UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As every one has to tighten their belts over the next few years you got to admit the new broom has got it right stopping fat cat bosses getting massive pay deals. Which would easily run an ASU for a year and the NPIA is not safe either 
which may make for a better police service.
which may make for a better police service.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As is so often the case, TC hits the nail on the head typing, with more experience than most, of the job, aircraft, individuals & politics involved.
Actually, Tigerfish, whilst I agree with most of your posts, from your latest one, I suggest the Police are more often part of the problem - too many petty attitudes towards "their own patch" to realise that their next-door-neighbour's being burgled whilst they're on the other side of the fence - metaphorically & literally! In some areas different forces actually talk to, and work with, their neighbours, either in a formal or less formal manner, but both offering a service when one force would recieve none, if their aircraft was down for maintenance, and sometimes when one is rushed off its feet & the other's at a loose end!
There are efficiencies to be made but, if they include re-locating in the current threat environment it will be frighteningly expensive, I predict. As I've also previously posted, moving bases on the grounds that a 25 min service is as acceptable as a 15 min one, will make for very uneven provision in numerous areas - although why D&C are at one end of their huge patch, I've never understood!
Those who continue to advocate significantly lesser-equipped aircraft, or believe that the Police can "change CAA policy" on operations in marginal weather at night, really need to smell the roses. It's not been the Police who've insisted on the latest crop of SPIFR machines being rushed in - in fact many of the forces were more than happy with thier old cabs - it was the CAA & lawyers worried about litigation if the aircraft crashed ! ! !
Actually, Tigerfish, whilst I agree with most of your posts, from your latest one, I suggest the Police are more often part of the problem - too many petty attitudes towards "their own patch" to realise that their next-door-neighbour's being burgled whilst they're on the other side of the fence - metaphorically & literally! In some areas different forces actually talk to, and work with, their neighbours, either in a formal or less formal manner, but both offering a service when one force would recieve none, if their aircraft was down for maintenance, and sometimes when one is rushed off its feet & the other's at a loose end!
There are efficiencies to be made but, if they include re-locating in the current threat environment it will be frighteningly expensive, I predict. As I've also previously posted, moving bases on the grounds that a 25 min service is as acceptable as a 15 min one, will make for very uneven provision in numerous areas - although why D&C are at one end of their huge patch, I've never understood!
Those who continue to advocate significantly lesser-equipped aircraft, or believe that the Police can "change CAA policy" on operations in marginal weather at night, really need to smell the roses. It's not been the Police who've insisted on the latest crop of SPIFR machines being rushed in - in fact many of the forces were more than happy with thier old cabs - it was the CAA & lawyers worried about litigation if the aircraft crashed ! ! !
ZORAB64
Zorab. If I gave the impression that I was against change that was very wrong. I fully support the concept of what is proposed, just a bit worried about what is driving it (Cost saving versus efficiency) thats all.
Change is vital if things are to move forward. I was just a bit irked because TC appeared to be saying that everything that has been acheved over the past 25 years was no good. I would submit that what was achieved from a standing start was pretty damn good.
TC also appeared to be wanting to remove the Police element from "Police Air Support" which quite frankly I find amazing. Yes there are faults but the service has grown significantly over the past 25 years and there are a number of people involved today who could quite easily step up to the mark of running the National Organisation. ( And I do not count myself in that body, as I am now well past retirement age ) There seems to be an element that believe that the Police should have no part in Police Air Support, and that it should only be the province of the professional Aviator. NO there must always be a Police involvement in such a Police centered activity.
It has been my impression over the years that individual Police ASU's were the most effective of all the specialised elements of Policing in co-operating with their neighbours. Mutual cover etc has been commonplace for years.
Regional working must come and the sooner the better. Some bases are in the wrong place and do need to be moved, but overall there is not much wrong with the system in comparison with what other counties have.
In short that was the cause of my perhaps terse response to TC. Just look at what has been achieved and compare. Who is more co-ordinated? Who is better organised nationally? Who has a better accident record? Who has a better record of effectiveness?
We can do better but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Tigerfish
Change is vital if things are to move forward. I was just a bit irked because TC appeared to be saying that everything that has been acheved over the past 25 years was no good. I would submit that what was achieved from a standing start was pretty damn good.
TC also appeared to be wanting to remove the Police element from "Police Air Support" which quite frankly I find amazing. Yes there are faults but the service has grown significantly over the past 25 years and there are a number of people involved today who could quite easily step up to the mark of running the National Organisation. ( And I do not count myself in that body, as I am now well past retirement age ) There seems to be an element that believe that the Police should have no part in Police Air Support, and that it should only be the province of the professional Aviator. NO there must always be a Police involvement in such a Police centered activity.
It has been my impression over the years that individual Police ASU's were the most effective of all the specialised elements of Policing in co-operating with their neighbours. Mutual cover etc has been commonplace for years.
Regional working must come and the sooner the better. Some bases are in the wrong place and do need to be moved, but overall there is not much wrong with the system in comparison with what other counties have.
In short that was the cause of my perhaps terse response to TC. Just look at what has been achieved and compare. Who is more co-ordinated? Who is better organised nationally? Who has a better accident record? Who has a better record of effectiveness?
We can do better but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Tigerfish
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Interesting interview on Radio 5 Live this morning about the latest shootings. Reporter was asking why Cumbria didn't have its own helicopter and were the bosses being short-sighted by not getting one. Could 'nutter' have been caught earlier? I wonder if the newshounds realise that things are only going to get worse?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point should be made that Cumbria does have a helicopter, they have full access to a 24 hour resource at Lancashire in a partnership that has been in place since 1997, and I believe it was Lancashire that responded first. Lancashire could be on scene before some aircraft that cover very large areas already. If Cumbria had merged with Lancashire, then the question would not have been asked. This is one area where the review would not have any impact, although interestingly, ask who covers Lancashire when they are in Cumbria.......................... that would be Merseyside, who would then relieve Lancashire when refuel is needed. So now Cumbria have access to two helicopters without really thinking about it. Then the North East can cover the north end of Cumbria, that would be three helicopters. And that's not counting for the numerous air ambulances that were mobilised and the military sea kings. What this does underline is the disjointed and individual response that would justify a fully co-ordinated response. And it also shows the very different roles and priorities for the police aircraft and air ambulances in this kind of situation, and the importance of police ownership. There could be some interesting debrief information from this tragic event, especially for those involved in air operations.
And Tigerfish is so right about Air Ops being ahead of the game in 'borderless' operations - they have been doing this ever since they started and have always been one of the most professional and able specialized section of the service to achieve this. The reality is that the top table priorities change, and economy of scale becomes attractive. The alternative is that more aircraft disappear and mergers happen by necessity of cost - that is exactly what happened to Cumbria air support in 1997.
And Tigerfish is so right about Air Ops being ahead of the game in 'borderless' operations - they have been doing this ever since they started and have always been one of the most professional and able specialized section of the service to achieve this. The reality is that the top table priorities change, and economy of scale becomes attractive. The alternative is that more aircraft disappear and mergers happen by necessity of cost - that is exactly what happened to Cumbria air support in 1997.
Last edited by CSC 123; 5th Jun 2010 at 00:44.
Tigerfish - how are you old boy? Glad you are still as passionate now as you were when we met not so long ago!
You must have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Let me re-iterate:
The 'model' isn't bust, it is the machine which encompasses it that was never right in the first place.
I am always for "police officers" in helicopters - long may it last.
What irked me then and still does is the way one 'new' UEO seems to be averse to learning from the other more seasoned UEO across the border. They would rather bite their hand off than copy their peers SOP's. Hence a lot of time and money is wasted learning how to run an AOU.
The same goes for buying the hardware.
Finally - when you look at how C.C's run their business - they are contracted individuals, paid considerable (some say too much) money to build a bureaucratic monolith around policing - introducing schemes that they have lifted from elsewhere which simply don't fit into modern day British policing at times. Their 'leverage' over air support has stifled the Home Office's plans for the future which is to streamline air support and to do away with re-inventing the wheel. Too many bosses and not enough injuns!!
One a/c type / always a core police crew (not necessarily all police though) and a Captain of Industry running a region.
Modern policing using modern ideas and modern equipment.
Take care.
You must have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Let me re-iterate:
The 'model' isn't bust, it is the machine which encompasses it that was never right in the first place.
I am always for "police officers" in helicopters - long may it last.
What irked me then and still does is the way one 'new' UEO seems to be averse to learning from the other more seasoned UEO across the border. They would rather bite their hand off than copy their peers SOP's. Hence a lot of time and money is wasted learning how to run an AOU.
The same goes for buying the hardware.
Finally - when you look at how C.C's run their business - they are contracted individuals, paid considerable (some say too much) money to build a bureaucratic monolith around policing - introducing schemes that they have lifted from elsewhere which simply don't fit into modern day British policing at times. Their 'leverage' over air support has stifled the Home Office's plans for the future which is to streamline air support and to do away with re-inventing the wheel. Too many bosses and not enough injuns!!
One a/c type / always a core police crew (not necessarily all police though
) and a Captain of Industry running a region.Modern policing using modern ideas and modern equipment.
Take care.
TC
TC, Thanks for asking, & yes I am fine. I guess I did misinterpret what you were saying, - It was late & my response was over the top. Actually there is very little water between us, and as usual I do respect your view on the subject.
Yes my passion for the subject is still as strong, I guess that you cannot be connected with something for over 25 years, watched it develop,& been proud of what it acheived, without continuing to fight its corner.
As I have said so many times, in my humble opinion the proposals are essentialy right, the devil will be in the detail though, and I am worried that the new breed of ACPO are more concerned with saving money than keeping up effectiveness.
Once the criminal realises that his chances of being caught by an a/c are diminished he WILL take advantage.
I will never forget the advice given to me by my tutor constable back in the mid 60's. He said "Never be kind to the criminal my son, because to the criminal,kindness is weakness, and weakness is to be exploited" I heeded that advice and it stood me in good stead for over 30 years.
My concern is that by thinning out the cover we might be seen to be kind to the criminal. That will be interpreted as a weakening of our resolve to lock the ******ds up!
Good luck to you TC. I hope that your new ventures are continuing to bear fruit.
Tigerfish
Yes my passion for the subject is still as strong, I guess that you cannot be connected with something for over 25 years, watched it develop,& been proud of what it acheived, without continuing to fight its corner.
As I have said so many times, in my humble opinion the proposals are essentialy right, the devil will be in the detail though, and I am worried that the new breed of ACPO are more concerned with saving money than keeping up effectiveness.
Once the criminal realises that his chances of being caught by an a/c are diminished he WILL take advantage.
I will never forget the advice given to me by my tutor constable back in the mid 60's. He said "Never be kind to the criminal my son, because to the criminal,kindness is weakness, and weakness is to be exploited" I heeded that advice and it stood me in good stead for over 30 years.
My concern is that by thinning out the cover we might be seen to be kind to the criminal. That will be interpreted as a weakening of our resolve to lock the ******ds up!
Good luck to you TC. I hope that your new ventures are continuing to bear fruit.
Tigerfish
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rationalisation of air support is one thing, but trying to get a quart out of a pint pot is unreconcilable. The whole point of air support is a fast response, with the endurance to do what is needed when on scene. If the response times are increased by say 10 minutes, and some areas a lot more if you look at areas like East Anglia, then the offenders are going to get away. You could have one aircraft covering the whole of the UK, very cheap but a complete waste of time. So what is the point of air support? You either have an effective service that gives value for money by catching criminals, bringing pursuits to a safe conclusion, finding missing persons and finding all those hydroponic sites, or no air support at all. It is of course a no brainer given the safety issues of pursuits and the manpower needed for searching for missing persons. This can only be achieved by having the right number of assets in the right places giving an even coverage of the whole country. Chiefs need to understand that collaboration with neighbouring forces and the removal of boarders is not a threat but the answer for a better, more efficient and less expensive service.
IMHO.
IMHO.
Fly for Fun! - 10/10:
Its interesting that both the dreadful Hungerford, and the much more recent Cumbria shootings occured without the immediacy of Air support. Hungerford because back then, it was simply before such a resourse became available, and Cumbria, because the force did not have its own air support, & presumably whatever the arrangements were with its neighbours, it took longer to get it in.
"Fly for Fun" is 100% right when he says the whole secret of success of Air Support is in its speed of arrival, AND that arrival must be an arrival with enough fuel reserves to do something apart from seeking somewhere to refuel!
Yet it is in those very rural areas that the plans appear to accept a delay in response, as being an acceptable result of a drive to save money.
I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that, especially when you consider that for the most part they have already lost their rural Police stations.
Tigerfish
Its interesting that both the dreadful Hungerford, and the much more recent Cumbria shootings occured without the immediacy of Air support. Hungerford because back then, it was simply before such a resourse became available, and Cumbria, because the force did not have its own air support, & presumably whatever the arrangements were with its neighbours, it took longer to get it in.
"Fly for Fun" is 100% right when he says the whole secret of success of Air Support is in its speed of arrival, AND that arrival must be an arrival with enough fuel reserves to do something apart from seeking somewhere to refuel!
Yet it is in those very rural areas that the plans appear to accept a delay in response, as being an acceptable result of a drive to save money.
I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that, especially when you consider that for the most part they have already lost their rural Police stations.
Tigerfish
Last edited by tigerfish; 11th Jun 2010 at 11:55.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet it is in those very rural areas that the plans appear to accept a delay in response, as being an acceptable result of a drive to save money.
I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that
I do not think our rural citizens will be happy with that
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock, may I ask if you are only licensed as a PPL on singles? I say this with your obvious dislike of twins and your lack of knowledge about public transport/commercial ops.
Fly for Fun
I like your posts but why will no one tell me why Devon and Cornwall have their machine at one end of the patch, about 45 mins flyingtime to the other end, what bloody good is that, some what shoots your argument down about being effective !!!
By the way chopjock lives within that patch so probably is biased as to what he sees compared to other more populated areas !
I like your posts but why will no one tell me why Devon and Cornwall have their machine at one end of the patch, about 45 mins flyingtime to the other end, what bloody good is that, some what shoots your argument down about being effective !!!
By the way chopjock lives within that patch so probably is biased as to what he sees compared to other more populated areas !
Hughes 500. Please understand that I am not seeking to defend it, ( It is the for the force to that) But the original reason is down to history. Devon & Cornwall were the first force outside London to experiment with the use of Helicopters. (81/82).
The force HQ was -& is at Middlemoor just east of Exeter. It was not realised then that an Air Support unit should not be used for the transport of senior officers, so it was natural that the new concept in Policing should be based at HQ.
I am not party to the reasons why it remains there to this day, but given the extensive examinations that all units have at regular intervals, I am sure that they will have their reasons.
Tigerfish
The force HQ was -& is at Middlemoor just east of Exeter. It was not realised then that an Air Support unit should not be used for the transport of senior officers, so it was natural that the new concept in Policing should be based at HQ.
I am not party to the reasons why it remains there to this day, but given the extensive examinations that all units have at regular intervals, I am sure that they will have their reasons.
Tigerfish
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes 500. It looks as though being based at Plymouth would make more sence geographicaly so I am not sure why they are at Exeter. Perhaps they could answer your question if they are on line.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
It's OK chaps, it's not just us.
It appears that choppyjock, H500 et al are giving the same grief to the lot over at FFRuNe (FireFighters Rumour Network)
Over there they argue that Fire appliances shouldn't be so big, as they have no need to carry so much water. There are loads of those hydrants and other water sources around, that could be used by a smaller cheaper vehicle that would and could, for all intents and purposes, be a pump and hose on wheels and would be able to do exactly the same job.
As you only need one person on the nozzle end, another at the on/off button end and no reason to carry anyone or anything else, these vehicles can be adapted cosy little things, such as the Kaa, no spare tyres need to be carried incase of puncture either. We are reminded that the Kaa is not only more efficient fuel wise, with it's smaller engine, we are told (as long as the fuel tank isn't more than quarter full), it can just about keep up with a fully laden big boy Fire appliance.
On the other side of their coin, they argue that there is also no need for this large combined Fire and Rescue appliance going out each time, as when the station is called out on a shout, they know, on being deployed, whether it is a Fire or a Rescue that they will be attending. So it makes sense to get rid of the larger appliance and have 2 smaller appliances, one being the pump/hose vehicle and the other a 'ladder and ropes' rescue vehicle.
Another thing that I noticed on that site is that they point out that fires never happen close by to the fire stations. Therefore a blue light run is always having to take place in order to achieve an 8 minute response time. Obviously they are in the wrong place and therefore a total reassessment of Fire Stations needs to taken at a national level.
The biggest reaction though from those at FFRuNe, comes from their argument that the tax payer has forked out a lot of money for all these nice and shiny all singing and dancing Fire & Rescue vehicles that spend a lot of time just sat in a station. Their own cars do more mileage in a week than their local fire appliance and therefore don't think the taxpayer is getting value for money.
Just off to the BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site) to see what they've been up to there and then to sus out KEBABs (Keep England Bright And Barmy site)
Over there they argue that Fire appliances shouldn't be so big, as they have no need to carry so much water. There are loads of those hydrants and other water sources around, that could be used by a smaller cheaper vehicle that would and could, for all intents and purposes, be a pump and hose on wheels and would be able to do exactly the same job.
As you only need one person on the nozzle end, another at the on/off button end and no reason to carry anyone or anything else, these vehicles can be adapted cosy little things, such as the Kaa, no spare tyres need to be carried incase of puncture either. We are reminded that the Kaa is not only more efficient fuel wise, with it's smaller engine, we are told (as long as the fuel tank isn't more than quarter full), it can just about keep up with a fully laden big boy Fire appliance.
On the other side of their coin, they argue that there is also no need for this large combined Fire and Rescue appliance going out each time, as when the station is called out on a shout, they know, on being deployed, whether it is a Fire or a Rescue that they will be attending. So it makes sense to get rid of the larger appliance and have 2 smaller appliances, one being the pump/hose vehicle and the other a 'ladder and ropes' rescue vehicle.
Another thing that I noticed on that site is that they point out that fires never happen close by to the fire stations. Therefore a blue light run is always having to take place in order to achieve an 8 minute response time. Obviously they are in the wrong place and therefore a total reassessment of Fire Stations needs to taken at a national level.
The biggest reaction though from those at FFRuNe, comes from their argument that the tax payer has forked out a lot of money for all these nice and shiny all singing and dancing Fire & Rescue vehicles that spend a lot of time just sat in a station. Their own cars do more mileage in a week than their local fire appliance and therefore don't think the taxpayer is getting value for money.
Just off to the BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site) to see what they've been up to there and then to sus out KEBABs (Keep England Bright And Barmy site)
SS
I am only giving grief as I see at first hand the waste of money.
Can you really argue that
1. you should place your asset at one end of the patch ? With 5 mins flying time to the East of your patch and more than 45 mins to the West.
2. You use the biggest most expensive machine where as the likes of you uses a cheaper and obviously just as effective machine
3. The use of 2 permenent engineers to look after one machine ( yes I know they now look after the air ambulance)
If you corrected these areas you would see cost savings. If you notice I have never gone down saying police need singles. Yes in certain circumstances they would be great, but they cant do everything a twin can. ( Before you ask I do have a twin rating and do fly them commerically)
All I have said you have to cut your cloth. It is easy to say keep this and keep that if you dont have to write out the cheques. I have to write out the cheques for 4 machines, so I know what cost saving actually means when it effects you personally. So you go down the avenue of looking very closely at all aspects of your business. If some of the police units look more closely at what they do then there are potential cost savings to be made. CC's need to stop playing with " their " train set and look at the bigger picture
I am only giving grief as I see at first hand the waste of money.
Can you really argue that
1. you should place your asset at one end of the patch ? With 5 mins flying time to the East of your patch and more than 45 mins to the West.
2. You use the biggest most expensive machine where as the likes of you uses a cheaper and obviously just as effective machine
3. The use of 2 permenent engineers to look after one machine ( yes I know they now look after the air ambulance)
If you corrected these areas you would see cost savings. If you notice I have never gone down saying police need singles. Yes in certain circumstances they would be great, but they cant do everything a twin can. ( Before you ask I do have a twin rating and do fly them commerically)
All I have said you have to cut your cloth. It is easy to say keep this and keep that if you dont have to write out the cheques. I have to write out the cheques for 4 machines, so I know what cost saving actually means when it effects you personally. So you go down the avenue of looking very closely at all aspects of your business. If some of the police units look more closely at what they do then there are potential cost savings to be made. CC's need to stop playing with " their " train set and look at the bigger picture
Flyforfun said
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merseyside
Flyforfun said
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..
And further to MG's reply, the 'longest leg' in Merseyside is under 8 minutes from Woodvale. The City (Tunnel entrance) is the same distance from Woodvale and Speke and we can reach all of Merseyside in under 8 minutes from Woodvale, rather than the 15 minutes it used to take to get to Southport from Speke. It may come a surprise to you but these things were actually considered before the move happened.
Quote:
The whole point of air support is a fast response
That'll explain why Merseyside moved from Speke to Woodvale then..
And further to MG's reply, the 'longest leg' in Merseyside is under 8 minutes from Woodvale. The City (Tunnel entrance) is the same distance from Woodvale and Speke and we can reach all of Merseyside in under 8 minutes from Woodvale, rather than the 15 minutes it used to take to get to Southport from Speke. It may come a surprise to you but these things were actually considered before the move happened.