Police Civilianisation of air support
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
I'm an ex ASU Chief pilot and was definitely an ex-mil civvie back then.
It's ShyTorque, by the way - and get yer air cut!
It's ShyTorque, by the way - and get yer air cut!
Coconutty
Who's doing that, then?
PS - 10 to 12 officers? I think not in many, many cases.
more Police forces would have done so by now, and those that have, would not have regretted that decision, and be looking at returning to employment of only warranted Police Officer Observers at the earliest oportunity
PS - 10 to 12 officers? I think not in many, many cases.
"who knows there may even be civilian Chief Constables."
Already happened.
Civilian is made chief of nuclear police force - Times Online
Though you will note he did have some previous and relevant experience to draw upon......... which brings us back to the "having something to bring to the party" point.
Already happened.
Civilian is made chief of nuclear police force - Times Online
Civilian is made chief of nuclear police force
Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
A senior MI6 officer has become the first civilian chief constable in Britain for more than 50 years and will head the armed force that guards nuclear power stations.
The decison to choose Richard Thompson, who was a station chief in Baghdad and worked in Kosovo, to head the 700-strong Civil Nuclear Constabulary will cause concern among police officers.
The post for a director of policing was advertised, and the Government has also been discussing introducing civilians who have management expertise or specialist skills into at least the middle ranks of the police. Mr Thompson, 46, who will earn more than £100,000, is described by the constabulary as a senior diplomat at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In a statement it said that he “has extensive experience of defence and security matters, working closely with chief police officers, government and international agencies, both in the UK and overseas”.
Fraser Sampson, the executive director of the police authority for the constabulary, said that it was different from other forces because of its role. He said: “While it works closely with Home Office and Scottish forces to all relevent policing standards, the discrete and dedicated nature of its duties means that the CNC’s arrangements necessarily differ from those of mainstream policing services.”
The last civilian head of a police force was Sir Harold Simpson, a civil servant, who was made Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1946
Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
A senior MI6 officer has become the first civilian chief constable in Britain for more than 50 years and will head the armed force that guards nuclear power stations.
The decison to choose Richard Thompson, who was a station chief in Baghdad and worked in Kosovo, to head the 700-strong Civil Nuclear Constabulary will cause concern among police officers.
The post for a director of policing was advertised, and the Government has also been discussing introducing civilians who have management expertise or specialist skills into at least the middle ranks of the police. Mr Thompson, 46, who will earn more than £100,000, is described by the constabulary as a senior diplomat at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In a statement it said that he “has extensive experience of defence and security matters, working closely with chief police officers, government and international agencies, both in the UK and overseas”.
Fraser Sampson, the executive director of the police authority for the constabulary, said that it was different from other forces because of its role. He said: “While it works closely with Home Office and Scottish forces to all relevent policing standards, the discrete and dedicated nature of its duties means that the CNC’s arrangements necessarily differ from those of mainstream policing services.”
The last civilian head of a police force was Sir Harold Simpson, a civil servant, who was made Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1946
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paarmo
You may need to cut it cause you sure as hell have spent enough time talking out of it judging by the ill informed comments you have been coming out with. I recall previously you being invited to see what an air support unit does Take the chance...Stop watching skycops and get some realtime information. 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Budg
I don't think my opinions are ill judged and neither do the civilian observers on this post. Civilian observers are the way forward and you must get used to this idea.
I remember many years ago going into the Police Station with found property and the found property officer was a Police Officer.You probably don't remember those times but times change and I'm afraid so must you.
I'm afraid the staff won't allow me to do a personal visit to your unit but thank you for the offer.
I don't think my opinions are ill judged and neither do the civilian observers on this post. Civilian observers are the way forward and you must get used to this idea.
I remember many years ago going into the Police Station with found property and the found property officer was a Police Officer.You probably don't remember those times but times change and I'm afraid so must you.
I'm afraid the staff won't allow me to do a personal visit to your unit but thank you for the offer.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone reading this thread would be forgiven for thinking that there are some very entrenched views which could be considered variously as insular, protectionist and possibly slightly blinkered? I can't say I agree totally with Paarmo but, whatever his real job, some of the points have an astute validity.
I've put my cards on the table before in agreeing that there has to be merit in at least considering civvie Police Observers - so long as the cost benefit is calculated accurately. It's not only about cost, of course, but it's often a driving force - if there's no real benefit, there seems no point in going down the route. I'd agree with others that complete civilianisation could damage credibility, but one or two (MAN777 - Suffolk have two & I believe Surrey have one or two?) can inject a different (and often refreshing) perspective into a unit.
Realpieboy (#123 22nd May) is unsure whether a civvie can EFFECTIVELY operate in the police role? I reckon the right one can manage at least 98% - the only sticking point being their powers of arrest . . . but as we tend to note the "Air" bit of our title, the occasions are spectacularly few & far between - as soon as we're on the ground, we've lost the aerial advantage.
Letsby may feel that diversity will force politically correct incompetants onto a unit but I'd suggest a robust selection procedure is put in place . . . we've had one working well for some years since, previously, getting rid of Police Obs who couldn't actually cut the mustard took far too long! That's not to say that a civvie would be easy to get rid of, but at least it could be written into a contract that they would be obliged to maintain a certain standard. That's in theory, of course - as soon as they saw the "competence" level of their compatriots, they probably wouldn't find it too difficult to remain in post!
Personally, Police experience on the ground notwithstanding, I'd rather see a competent equipment operator who can maximise the complexities of the kit, is able to think fast, communicate succinctly and manage the highly technical role of the aerial tactician than a Bobby with 10 years on the street who stumbles over the myriad of multi-tasking because his brain just can't keep up with the aircraft. It's not rocket science but there's actually more science in the kit & the role than most experienced PCs will have utilised in a whole career!
It's really not about "Police" experience, it's about balance & using the right person for the job because they are better at doing it, in order to provide the best service to the team on the ground, the force and the public we serve.
I was told once that some good Policeman know how a crooked mind works because they may hail from just the other side of the fence - currently it would appear that UK Police have to be more akin to Parliamentarians than the common burglar!!
I've put my cards on the table before in agreeing that there has to be merit in at least considering civvie Police Observers - so long as the cost benefit is calculated accurately. It's not only about cost, of course, but it's often a driving force - if there's no real benefit, there seems no point in going down the route. I'd agree with others that complete civilianisation could damage credibility, but one or two (MAN777 - Suffolk have two & I believe Surrey have one or two?) can inject a different (and often refreshing) perspective into a unit.
Realpieboy (#123 22nd May) is unsure whether a civvie can EFFECTIVELY operate in the police role? I reckon the right one can manage at least 98% - the only sticking point being their powers of arrest . . . but as we tend to note the "Air" bit of our title, the occasions are spectacularly few & far between - as soon as we're on the ground, we've lost the aerial advantage.
Letsby may feel that diversity will force politically correct incompetants onto a unit but I'd suggest a robust selection procedure is put in place . . . we've had one working well for some years since, previously, getting rid of Police Obs who couldn't actually cut the mustard took far too long! That's not to say that a civvie would be easy to get rid of, but at least it could be written into a contract that they would be obliged to maintain a certain standard. That's in theory, of course - as soon as they saw the "competence" level of their compatriots, they probably wouldn't find it too difficult to remain in post!
Personally, Police experience on the ground notwithstanding, I'd rather see a competent equipment operator who can maximise the complexities of the kit, is able to think fast, communicate succinctly and manage the highly technical role of the aerial tactician than a Bobby with 10 years on the street who stumbles over the myriad of multi-tasking because his brain just can't keep up with the aircraft. It's not rocket science but there's actually more science in the kit & the role than most experienced PCs will have utilised in a whole career!
It's really not about "Police" experience, it's about balance & using the right person for the job because they are better at doing it, in order to provide the best service to the team on the ground, the force and the public we serve.
I was told once that some good Policeman know how a crooked mind works because they may hail from just the other side of the fence - currently it would appear that UK Police have to be more akin to Parliamentarians than the common burglar!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's really not about "Police" experience
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodynamik - a glance at your profile doesn't say much but indicates that you may not have all the facts at your disposal. I would opine that your argument is also getting a little trite in opposing "change" per-se. Everything "changes" and most people (not all, I'd agree) try to change things for the better. To resist change because you think you've already got the best system and are too blinkered to try something new will have you branded a Luddite. Anyway, it's not change to consider Civvie Observers as there are already a number in circulation - the main reason that there aren't more is probably due to the limited financial benefits. All the pilots are civvies, a number are not ex-military, but in that area direct employment has been welcomed by many forces due to the significant savings.
Having done this job for more than a decade, worked with both good & bad Police Obs, and a few good civvies, I'd refer you to my earlier post - we're here to provide the best service to the team on the ground, maximising the use of the plethora of highly technical equipment and ensuring the most efficient use of the taxpayer's pound. If that means a more able civvie wins out over a less able copper, I'm all for it. It's teamwork in the air anyway and the guy on the ground doesn't care (or know, more often) who's in the air if he gets good support & also gets his man! That said, and as previously mentioned, any civilianisation should remain limited to one or two per unit, in my opinion.
There are some capable Policemen who can be trained to become capable Police Air Observers. There are also some very capable non-Policemen who have already been trained (without extra hours etc) to become very completent Observers. Those who insist that the ONLY person able to be considered, for Police Air Observer training, is an experienced officer are deluding themselves into believing that they're better than they think they are - or are a little too keen to protect "jobs for the boys"?
For he, read she, etc.
Having done this job for more than a decade, worked with both good & bad Police Obs, and a few good civvies, I'd refer you to my earlier post - we're here to provide the best service to the team on the ground, maximising the use of the plethora of highly technical equipment and ensuring the most efficient use of the taxpayer's pound. If that means a more able civvie wins out over a less able copper, I'm all for it. It's teamwork in the air anyway and the guy on the ground doesn't care (or know, more often) who's in the air if he gets good support & also gets his man! That said, and as previously mentioned, any civilianisation should remain limited to one or two per unit, in my opinion.
There are some capable Policemen who can be trained to become capable Police Air Observers. There are also some very capable non-Policemen who have already been trained (without extra hours etc) to become very completent Observers. Those who insist that the ONLY person able to be considered, for Police Air Observer training, is an experienced officer are deluding themselves into believing that they're better than they think they are - or are a little too keen to protect "jobs for the boys"?
For he, read she, etc.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeroperson
I think you will find that many of the flights for Transport Command are now contracted to civilian airlines. RAF crews are used when using hot air space and airfields.Not only do the civilian contractors use civilian pilots but they also have real life cabin crew.
I know it's a problem for you but civilians are permeating into all aspects of Service and Police operations apart from fighting and frontline core policing. Thank your lucky stars there are no takers from the private security industry to take over core policing.Not as yet anyway.
I think you will find that many of the flights for Transport Command are now contracted to civilian airlines. RAF crews are used when using hot air space and airfields.Not only do the civilian contractors use civilian pilots but they also have real life cabin crew.
I know it's a problem for you but civilians are permeating into all aspects of Service and Police operations apart from fighting and frontline core policing. Thank your lucky stars there are no takers from the private security industry to take over core policing.Not as yet anyway.
paarmo - I presume you are talking about the Falklands air bridge - the only reason we use civilian companies is because of the woeful lack of investment in the AT force and the fact they are stretched providing troop transports into the conflicts we find ourselves in. It is not done because of value for money or efficiency - it is just because we can't do it ourselves due to lack of resources.
Back to policemen in helicopters - on a job I did on Sunday rescuing 3 men from a crashed/sinking speedboat, the police heli was top cover and asked if we could keep hold of one of the men as they wanted to talk to him. We landed on the top of a headland closely followed by the police heli and the uniformed police observer was able to do what policemen do best - detect crime with the ability to detain if required. This would not have been possible with a civilian observer and would have required a ground policeman to be diverted from other duties to carry out the interview/arrest.
In rural areas I think it is vital to retain that police capability in the helicopter - they don't always work with ground units and having to wait for them to catch up could lead to losing the arrest completely.
Zorba - change is not always good and is often instigated for change's sake and not because there is a better alternative. The world is full of ambitious middle management who think their new initiative is better than the last blokes new initiative. Unfortunately there are those who cannot see that a task has been performed a certain way for many years for good reasons and insist on going through the painful process of reinventing the wheel. There is nothing Luddite about trying to save people from their own ambitions and trying to prevent real capability being lost for the sake of a few quid.
Back to policemen in helicopters - on a job I did on Sunday rescuing 3 men from a crashed/sinking speedboat, the police heli was top cover and asked if we could keep hold of one of the men as they wanted to talk to him. We landed on the top of a headland closely followed by the police heli and the uniformed police observer was able to do what policemen do best - detect crime with the ability to detain if required. This would not have been possible with a civilian observer and would have required a ground policeman to be diverted from other duties to carry out the interview/arrest.
In rural areas I think it is vital to retain that police capability in the helicopter - they don't always work with ground units and having to wait for them to catch up could lead to losing the arrest completely.
Zorba - change is not always good and is often instigated for change's sake and not because there is a better alternative. The world is full of ambitious middle management who think their new initiative is better than the last blokes new initiative. Unfortunately there are those who cannot see that a task has been performed a certain way for many years for good reasons and insist on going through the painful process of reinventing the wheel. There is nothing Luddite about trying to save people from their own ambitions and trying to prevent real capability being lost for the sake of a few quid.
Many people seem to be ignoring one of the main points of Zorab's post, that is that there are civilian air observers so the constant debate on whether it would be possible to train a non-police officer to be an effective air observer is really null and void as it has been done. It's like debating whether we should invent the motor car to replace the horse and carriage - it's already been done.
There are many points worthy of debate - selection, training, benefits, costs, the extent of civilianisation etc but you cannot debate whether civilians can be observers because they already are.
There are police officers who make bad observers and non-police officers who make good observers, sorry but that's the way it is.
I echo all that Zorab has said and, if he is who I think he is, he would know.
There are many points worthy of debate - selection, training, benefits, costs, the extent of civilianisation etc but you cannot debate whether civilians can be observers because they already are.
There are police officers who make bad observers and non-police officers who make good observers, sorry but that's the way it is.
I echo all that Zorab has said and, if he is who I think he is, he would know.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you J.A.F.O. - at least some people read the content!
I don't like getting into arguments with Crabs (beneath my dignity) but I do have significant experience with both useless (and good) Police Obs, and with very capable civvies.
Please read my previous posts again and be reminded (again) that my view is that the smattering of civvie Obs that is already in place is not necessarily a bad thing for a unit and could be considered by others. Two civvies seldom, if ever, get crewed together and, given the frequency of actually laying hands on a criminal, there's invariably a "proper" policeman in every crew anyway.
Please feel free to read the handle without dyslexia - I'm neither related to, nor associated with, any Greeks!
I don't like getting into arguments with Crabs (beneath my dignity) but I do have significant experience with both useless (and good) Police Obs, and with very capable civvies.
Please read my previous posts again and be reminded (again) that my view is that the smattering of civvie Obs that is already in place is not necessarily a bad thing for a unit and could be considered by others. Two civvies seldom, if ever, get crewed together and, given the frequency of actually laying hands on a criminal, there's invariably a "proper" policeman in every crew anyway.
Please feel free to read the handle without dyslexia - I'm neither related to, nor associated with, any Greeks!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello All,
As a ex-mil civvie (and happily so) pilot who flies for a Police Air outfit, I concur completely with Zorba in his points. For someone to say that civvies are unable to carry out the role of Air Observer, I would say they are mistaken in that it all depends on the individual operator.
Some coppers are good, some are not and struggle through. Same with civvies. The way I see it, it boils down to a few clear points:
I'm sure some uniformed members will disagree and guard their patch, but at least the potential for civvy AO's should be explored as an option for those who do not already have them.
As a ex-mil civvie (and happily so) pilot who flies for a Police Air outfit, I concur completely with Zorba in his points. For someone to say that civvies are unable to carry out the role of Air Observer, I would say they are mistaken in that it all depends on the individual operator.
Some coppers are good, some are not and struggle through. Same with civvies. The way I see it, it boils down to a few clear points:
- What is the cost/benefit of it? If it saves no money, then why worry about it.
- Can the Air Wing get recruits from the groundpounders. I know in some places there has been a freeze on Police due to funding, but this somehow does not include public servants, so you might be able to fill vacancies this way.
- If you need to have the powers of arrest, then case closed, police only. If the powers are needed rarely, then this might not be an issue.
- Training - a rigorous selection process will weed out poor recruits and if they don't make the training curve, get rid of them. Which is easier to get rid of? I'm not sure but in Oz, coppers can be removed tout suite from the unit to places like Warakirna (its not nowhere, but you can see it from there).
I'm sure some uniformed members will disagree and guard their patch, but at least the potential for civvy AO's should be explored as an option for those who do not already have them.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be the first to agree that anybody can be trained to work the cameras etc, its not hard. And as has just been mentioned most teenagers would probably be better at it than a crusty old police officer. However, at the risk of repeating myself, it is the experience that the observer brings along that counts. Lets face it, a 500 hr PPL could do a perfectly adequate job of flying the helicopter safely (ANO permitting). But an ATPL pilot with 1500hrs+ and possibly ex-mil can bring a lot more to the party, can't he?