UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My D'Oh
JAFO
You might be right. Its hard to decipher all the detail.
If it was assumed that the SY wasn't going to be there, then what is missing is the SY contribution to NPAS - and it is this sum that will need to be raised from the remaining 40 or so. So if the SY contibution was £1m, then this means an extra £25K for everybody (but probably split more intelligently than this)
GC
Its nice to know somebody can afford a gold plated solution these days, wish there could be more of it - but someone has to pay for it. I cant open the video file but I can guess the authority weren't explicit about what else in the SY force has to go. But £1.67m = 42 police officers or about 60 police staff to be made redundant (or similar etc). And 40% of £5m = an additional £2m that SY have to find (where in the past it was provided by the HO grant). And a thought - does this mean that the HO own 40% of the current aircraft - that could be interesting. It would mean that the 'residual' value of £1.5m assumed by SY is more like £0.9m, meaning that SY have an extra £2.6m to find. Or perhaps the HO might want their money back sooner (I doubt it)
Zorab
I have no idea how it would work but it seems to me that it would not be appropriate for SY to think they can ride on the back of NPAS for free. What I guess would happen is that an appropriate % of the bill would be agreed & passed on to SY. So the overall bill to the taxpayers would still be the lowest that can be achieved and SY would pay their fair share. (This would also mean that SY would not appear cheaper than it really is etc...)
But its interesting to note your 'responsibility to the taxpayer' arguement because it could be argued that SY are failing in their duty to the (national) taxpayer. Works both ways.
It seems to me to be easiest to put the Sheffield aircraft back into the NPAS proposal, and nationally accept slightly less savings - and then presumeably SY would join. I think reflects the fact (I think) that it is not the idea of NPAS that fundamentally at issue (bar concerns on C2 etc) but the number of helicopters that have to go, to achieve the savings target in a certain time, which I guess was centrally imposed.
But I guess there's lots of politics stopping this.
You might be right. Its hard to decipher all the detail.
If it was assumed that the SY wasn't going to be there, then what is missing is the SY contribution to NPAS - and it is this sum that will need to be raised from the remaining 40 or so. So if the SY contibution was £1m, then this means an extra £25K for everybody (but probably split more intelligently than this)
GC
Its nice to know somebody can afford a gold plated solution these days, wish there could be more of it - but someone has to pay for it. I cant open the video file but I can guess the authority weren't explicit about what else in the SY force has to go. But £1.67m = 42 police officers or about 60 police staff to be made redundant (or similar etc). And 40% of £5m = an additional £2m that SY have to find (where in the past it was provided by the HO grant). And a thought - does this mean that the HO own 40% of the current aircraft - that could be interesting. It would mean that the 'residual' value of £1.5m assumed by SY is more like £0.9m, meaning that SY have an extra £2.6m to find. Or perhaps the HO might want their money back sooner (I doubt it)
Zorab
I have no idea how it would work but it seems to me that it would not be appropriate for SY to think they can ride on the back of NPAS for free. What I guess would happen is that an appropriate % of the bill would be agreed & passed on to SY. So the overall bill to the taxpayers would still be the lowest that can be achieved and SY would pay their fair share. (This would also mean that SY would not appear cheaper than it really is etc...)
But its interesting to note your 'responsibility to the taxpayer' arguement because it could be argued that SY are failing in their duty to the (national) taxpayer. Works both ways.
It seems to me to be easiest to put the Sheffield aircraft back into the NPAS proposal, and nationally accept slightly less savings - and then presumeably SY would join. I think reflects the fact (I think) that it is not the idea of NPAS that fundamentally at issue (bar concerns on C2 etc) but the number of helicopters that have to go, to achieve the savings target in a certain time, which I guess was centrally imposed.
But I guess there's lots of politics stopping this.
Last edited by berty; 1st Oct 2011 at 08:56.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raising of Capital
I have given this some thought, slightly tricky to explain...
Although the figures for raising of capital between SY and NPAS seem roughly the same, the 2 organisations are in completely different situations.
For SY, the situation is pretty much as it always has been - they need to raise £350K per year to fund the new helicopter etc etc, see comments above
But NPAS face (I think) a difficult start position - typical of a new business
1. They start with no capital - and are unlikely to be given access to capital stashed in forces (for example for the abandoned batch buy). And the existing fleet continues to age and need replacing (ie the abandoned batch buy)
So NPAS probably have to raise capital at an accelerated rate than would be the case in steady state - to play catch up.
2. Also NPAS have come up with this credit scheme for helicopters under 10 years old and this needs to be paid for - so I am guessing that a lot of the capital raised will be immediately paid back. This hinders the raising of capital until helicopters become 10 years of age and drop off the list.
3. Forces have faced cutbacks and will have trimmed spending on helicopters (where possible) as they will try to pass the buck onto NPAS. Human nature being what it is.
So whereas, SY are already in steady state, NPAS are not. I suspect the need to raise capital in the case of NPAS has the potential to reduce significantly in a few years time (when they reach their steady state).
Although the figures for raising of capital between SY and NPAS seem roughly the same, the 2 organisations are in completely different situations.
For SY, the situation is pretty much as it always has been - they need to raise £350K per year to fund the new helicopter etc etc, see comments above
But NPAS face (I think) a difficult start position - typical of a new business
1. They start with no capital - and are unlikely to be given access to capital stashed in forces (for example for the abandoned batch buy). And the existing fleet continues to age and need replacing (ie the abandoned batch buy)
So NPAS probably have to raise capital at an accelerated rate than would be the case in steady state - to play catch up.
2. Also NPAS have come up with this credit scheme for helicopters under 10 years old and this needs to be paid for - so I am guessing that a lot of the capital raised will be immediately paid back. This hinders the raising of capital until helicopters become 10 years of age and drop off the list.
3. Forces have faced cutbacks and will have trimmed spending on helicopters (where possible) as they will try to pass the buck onto NPAS. Human nature being what it is.
So whereas, SY are already in steady state, NPAS are not. I suspect the need to raise capital in the case of NPAS has the potential to reduce significantly in a few years time (when they reach their steady state).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Berty, where exactly do you think this capital is going to come from? The government as a whole has no money, the HO specifically has no money, or is the suggestion that police forces will have to stump up for the coming years air support plus a proportion for the capital funding although police forces around the country not only have no money but are in a minus position because of savings they need to make. 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methane
DFD
Forces have always had to provide capital to replace etc; so I think the mechanism is that, initially at least, it is this that is used for NPAS. This is not new money but re-routing of existing capital.
GC
Nice debating technique. I have no idea what you are on about, no really. I think your 'handle' says it all. Either you are a saboteur to this thread seeking some reaction, or heat, which I won't provide; or perhaps a disenfranchised SY, as in the main, you only seem to be bothered about this particular issue. I suspect we know.
My aim was to provide a 'balanced' view to this forum as there is enough worry out there regarding jobs, the changes ahead etc - for slightly sad people like you not to add to it. And I mean that in a nice way. My organisation went through similar some years ago, that's all and its a little too familiar. But if people want me to go as it upsets their ability to moan and complain, rather than discuss or even try to understand the issues, then I will happily depart as, in the main, I have better things to do. And I dont fish, tried it once, hated it.
So signing off, as perhaps I should have done some days ago. Good luck to you all, except GC who - if he is SY - should be turfed out immediately. Not least that he must have broken some disciplinary code regarding disloyalty to his seniors. You guys don't need him, or his like, and deserve better. This thread deserves better.
All I can finish with is that, based on my own organisation and the seismic changes we faced some time ago, all will be well - although it didn't seem like it at the time. We also managed to clear some of the deadwood out too.
By the way, flounder is a salt water fish and pike is a fresh water fish - so your comment is moronic at all levels. Well done.
Forces have always had to provide capital to replace etc; so I think the mechanism is that, initially at least, it is this that is used for NPAS. This is not new money but re-routing of existing capital.
GC
Nice debating technique. I have no idea what you are on about, no really. I think your 'handle' says it all. Either you are a saboteur to this thread seeking some reaction, or heat, which I won't provide; or perhaps a disenfranchised SY, as in the main, you only seem to be bothered about this particular issue. I suspect we know.
My aim was to provide a 'balanced' view to this forum as there is enough worry out there regarding jobs, the changes ahead etc - for slightly sad people like you not to add to it. And I mean that in a nice way. My organisation went through similar some years ago, that's all and its a little too familiar. But if people want me to go as it upsets their ability to moan and complain, rather than discuss or even try to understand the issues, then I will happily depart as, in the main, I have better things to do. And I dont fish, tried it once, hated it.
So signing off, as perhaps I should have done some days ago. Good luck to you all, except GC who - if he is SY - should be turfed out immediately. Not least that he must have broken some disciplinary code regarding disloyalty to his seniors. You guys don't need him, or his like, and deserve better. This thread deserves better.
All I can finish with is that, based on my own organisation and the seismic changes we faced some time ago, all will be well - although it didn't seem like it at the time. We also managed to clear some of the deadwood out too.
By the way, flounder is a salt water fish and pike is a fresh water fish - so your comment is moronic at all levels. Well done.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Beety
D'oh Beety
'Nice debating technique. I have no idea what you are on about, no really.'
And therein lies the problem...
'So signing off, as perhaps I should have done some days ago.'
Goodbye Betty
'By the way, flounder is a salt water fish and pike is a fresh water fish - so your comment is moronic at all levels. Well done.'
The idea is check you have the right equipment for the MEDIUM, the right experience and you are in the right place..
I would get booked in for a manicure Betty, nails are beginning to get a bit frayed.
'Nice debating technique. I have no idea what you are on about, no really.'
And therein lies the problem...
'So signing off, as perhaps I should have done some days ago.'
Goodbye Betty
'By the way, flounder is a salt water fish and pike is a fresh water fish - so your comment is moronic at all levels. Well done.'
The idea is check you have the right equipment for the MEDIUM, the right experience and you are in the right place..
I would get booked in for a manicure Betty, nails are beginning to get a bit frayed.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the government want NPAS to happen it will. No matter what force says there not playing. Look at the stupid cuts that have and are happening that make no sense at all. If there happy to cut harriers and defence ships. You really think a police helicopter and it's police authority is gonna get in the way. Wakey wakey
B.U.D.G.I.E and others are right.Marshall made it quite clear in his speech at Duxford last week that any police authority that didn't join ,would either be mandated to join by the new police commisioner when appointed to replace the local authority members (suggesting they lose all decision making powers,so why bother to have them?), or if that doesnt work he will ask the Home Secretary to intervene.
NPAS rules I'm afraid .
NPAS rules I'm afraid .
Last edited by heli1; 2nd Oct 2011 at 09:43. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynics amongst us might say that those who refuse to join voluntarily do so knowing that the move will be forced upon them, there by devolving them of all responsibility for what may or may not happen. Just a thought.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commissioner Gordon?
For those of you fellow PPRUNErs that are sceptical of the new commissioners (PCC) I urge you to read again the watered down plans. The Lib Dems have been at it again. I think you will find the appointment of this new system will actually be of benefit. This was posted a few pages back and urge you just to look at the plans again.
Avon and Somerset Police Authority
It appears the new system will have checks and balances. The PCC will be overseen by what is effectively, the police authority, now called Police and Crime Panels (PCP), councillors and 2 lay members.
The good thing about this set up and it fits in with Dave's 'Big Society' plan
is that the PCC will be representing the 'people', and that's exactly what happened at South Yorkshire! The councillors there had done their homework and overturned the 'party line', which is in the interest of the citizens of that County.
I am sure the Government has more to think about at the moment than forcing
a decision on locally elected representatives that the people they are representing - do not want. And, that's what the PCC and the PCP's will be doing. A thought.
Avon and Somerset Police Authority
It appears the new system will have checks and balances. The PCC will be overseen by what is effectively, the police authority, now called Police and Crime Panels (PCP), councillors and 2 lay members.
The good thing about this set up and it fits in with Dave's 'Big Society' plan
is that the PCC will be representing the 'people', and that's exactly what happened at South Yorkshire! The councillors there had done their homework and overturned the 'party line', which is in the interest of the citizens of that County.
I am sure the Government has more to think about at the moment than forcing
a decision on locally elected representatives that the people they are representing - do not want. And, that's what the PCC and the PCP's will be doing. A thought.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a world of my own!
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GC, I think your reading too much into the powers that will be vested in the crime panels.
Review and scrutinise sounds a little wishy washy, whereas the word veto leaves little room for discussion. In this case the veto option only extends to precept levels and not decisions and actions by the PCC.
Successive governments have had nothing but problems with Police Authorities scuppering National plans all because some low level politician has a brilliant idea to extend their own portfolio and to make a name for themselves, do you really think that now they are going to replace PA's that they will allow them the same level of veto?
Review and scrutinise decisions and actions by the PCC;
Review and veto the Commissioner’s proposed precept levels.
Review and veto the Commissioner’s proposed precept levels.
Successive governments have had nothing but problems with Police Authorities scuppering National plans all because some low level politician has a brilliant idea to extend their own portfolio and to make a name for themselves, do you really think that now they are going to replace PA's that they will allow them the same level of veto?
the rest have to pay for the remaining 24 ...... [aircraft]
But it was clear from CC Alex Marshall's presentation at Duxford that the current plans may yet upset some financially.
The NPAS investment model is not £XXXXX divided by 43 forces.
The model is 'a sum less than you paid last year' ..... so some [North Yorks, Lincs and Kent etc] pay less than 'nothing' .... subsidised as ever by the others.
OK each of them will probably have used some air support in a year so there will be some numbers out there.
To meet the criterion if the bill is say £25,000pa in one of the 'no air support forces' above they may pay £24,000 to the NPAS pot where a similar sized air support operator of long standing can still face a bill of millions for the same discounted offering....
Take that on the chin.
But it was clear from CC Alex Marshall's presentation at Duxford that the current plans may yet upset some financially.
The NPAS investment model is not £XXXXX divided by 43 forces.
The model is 'a sum less than you paid last year' ..... so some [North Yorks, Lincs and Kent etc] pay less than 'nothing' .... subsidised as ever by the others.
OK each of them will probably have used some air support in a year so there will be some numbers out there.
To meet the criterion if the bill is say £25,000pa in one of the 'no air support forces' above they may pay £24,000 to the NPAS pot where a similar sized air support operator of long standing can still face a bill of millions for the same discounted offering....
Take that on the chin.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheffield Steel
No, no, no I dont want to hear it. Damn you all.
For those of you fellow PPRUNErs that are sceptical, the Teletubbies have joined forces with the Monster Raving Loons and developed a new system that will actually be of benefit. They sent it just to me but I can't post it because its drawn in crayon - and all the police helicopters will be based at Sheffield airport - its big enough as everyone else has left. It appears the new system will have me as El Supremo Presidente, overseen by Eric my invisible friend. The good thing about this set up is that, magically, it fits exactly what I have been thinking for years and that HP will eventually triumpth over Lord Voldemort (boo). So please no more of this unbelieving, else I will have to declare a fatwah and have you toasted with the muffins. Sheffield will always have air support, just like its steel industry. All hail the jammy dodger.
For those of you fellow PPRUNErs that are sceptical, the Teletubbies have joined forces with the Monster Raving Loons and developed a new system that will actually be of benefit. They sent it just to me but I can't post it because its drawn in crayon - and all the police helicopters will be based at Sheffield airport - its big enough as everyone else has left. It appears the new system will have me as El Supremo Presidente, overseen by Eric my invisible friend. The good thing about this set up is that, magically, it fits exactly what I have been thinking for years and that HP will eventually triumpth over Lord Voldemort (boo). So please no more of this unbelieving, else I will have to declare a fatwah and have you toasted with the muffins. Sheffield will always have air support, just like its steel industry. All hail the jammy dodger.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back to the thread!?
Berty -
but the Authority have to compromise between cost, & service to their public. In this case, they obviously felt that the cost/benefit of NPAS was out of balance with their remit to represent their people and their Police Force.
otherwise called political bullying, IMO - not "localism", as has been so regularly trumpeted. (See previous comments re Comissioners !) 
. . . to note your 'responsibility to the taxpayer' arguement because it could be argued that SY are failing in their duty to the (national) taxpayer
. . . any police authority that didn't join ,would either be mandated to join by the new police commisioner when appointed to replace the local authority members (suggesting they lose all decision making powers,so why bother to have them?), or if that doesnt work he will ask the Home Secretary to intervene.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
I note that the S.Yorks Chief Constable is "standing down" in a week's time.
Any connections with recent announcements on this topic, I wonder?
Any connections with recent announcements on this topic, I wonder?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
SYPA Webcast.
A very interesting webcast, well worth tucking yourself away for an hour to watch. (Agenda 6, NPAS)
One particular highlight, what was that Phil Raymond said?
"Part of the proposals under NPAS would be to have a mixed fleet of aircraft. At the moment, because forces have had to purchase their own aircraft and operate their own aircraft, all forces in England and Wales for their general over police air support units have a rotary wing helicopter. A lot of the tasks which that helicopter does could be achieved more quickly and more cheaply with alternative airframes, perhaps a fixed wing. So part of the NPAS proposals in the future would be to have a mix of assets, so that we can deliver a variety of air platforms to do a variety of different jobs. There may be times we need to move a firearms team about a county quickly so a large helicopter would be better, something like the Metropolitan and Devon and Cornwall operate. Under NPAS we would have access to those aircraft. There may be times when you need a small fast helicopter, but equally well and particularly for directed patrols, there may be times when a fixed wing aircraft which has a 6 or 7 hour enduration, might be a better air asset to deploy. As a single force, it's very difficult for you to have a fleet of aircraft at your disposal, as a national entity we will have that in the future. "
Where to start !
One particular highlight, what was that Phil Raymond said?
"Part of the proposals under NPAS would be to have a mixed fleet of aircraft. At the moment, because forces have had to purchase their own aircraft and operate their own aircraft, all forces in England and Wales for their general over police air support units have a rotary wing helicopter. A lot of the tasks which that helicopter does could be achieved more quickly and more cheaply with alternative airframes, perhaps a fixed wing. So part of the NPAS proposals in the future would be to have a mix of assets, so that we can deliver a variety of air platforms to do a variety of different jobs. There may be times we need to move a firearms team about a county quickly so a large helicopter would be better, something like the Metropolitan and Devon and Cornwall operate. Under NPAS we would have access to those aircraft. There may be times when you need a small fast helicopter, but equally well and particularly for directed patrols, there may be times when a fixed wing aircraft which has a 6 or 7 hour enduration, might be a better air asset to deploy. As a single force, it's very difficult for you to have a fleet of aircraft at your disposal, as a national entity we will have that in the future. "
Where to start !
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Susan Carte;
"actually, until forces sign on the dotted line and transfer their asset and first payments are made, at the moment there is nothing to say that you have joined NPAS, so it's very difficult , there is no exit strategy at the moment where you have the ability to tote up and change your mind at this minute in time, but we really want an indication what it's likely to be."
Anyone else here organised a Christmas Party?
You get the numbers in the autumn of those who say they will attend, arrange the venue, book entertainment, meal, raffle prizes etc etc.
The closer you get to the event the numbers slowly dwindle.
The costs of the venue, ent, food etc remain the same, but this now has to be borne by fewer people, until it gets to the point where, when you have to inform people how much they need to pay, and you either end up with a lot of disgruntled party goers or fork out on cancellation fees !
Mess do's were so much easier with that 3 line whip.....I thought that was always in the NPAS arsenal !
"actually, until forces sign on the dotted line and transfer their asset and first payments are made, at the moment there is nothing to say that you have joined NPAS, so it's very difficult , there is no exit strategy at the moment where you have the ability to tote up and change your mind at this minute in time, but we really want an indication what it's likely to be."
Anyone else here organised a Christmas Party?
You get the numbers in the autumn of those who say they will attend, arrange the venue, book entertainment, meal, raffle prizes etc etc.
The closer you get to the event the numbers slowly dwindle.
The costs of the venue, ent, food etc remain the same, but this now has to be borne by fewer people, until it gets to the point where, when you have to inform people how much they need to pay, and you either end up with a lot of disgruntled party goers or fork out on cancellation fees !
Mess do's were so much easier with that 3 line whip.....I thought that was always in the NPAS arsenal !