Incident at Swansea airport....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torquetalk,
You are exactly correct.
I speak as both a police officer and a helicopter pilot.
A kid falling out of a tree ar someone tripping over a kerb, if considered life changing or life threatening would be treated as a possible crime scene until proved otherwise.
It is a mad situation that has been brought about by people running scared from Health and Safety legislation.
It is all an @rse covering excercise. No-one has the minerals any more to make the decision 'this was an accident' just in case they get it wrong and get sued. They err on the side of caution to protect their jobs, which is somewhat understandable.
Common sense should prevail but these rules have been brought in that bypass that route.
As far as the treatment of the casualty is concerned the police would have used their first aid training (minimal at best) until ambulance or paramedic assistance arrived. First aid training dictates that if the casualty is out of immediate further danger but has a head/neck injury he should not be moved. Obviously I cannot comment on the reasons behind why his clothes were removed at the scene ( I think I would have travelled with the casualty to hospital to retain the chain of evidence and siezed the clothing there), but I'm sure the options would have been discussed.
It aint the same job I joined 27 years ago, thats for sure. Lots of things have improved. Some backward strides have been taken.
Still I retire soon. Bring it on!
You are exactly correct.
I speak as both a police officer and a helicopter pilot.
A kid falling out of a tree ar someone tripping over a kerb, if considered life changing or life threatening would be treated as a possible crime scene until proved otherwise.
It is a mad situation that has been brought about by people running scared from Health and Safety legislation.
It is all an @rse covering excercise. No-one has the minerals any more to make the decision 'this was an accident' just in case they get it wrong and get sued. They err on the side of caution to protect their jobs, which is somewhat understandable.
Common sense should prevail but these rules have been brought in that bypass that route.
As far as the treatment of the casualty is concerned the police would have used their first aid training (minimal at best) until ambulance or paramedic assistance arrived. First aid training dictates that if the casualty is out of immediate further danger but has a head/neck injury he should not be moved. Obviously I cannot comment on the reasons behind why his clothes were removed at the scene ( I think I would have travelled with the casualty to hospital to retain the chain of evidence and siezed the clothing there), but I'm sure the options would have been discussed.
It aint the same job I joined 27 years ago, thats for sure. Lots of things have improved. Some backward strides have been taken.
Still I retire soon. Bring it on!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Mount
That's better than removing them at the scene, but why should a casualty's clothing be seized?
I can understand securing the accident scene including preventing the helicopter from being moved until the accident investigators decide if they want to carry out a site inspection, but seizing the pilot's clothing?
Did the pilots of the BA 777 that did a deadstick landing at Heathrow have their clothing seized?
Do cops in England seize clothing from drivers and other people injured in accidents on the highway?
I think I would have travelled with the casualty to hospital to retain the chain of evidence and siezed the clothing there
I can understand securing the accident scene including preventing the helicopter from being moved until the accident investigators decide if they want to carry out a site inspection, but seizing the pilot's clothing?
Did the pilots of the BA 777 that did a deadstick landing at Heathrow have their clothing seized?
Do cops in England seize clothing from drivers and other people injured in accidents on the highway?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bronx
Did the pilots of the BA 777 that did a deadstick landing at Heathrow have their clothing seized?
Just goes to show, the police don't have a monopoly on an abject lack of common sense (whether forced into it or not).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems like the time for the revolution draws nigh 
When cretinous Jobsworths abrogate their moral responsibilities as members of the human race, it's time to call a halt.
The "retention of clothes" issue is Bolleaux....Any trace of narcotics could likely appeared for a number of reasons, witness a recent high profile quashed conviction where it was proven that traces of burnt gunpowder residue were likely deposited by sloppy investigative procedures.
I'd submit that anything likely to have affected the ability of the crew/pax to make controlled flight, (other than a fxxxup) lays in their bloodstream.
To allow "procedure" to overrule the duty of care to get the quickest possible medical attention to a head-injury victim, shows arrogance or stupidity of the highest order.
I hope plod involved is given a real carpeting and if these actions were as a result of "orders from above",- then "above "needs his ass suing followed by sacking...he's clearly in charge of a self-serving meritocracy.....I assume the police is still a SERVICE to the general public and employed at the public expense to protect them.
FAILURE....No wonder there is a general lack of respect for persons on the gravy-train formerly known as public service or Civil Service.
When cretinous Jobsworths abrogate their moral responsibilities as members of the human race, it's time to call a halt.
The "retention of clothes" issue is Bolleaux....Any trace of narcotics could likely appeared for a number of reasons, witness a recent high profile quashed conviction where it was proven that traces of burnt gunpowder residue were likely deposited by sloppy investigative procedures.
I'd submit that anything likely to have affected the ability of the crew/pax to make controlled flight, (other than a fxxxup) lays in their bloodstream.
To allow "procedure" to overrule the duty of care to get the quickest possible medical attention to a head-injury victim, shows arrogance or stupidity of the highest order.
I hope plod involved is given a real carpeting and if these actions were as a result of "orders from above",- then "above "needs his ass suing followed by sacking...he's clearly in charge of a self-serving meritocracy.....I assume the police is still a SERVICE to the general public and employed at the public expense to protect them.
FAILURE....No wonder there is a general lack of respect for persons on the gravy-train formerly known as public service or Civil Service.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more cockney steve.
As they say, respect is earnt. Plod have unfortunately done little to earn mine; in fact it is worse than that. I was brought up with proper respect for the police (I wouldn't want to do aspects of their job!), but they have destroyed it by their own actions, and often their own inaction.
They just don't seem to have the common sense they used to!
C
As they say, respect is earnt. Plod have unfortunately done little to earn mine; in fact it is worse than that. I was brought up with proper respect for the police (I wouldn't want to do aspects of their job!), but they have destroyed it by their own actions, and often their own inaction.
They just don't seem to have the common sense they used to!
C
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "retention of clothes" issue is Bolleaux....Any trace of narcotics could likely appeared for a number of reasons, witness a recent high profile quashed conviction where it was proven that traces of burnt gunpowder residue were likely deposited by sloppy investigative procedures
I have no information on why the decision was made to retain the clothes. Any assumption by yourself that it was to ascertain the presence of narcotics is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact.
I'd submit that anything likely to have affected the ability of the crew/pax to make controlled flight, (other than a fxxxup) lays in their bloodstream.
To allow "procedure" to overrule the duty of care to get the quickest possible medical attention to a head-injury victim, shows arrogance or stupidity of the highest order.
No wonder there is a general lack of respect for persons on the gravy-train formerly known as public service or Civil Service.
We are not privy to the full facts of the investigation and as such comments such as these, made from a position of ignorance, do nothing towards finding out how this happened and how it may be prevented in the future. That is, after all why the investigation is taking place.
Regards
LM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44-pilot said:
GSR??
Heli-cal,
Why would the Police be looking for GSR????
Heli-cal,
Why would the Police be looking for GSR????
These are two reasons for which the retention of clothing may be required, self explanatory really!
I was not an Officer in attendance, consequently, I have no factual knowledge as to what formed the decision to retain clothing, if indeed clothing was retained.
It would appear that the accident site was treated as a crime scene, which, with the alleged retention of clothing, may lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was evidence gathering for the purpose of further examination.
Such examination may be for the purposes which I originally stated.
Is this clear enough for you?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly, you said "Clothing retention may be for GSR or narcotic trace purposes."
So with that statement your saying I was wrong in thinking you were suggesting the Police would of retained the clothes to check for traces of GSR?
Why would they be looking for gun shot residue in a helicopter crash?? Its not exactly standard practise in the UK to check everything the Police investigate for GSR, particually a civillian helicopter crash.
I agree there are many reasons why clothes would be taken but you said for narcotics or GSR........ yeah fair enough, check for trace of narcotics but why you said GSR baffles me.
you said:
"Such examination may be for the purposes which I originally stated".
So you still think they were retained for them to check for trace evidence of GSR?
"Is this clear enough for you?" Dont try and patronize me you came out with the strange statement.....
So with that statement your saying I was wrong in thinking you were suggesting the Police would of retained the clothes to check for traces of GSR?
Why would they be looking for gun shot residue in a helicopter crash?? Its not exactly standard practise in the UK to check everything the Police investigate for GSR, particually a civillian helicopter crash.
I agree there are many reasons why clothes would be taken but you said for narcotics or GSR........ yeah fair enough, check for trace of narcotics but why you said GSR baffles me.
you said:
"Such examination may be for the purposes which I originally stated".
So you still think they were retained for them to check for trace evidence of GSR?
"Is this clear enough for you?" Dont try and patronize me you came out with the strange statement.....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As above mate, GSR = Gun Shot Residue
If a firearm is discharded, tiny amounts of burnt gunpowder will surround a small area, particually the arm and chest of the person firing.
Lab test etc can pick these up.
Hope this helps.
If a firearm is discharded, tiny amounts of burnt gunpowder will surround a small area, particually the arm and chest of the person firing.
Lab test etc can pick these up.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chester uk
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as heli-cal said
""What I actually said is: "Clothing retention may be for GSR or narcotic trace purposes."
These are two reasons for which the retention of clothing may be required, self explanatory really!
I was not an Officer in attendance, consequently, I have no factual knowledge as to what formed the decision to retain clothing, if indeed clothing was retained.""
Therefore it is only conjecture and speculation but it is self explanatory
Chester
""What I actually said is: "Clothing retention may be for GSR or narcotic trace purposes."
These are two reasons for which the retention of clothing may be required, self explanatory really!
I was not an Officer in attendance, consequently, I have no factual knowledge as to what formed the decision to retain clothing, if indeed clothing was retained.""
Therefore it is only conjecture and speculation but it is self explanatory
Chester
Last edited by chester2005; 2nd Apr 2009 at 18:13.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit it is entertaining watching those with no formal police training, minimal knowledge of the law or experience in police procedures throw out wild ass guesses as to why certain things were or were not done done.
and have a nice 
followed by some 
as you appear to be getting somewhat excited!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Heli-cal,
I'm not going to get into childish anticts and debates with you as your clearly quite immature.
I may like most on here have minimal knowledge on certain aspects of the law and police procedures, more than some though maybe.
I do however have a fair amount of knowldege on firearms and ballistics and am quite clued up on laws regarding/using/possesion and procedures with firearms in the UK, which with the GSR comment pricked my ears up.
The fact of the matter is, all I was saying is that there would be no reason for any police authority to confiscate clothes off someone in a civil aviation crash for the examination of gun shot residue unless someone had been shot...... how is that unclear and how can that of been read any other way??
You keep watching CSI Heli-cal
I'm not going to get into childish anticts and debates with you as your clearly quite immature.
I may like most on here have minimal knowledge on certain aspects of the law and police procedures, more than some though maybe.
I do however have a fair amount of knowldege on firearms and ballistics and am quite clued up on laws regarding/using/possesion and procedures with firearms in the UK, which with the GSR comment pricked my ears up.
The fact of the matter is, all I was saying is that there would be no reason for any police authority to confiscate clothes off someone in a civil aviation crash for the examination of gun shot residue unless someone had been shot...... how is that unclear and how can that of been read any other way??
You keep watching CSI Heli-cal
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err.. something not quite right here. Helicopter accidents are not everyday occurances and I can't recall any involving firearms. If the authorities suspect firearms were involved why does the AAIB calmly comment:
Which seems to imply that it is a very simple matter of hardware failure or human error and not something so dramatic.
"The investigation will be done from the paper report by the pilot."
Why would they be looking for gun shot residue in a helicopter crash??
Pure uninformed speculation on my part, but perhaps they found a 'G' or were looking for one/expected to find one. The AAIB may have determined from evidence that there was a 'simple' explanation to the accident so PIREP on accident, and therefore unconnected to any investigation the rozzers may be doing.
Pure uninformed speculation on my part, but perhaps they found a 'G' or were looking for one/expected to find one. The AAIB may have determined from evidence that there was a 'simple' explanation to the accident so PIREP on accident, and therefore unconnected to any investigation the rozzers may be doing.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 51
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Stan Switek
I have to admit it is entertaining watching those with no formal police training, minimal knowledge of the law or experience in police procedures throw out wild ass guesses as to why certain things were or were not done done.
I have to admit that I consider myself to be one of those "with no formal police training". However, I have spent the last ten years working with certain elements of the Police, the Military and the Security Service(s). And I have to say, I am more entertained watching the comments from some of those that purport to have had some of the said "training".
I have to admit it is entertaining watching those with no formal police training, minimal knowledge of the law or experience in police procedures throw out wild ass guesses as to why certain things were or were not done done.
I have to admit that I consider myself to be one of those "with no formal police training". However, I have spent the last ten years working with certain elements of the Police, the Military and the Security Service(s). And I have to say, I am more entertained watching the comments from some of those that purport to have had some of the said "training".
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be more to this, for the police to react like this.
Yet in all innocents, I do believe the law changed many years ago now, that a police officer has the right, to do a breath test and detain a pilot on airfield.
fluffy
Yet in all innocents, I do believe the law changed many years ago now, that a police officer has the right, to do a breath test and detain a pilot on airfield.
fluffy