, or anyone else, may say on an internet forum. I'm not sure I see the point of the exercise.
Chas,
Perhaps you might find more fertile ground to growl at the UK CAA and the British way of aviation rather than looking at US Public Use aviation.
There are heaps of topics that spring to mind when we bring the CAA to the court of public opinion.
Such silly things as having to telephone an airport to "book in"....vice just showing up and calling on the aircraft radio as we do in the backwards US and A.
Or.....having to pass your "details" to every station you call during a flight....if all I am doing is passing through or by an airport and wish to advise them of my presence why must I rattle on about all the other things they ask for?
Or...why does the CAA charge so bloody much to stamp a piece of paper....and take two weeks to do so....then cock it up by making a mistake which prevents you from using your license and then take two more weeks to make the correction....all the while you sit idly tweedlying your thumbs?
Lets chew on the CAA system for a while and see which one is friendlier to the user!
Perhaps you might find more fertile ground to growl at the UK CAA and the British way of aviation rather than looking at US Public Use aviation.
There are heaps of topics that spring to mind when we bring the CAA to the court of public opinion.
Such silly things as having to telephone an airport to "book in"....vice just showing up and calling on the aircraft radio as we do in the backwards US and A.
Or.....having to pass your "details" to every station you call during a flight....if all I am doing is passing through or by an airport and wish to advise them of my presence why must I rattle on about all the other things they ask for?
Or...why does the CAA charge so bloody much to stamp a piece of paper....and take two weeks to do so....then cock it up by making a mistake which prevents you from using your license and then take two more weeks to make the correction....all the while you sit idly tweedlying your thumbs?
Lets chew on the CAA system for a while and see which one is friendlier to the user!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
SASless:
I never could quite understand why there didn't seem to be any flight plans in the UK for low-level, non IFR civil aircraft. Would have saved a whole lot of bother.
Isn't there some kind of ICAO requirement for this?
I never could quite understand why there didn't seem to be any flight plans in the UK for low-level, non IFR civil aircraft. Would have saved a whole lot of bother.
Isn't there some kind of ICAO requirement for this?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Chas:
The police operation that I saw, and a great majority of police operations in the USA are aerial patrol cars. They have FLIR and nightsun, and the observer operates those, not the pilot. They don't carry SWAT teams or pick up injured people. They also don't fly in bad weather. (And why should a professional pilot flying a police helicopter fly in less-than-legal weather, as you suggest might be the case?)
The helicopters they operate are very reliable, easier to fly than a Jetranger, and do an excellent job.
The local knowledge of the pilots is far more worthwhile than thousands of hours of flight time. The work seldom demands exceptional piloting skills or experience - it's set up that way.
For the majority of police operations, the standard of airworthiness is as high as any civil operator. Unfortunately, the bad apples make a bad name for all the rest. Given the size of the US and the number of cities, counties and states that operate public use aircraft, there are bound to be bad apples.
The police operation that I saw, and a great majority of police operations in the USA are aerial patrol cars. They have FLIR and nightsun, and the observer operates those, not the pilot. They don't carry SWAT teams or pick up injured people. They also don't fly in bad weather. (And why should a professional pilot flying a police helicopter fly in less-than-legal weather, as you suggest might be the case?)
The helicopters they operate are very reliable, easier to fly than a Jetranger, and do an excellent job.
The local knowledge of the pilots is far more worthwhile than thousands of hours of flight time. The work seldom demands exceptional piloting skills or experience - it's set up that way.
For the majority of police operations, the standard of airworthiness is as high as any civil operator. Unfortunately, the bad apples make a bad name for all the rest. Given the size of the US and the number of cities, counties and states that operate public use aircraft, there are bound to be bad apples.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles,
Before you get down from the soapbox (Hyde Park rumor network, eh?) try to see it as it really is, instead of inserting bumper sticker thoughts at regular intervals ("safety is everybody's business..."
)
Before tinkering with another system, try finding out a few things about the one that you think works so well - your British one.
You have:
Half the number of aircraft, as a percent of the population
Half the number of pilots, as a percent of the population
Half the number of hours flown per year, as a percent of the population
Twice the cost per flight hour in any type of flying machine.
Twice the cost to get a flight license of any type.
Slightly greater percentage of accidents of every type
A greater percentage of students leaving the country to get training than staying to pay the high fees.
A great percentage of the owners leaving the airworthiness system and using N reg to operate due to the onerous rules layered on the owner.
In short, your system has quite well managed to properly squelch aviation en masse.
Now please be concise, what do you have to teach the United States about aviation?
Before you get down from the soapbox (Hyde Park rumor network, eh?) try to see it as it really is, instead of inserting bumper sticker thoughts at regular intervals ("safety is everybody's business..."
)Before tinkering with another system, try finding out a few things about the one that you think works so well - your British one.
You have:
Half the number of aircraft, as a percent of the population
Half the number of pilots, as a percent of the population
Half the number of hours flown per year, as a percent of the population
Twice the cost per flight hour in any type of flying machine.
Twice the cost to get a flight license of any type.
Slightly greater percentage of accidents of every type
A greater percentage of students leaving the country to get training than staying to pay the high fees.
A great percentage of the owners leaving the airworthiness system and using N reg to operate due to the onerous rules layered on the owner.
In short, your system has quite well managed to properly squelch aviation en masse.
Now please be concise, what do you have to teach the United States about aviation?
Shawn,
There being no Flight Service Stations (FSS), that kinda puts paid to flight plans from the gitgo! Of course one has to call every Tom Dick and Harry to get the QFE setting.
I bet some of these guys go "Radio call, Radio call......GO!" too!
There being no Flight Service Stations (FSS), that kinda puts paid to flight plans from the gitgo! Of course one has to call every Tom Dick and Harry to get the QFE setting.
I bet some of these guys go "Radio call, Radio call......GO!" too!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
Age: 43
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't you guys stick to the topic of Chas' first post?
Why does it have to be about; "you Brits better stop talking s**t about us Americans"?
I think that Chas has brought up some very important questions, and they should be even more important to the Americans in the forum, especially when you have live under these "police pilots" flying around above you.
What difference does it make if it was a Brit that posed the questions, it doesn't make them any less valid.
On a side note; I have to agree with the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" statement. Take the NYPD for example. Their whopping $33K starting salary is certainly reflected by the caliber of most of their Officers and PPO's, not all but the majority.
Lets hope that most of the other agencies around the country pick from the best in their ranks and not the NYPD way of needing to know someone high up to get into the likes of the aviation unit.
Why does it have to be about; "you Brits better stop talking s**t about us Americans"?
I think that Chas has brought up some very important questions, and they should be even more important to the Americans in the forum, especially when you have live under these "police pilots" flying around above you.
What difference does it make if it was a Brit that posed the questions, it doesn't make them any less valid.
On a side note; I have to agree with the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" statement. Take the NYPD for example. Their whopping $33K starting salary is certainly reflected by the caliber of most of their Officers and PPO's, not all but the majority.
Lets hope that most of the other agencies around the country pick from the best in their ranks and not the NYPD way of needing to know someone high up to get into the likes of the aviation unit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Little Rissington
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
What's the point of discussing the issue? As I say, I want to be better informed. Not to do something about it, necessarily, but to gain an understanding.
Y'know, I read a good newspaper every day, and watch the TV news, and I read lots of magazines. I can't affect the outcome of any of the issues that I read about, but I'm still interested in knowing what's going on, and how the world works outside my own little bubble.
SASless/RJ,
Where have I once praised the CAA? I actually agree with many of your points (I'm a user of UK airspace, so I can almost guarantee that I care more passionately about the CAA and its failings, the f***ing BAA, NATS et al than you do - though I'd suggest that while the CAA's failings, the lack of air mindedness and government support for aviation are all great topics for discussion, they warrant a separate thread).
But why is your reaction to my questions that I should stick to what directly affects me? Why should it be 'none of my business' as to how police/law enforcement aviation works in a country which I visit and work in frequently? Aerospace is my living, and airworthiness and safety are my business. Not all lessons from the US are applicable in my jurisdiction, but some are. Why do you seem to want to suppress my freedom of speech and my ability to educate myself?
Which bit of:
"I would violently disagree with your inference that only the taxpayers in a particular jurisdiction have the right to question or kick a particular airworthiness or safety body.
Safety is EVERYBODY's business, and where the CAA deserve criticism, someone's nationality should not prevent them from raising a concern.
We are all professional aviators, after all."
do you object to or have a problem understanding?
Shawn,
I don't suggest or condone CPLs (or anyone else) flying in non legal conditions, but I do suggest that while a CPL is prepared to operate closer to the margins and limits, a PPL should stay far away from them.
I realise that most Air Support Units are very good, very rigorous and very professional, but it is the exceptions - the bad apples, if you will - that make the difference between 'perfection' and 'room for improvement'.
And for as long as there are bad apples who aren't being picked up and disciplined then where's the incentive for operators to "do it right"?
Doing it properly always costs more, and I'm not sure that you can rely on people to 'do the right thing' without compulsion - especially if economic imperatives drive them to cut corners.
What's the point of discussing the issue? As I say, I want to be better informed. Not to do something about it, necessarily, but to gain an understanding.
Y'know, I read a good newspaper every day, and watch the TV news, and I read lots of magazines. I can't affect the outcome of any of the issues that I read about, but I'm still interested in knowing what's going on, and how the world works outside my own little bubble.
SASless/RJ,
Where have I once praised the CAA? I actually agree with many of your points (I'm a user of UK airspace, so I can almost guarantee that I care more passionately about the CAA and its failings, the f***ing BAA, NATS et al than you do - though I'd suggest that while the CAA's failings, the lack of air mindedness and government support for aviation are all great topics for discussion, they warrant a separate thread).
But why is your reaction to my questions that I should stick to what directly affects me? Why should it be 'none of my business' as to how police/law enforcement aviation works in a country which I visit and work in frequently? Aerospace is my living, and airworthiness and safety are my business. Not all lessons from the US are applicable in my jurisdiction, but some are. Why do you seem to want to suppress my freedom of speech and my ability to educate myself?
Which bit of:
"I would violently disagree with your inference that only the taxpayers in a particular jurisdiction have the right to question or kick a particular airworthiness or safety body.
Safety is EVERYBODY's business, and where the CAA deserve criticism, someone's nationality should not prevent them from raising a concern.
We are all professional aviators, after all."
do you object to or have a problem understanding?
Shawn,
I don't suggest or condone CPLs (or anyone else) flying in non legal conditions, but I do suggest that while a CPL is prepared to operate closer to the margins and limits, a PPL should stay far away from them.
I realise that most Air Support Units are very good, very rigorous and very professional, but it is the exceptions - the bad apples, if you will - that make the difference between 'perfection' and 'room for improvement'.
And for as long as there are bad apples who aren't being picked up and disciplined then where's the incentive for operators to "do it right"?
Doing it properly always costs more, and I'm not sure that you can rely on people to 'do the right thing' without compulsion - especially if economic imperatives drive them to cut corners.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Variable
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chas
It may help if you can find out and mention who the bad apples are, I get the feeling nobody knows any specifics on who, where and what public use entities are being referred to. Public use covers a lot of ground and painting all with the same brush will generate angry and unhelpful responses so try and narrow the field down a tad.
It may help if you can find out and mention who the bad apples are, I get the feeling nobody knows any specifics on who, where and what public use entities are being referred to. Public use covers a lot of ground and painting all with the same brush will generate angry and unhelpful responses so try and narrow the field down a tad.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Little Rissington
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? I thought that leaving the criticism as being non-specific might be easier for some to stomach than being specific. One doesn't want a witch-hunt.
Chas dear lad,
As you clearly know the identities of some operators whose standards fall below that acceptable to a commercial operator.....perhaps you might care to put a name on them for us.
Make it easy on yourself....name just one and explain how you came to make that judgement you allude to in your statement I have quoted.
there are clearly some operators whose standards fall below what would be acceptable in a commercial operator.
As you clearly know the identities of some operators whose standards fall below that acceptable to a commercial operator.....perhaps you might care to put a name on them for us.
Make it easy on yourself....name just one and explain how you came to make that judgement you allude to in your statement I have quoted.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Chas:
The problem with trying to sort out the bad apples from the public use operators is that there is no guarantee that they wouldn't do the same thing if they were regulated by the authority.
The oversight by the authorities in most countries is that they do not have the manpower to tightly regulate the industry. Canada and the US are both woefully short of authority manpower to oversee their industries.
So putting public use into the 'normal' way of doing things would not likely deter those who would skirt around the law.
The problem with trying to sort out the bad apples from the public use operators is that there is no guarantee that they wouldn't do the same thing if they were regulated by the authority.
The oversight by the authorities in most countries is that they do not have the manpower to tightly regulate the industry. Canada and the US are both woefully short of authority manpower to oversee their industries.
So putting public use into the 'normal' way of doing things would not likely deter those who would skirt around the law.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Little Rissington
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these litigious times, why would I name and shame a specific operator?
Are you trying to suggest that without my doing so you'll be forced to conclude that I am lying, or that my contentions are mistaken?
Are you saying that you believe that everyone's squeaky clean and that everything's peachy?
Are you trying to suggest that without my doing so you'll be forced to conclude that I am lying, or that my contentions are mistaken?
Are you saying that you believe that everyone's squeaky clean and that everything's peachy?
Chas,
One can quote accident reports, newspaper articles, and other sources without risking them pesky lawsuits.
In most debates one must be prepared to base statements upon some definable fact or facts.
Merely stating there are rotten apples in a barrel without examining the first apple is merely chin music and not founded upon any logical precept.
One can quote accident reports, newspaper articles, and other sources without risking them pesky lawsuits.
In most debates one must be prepared to base statements upon some definable fact or facts.
Merely stating there are rotten apples in a barrel without examining the first apple is merely chin music and not founded upon any logical precept.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Little Rissington
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
Unless you’re disputing that there are any problems, then I don’t need to name names.
If you do dispute that, I’m interested, as that doesn’t seem to be the general view, even here, where most seem to think that there is a problem, but that it’s not widespread, not common, not significant, and not worth spending money on solving.
I don’t have newspaper articles to quote, my evidence is anecdotal – from private or confidential conversations with long-standing members of the community – from helicopter maintenance, support, service and manufacturing conversations.
That is anecdotal evidence, and should not be enough to convict anyone in a court of law. It’s partly for that reason (as well as fear of litigation) that I don’t want to name and shame and drag anybody in front of the court of public opinion. There’s also the consideration that confidentiality (as we use in CHIRPS) might usefully highlight the true nature and extent of the problem.
And anecdotal evidence should be quite sufficient to justify examining, thinking about and discussing the problem.
Some posts ago, someone asked what was the point of discussing the issue. Someone else questioned my motivation for asking questions. Others chose to try to steer the conversation towards the manifold failings of the UK CAA. (That would be a bad idea, as it’s really not much of a debate when everyone agrees!)
Let me turn the question around. What is your motivation for wanting to silence these questions and to pour scorn on the anecdotal evidence I offer? What is the point of keeping silent on this issue? Why are people so unwilling to discuss this?
Unless you’re disputing that there are any problems, then I don’t need to name names.
If you do dispute that, I’m interested, as that doesn’t seem to be the general view, even here, where most seem to think that there is a problem, but that it’s not widespread, not common, not significant, and not worth spending money on solving.
I don’t have newspaper articles to quote, my evidence is anecdotal – from private or confidential conversations with long-standing members of the community – from helicopter maintenance, support, service and manufacturing conversations.
That is anecdotal evidence, and should not be enough to convict anyone in a court of law. It’s partly for that reason (as well as fear of litigation) that I don’t want to name and shame and drag anybody in front of the court of public opinion. There’s also the consideration that confidentiality (as we use in CHIRPS) might usefully highlight the true nature and extent of the problem.
And anecdotal evidence should be quite sufficient to justify examining, thinking about and discussing the problem.
Some posts ago, someone asked what was the point of discussing the issue. Someone else questioned my motivation for asking questions. Others chose to try to steer the conversation towards the manifold failings of the UK CAA. (That would be a bad idea, as it’s really not much of a debate when everyone agrees!)
Let me turn the question around. What is your motivation for wanting to silence these questions and to pour scorn on the anecdotal evidence I offer? What is the point of keeping silent on this issue? Why are people so unwilling to discuss this?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about every law enforcement agency in the USA that operates aircraft are members of the Airborne Law Enforcement Assoc. They have some very strict standards. The agencies that don't belong from what I have been able to find out also have strict requirements. The helicopter is a very expensive asset for these departments and they understand that. It is not easily replaced. Even surplus OH58's and OH6's are expensive to operate and maintain, without having an inexperienced pilot operate them.
As for twins being safer than singles, I have been told by a well respected member of this board that the Twin Squirrel is not as safe as the BH206. Interesting.
As for piston helicopters, they are no more or less safe as turbines, if they are operated within limits and properly maintained. One department on the west coast (I believe it was Long Beach) operated Enstroms for many years without any major problems. I was told their Enstrom fleet had over 17,000 hours on each unit.
Public Safety clause covers much more than police. They also cover fire fighting aircraft also. The airborne officers have the same goal as the ground officers, to go home at the end of each shift.
As for twins being safer than singles, I have been told by a well respected member of this board that the Twin Squirrel is not as safe as the BH206. Interesting.
As for piston helicopters, they are no more or less safe as turbines, if they are operated within limits and properly maintained. One department on the west coast (I believe it was Long Beach) operated Enstroms for many years without any major problems. I was told their Enstrom fleet had over 17,000 hours on each unit.
Public Safety clause covers much more than police. They also cover fire fighting aircraft also. The airborne officers have the same goal as the ground officers, to go home at the end of each shift.
Chas,
You seem to be a majority of one that insists there is a problem and there are problem agencies extant.
Hearsay evidence is useless in proving the existence of a problem.
I fear you are just like Chicken Little running around sayiing the Sky is falling.....as you cannot or will not provide any substantive information whereby the rest of us can be convinced of a "problem" with the Law Enforcement Agencies in the USA that operate aircraft.
Give us a for instance....point out one accident...one serious mishap....one investigation that has shown a problem....just one please.
You seem to be a majority of one that insists there is a problem and there are problem agencies extant.
Hearsay evidence is useless in proving the existence of a problem.
I fear you are just like Chicken Little running around sayiing the Sky is falling.....as you cannot or will not provide any substantive information whereby the rest of us can be convinced of a "problem" with the Law Enforcement Agencies in the USA that operate aircraft.
Give us a for instance....point out one accident...one serious mishap....one investigation that has shown a problem....just one please.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chas, first off, yes there are bad apples. Luckily very very few.
Something that you may, or may not know. When the military "gives" away surplus aircraft to public entities, it really makes a number of people in the industry mad. It does not matter that the aircraft is put into as good or better shape then it was in the military. Gosh, how dangerous is this aircraft flying over the city, but not so if the military is flying it. You have to buy from us. It is the only safe thing to do, just forget that it is almost identical to what I sell the military. A money thing.
And I know of no agency that does not use rated, experienced mechanics to maintain their aircraft(s). Instead of using the civilian checklist, they use the military version for military aircraft.
And show me any agency that does not use rated pilots. The ones that get in-house training are trained as any pilot would, except most of the time more advanced, and all get their FAA license. Otherwise they get kicked out of the program. And like what someone said earlier, the normal path is ground pounder, then picked as an observer and work as an observer for several years. Then a pilot position and after passing what is required, that person is watched over very closely until they get a good amount of experience.
And like what Shawn said, a Police helicopter that both the pilot and observer who are policeman(women) make a more effective team. And this does not mean that the pilot is any less professional then you are.
And yes, I am a current police pilot flying a single engine turbine helicopter over a major city at night.
Something that you may, or may not know. When the military "gives" away surplus aircraft to public entities, it really makes a number of people in the industry mad. It does not matter that the aircraft is put into as good or better shape then it was in the military. Gosh, how dangerous is this aircraft flying over the city, but not so if the military is flying it. You have to buy from us. It is the only safe thing to do, just forget that it is almost identical to what I sell the military. A money thing.
And I know of no agency that does not use rated, experienced mechanics to maintain their aircraft(s). Instead of using the civilian checklist, they use the military version for military aircraft.
And show me any agency that does not use rated pilots. The ones that get in-house training are trained as any pilot would, except most of the time more advanced, and all get their FAA license. Otherwise they get kicked out of the program. And like what someone said earlier, the normal path is ground pounder, then picked as an observer and work as an observer for several years. Then a pilot position and after passing what is required, that person is watched over very closely until they get a good amount of experience.
And like what Shawn said, a Police helicopter that both the pilot and observer who are policeman(women) make a more effective team. And this does not mean that the pilot is any less professional then you are.
And yes, I am a current police pilot flying a single engine turbine helicopter over a major city at night.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chas, the fact remains that the US federal government simply does not have the constitutional power to enforce what you seem to want enforced. Whether or not it's a good idea has no bearing on the situation, because legality and safety are not the same thing. I can assure you that there will be no constitutional amendment concerning this in our lifetimes.