UK Police helicopter budget cuts
As a bystander* passionate about police air ops, I suspect many can't see the woods for the trees any more. I certainly don't wish that to be derogatory in any shape or form.
BUT, this is a fait accompli. Society is undergoing a "re-calibration" due to a massive economic downturn and cut backs in this (police) domain are a tiny slither of the bigger slice that has been forever removed from our country's financial reserves.
IF one accepts that EVERY person/department has to play their part in reshaping the financial future of this nation, then one must accept CUT BACKS.
Now, IF this is the case (and surely no-one here thinks things can continue ad infinitum), then slashing the air support bill by 20% is (a) in line with almost every other public sector requirement and (b) necessary.
We are riddled with debt. For every family in the UK, we are paying £23000/year in debt interest alone! The UK combined debt is the equivalent of almost £300,000 per family??
It is time to stop prevaricating and time for action. £15,000,000 from Air Support means the loss of 5 choppers - get used to it. Take the medicine, or the illness will not go away.
Wallowing over spilt milk is not constructive. It will mean that taking the medicine is a lot harder.
Stage 2: 5 choppers down accepted, there is now the golden opportunity to rationalise a fragmented service, one which in the past re-invented the wheel 20 times over as each ASU was born, using different a/c, different tactics, different suppliers, different salaries even! Time to take stock of what a very sophisticated very capable air force can actually do.
I think you shot yourselves in the foot: By making the service one of the most advanced, most sophisticated, most capable public service element (probably) in the world, it means they have outgrown the original remit which included: twoc's / petty burglary / domestics, etc etc. If my original Lada has now morphed into a bentley, I am not going to continue using it to pop down to the shops for a bottle of milk or to go cruising on a Saturday night
Time to point a very expensive, very smart weapon at............you've guessed it....it needs to go up market.
Like it or not, Air Support has come of age and it wants to leave home and stand on its own two feet. Give it a chance to do that - As the head of the MCA said to al those detractors with SAR(H): The train is leaving the station, you are either on it or out of it.
Good luck
BUT, this is a fait accompli. Society is undergoing a "re-calibration" due to a massive economic downturn and cut backs in this (police) domain are a tiny slither of the bigger slice that has been forever removed from our country's financial reserves.
IF one accepts that EVERY person/department has to play their part in reshaping the financial future of this nation, then one must accept CUT BACKS.
Now, IF this is the case (and surely no-one here thinks things can continue ad infinitum), then slashing the air support bill by 20% is (a) in line with almost every other public sector requirement and (b) necessary.
We are riddled with debt. For every family in the UK, we are paying £23000/year in debt interest alone! The UK combined debt is the equivalent of almost £300,000 per family??
It is time to stop prevaricating and time for action. £15,000,000 from Air Support means the loss of 5 choppers - get used to it. Take the medicine, or the illness will not go away.
Wallowing over spilt milk is not constructive. It will mean that taking the medicine is a lot harder.
Stage 2: 5 choppers down accepted, there is now the golden opportunity to rationalise a fragmented service, one which in the past re-invented the wheel 20 times over as each ASU was born, using different a/c, different tactics, different suppliers, different salaries even! Time to take stock of what a very sophisticated very capable air force can actually do.
I think you shot yourselves in the foot: By making the service one of the most advanced, most sophisticated, most capable public service element (probably) in the world, it means they have outgrown the original remit which included: twoc's / petty burglary / domestics, etc etc. If my original Lada has now morphed into a bentley, I am not going to continue using it to pop down to the shops for a bottle of milk or to go cruising on a Saturday night
Time to point a very expensive, very smart weapon at............you've guessed it....it needs to go up market.
Like it or not, Air Support has come of age and it wants to leave home and stand on its own two feet. Give it a chance to do that - As the head of the MCA said to al those detractors with SAR(H): The train is leaving the station, you are either on it or out of it.
Good luck
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting twist, at a Cambridgeshire Police & crime strategy board meeting today, one of the Police and Crime Commissioner candidates is understood to be saying they'll reverse the Police Authority decision to lose the Cambs helicopter if elected.
I wonder, when the Police Authorities get swapped out for these elected posts next year, how many of these people could influence the decisions to join NPAS (or not in the case of Cambs)?
I wonder, when the Police Authorities get swapped out for these elected posts next year, how many of these people could influence the decisions to join NPAS (or not in the case of Cambs)?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home Office - who?
Shell
In a way your right, the Home Office could have sorted this all out? They haven't done, they have not overruled and I think they won't either. This has been handed down to a group of non-aviation people with an agenda and the Gov will want to point fingers at someone else when it goes pear-shaped.
I think reading some of the rhetoric coming out of various trade shows recently that agenda is to sell Augusta helicopters, a re-run of the debacle we had back in 1985 and not to enhance the excellent and semi-integrated service that has been built up since the early nineties. The twisted logic about sending the right size helicopter for the job belies the fact that the people making these statements just do not know what a SAR job involves. But it makes good listening for those without knowledge that hold the purse strings. With many SAR jobs you do not know what you are dealing with until you get on scene, by then it is to late to send the appropriate winch fitted aircraft. And, I cannot see a noisy AW169 hovering at 600ft AGL over a city in poor weather on a police job!
RJC raises a very interesting point - will the new Crime Commissioners do as SYO councillors did and put the public first?
TC, I think everyone realises that there is a national crisis, it has got to be sorted out and that the police are not immune to some of the pain. I think everyone agrees that it is long overdue for a National Police Air Service, but, NOT THIS WAY.
In a way your right, the Home Office could have sorted this all out? They haven't done, they have not overruled and I think they won't either. This has been handed down to a group of non-aviation people with an agenda and the Gov will want to point fingers at someone else when it goes pear-shaped.
I think reading some of the rhetoric coming out of various trade shows recently that agenda is to sell Augusta helicopters, a re-run of the debacle we had back in 1985 and not to enhance the excellent and semi-integrated service that has been built up since the early nineties. The twisted logic about sending the right size helicopter for the job belies the fact that the people making these statements just do not know what a SAR job involves. But it makes good listening for those without knowledge that hold the purse strings. With many SAR jobs you do not know what you are dealing with until you get on scene, by then it is to late to send the appropriate winch fitted aircraft. And, I cannot see a noisy AW169 hovering at 600ft AGL over a city in poor weather on a police job!
RJC raises a very interesting point - will the new Crime Commissioners do as SYO councillors did and put the public first?
TC, I think everyone realises that there is a national crisis, it has got to be sorted out and that the police are not immune to some of the pain. I think everyone agrees that it is long overdue for a National Police Air Service, but, NOT THIS WAY.
And, I cannot see a noisy AW169 hovering at 600ft AGL over a city in poor weather on a police job!
DFD - Perhaps someone could kick you underneath the desk to wake you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IF one accepts that EVERY person/department has to play their part in reshaping the financial future of this nation, then one must accept CUT BACKS.
We all accept how much in the poo the country is.
However those in "the business" believe that there is such a thing as "ring fencing" vital areas. (The government are doing it EVERYWHERE)
Most ASUs account for about 1.5% of their forces budget.
The effect of the loss of that ASU however is very disproportional to the money saved..!
This is why "practioners" are very passionate about the job they do.
They can see that NPAS model makes no sense.
Join up procurement to achieve better bargaining power - YES
Regionalise to save chief pilot/UEOs/Training Officer/Engineer posts - YES
Break down geographical barriers for better economy - YES
Close Down busy ASUs that are effective and viable - NO NO NO
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC, Morris & others - there's a good bit of sense in your comments.
I've been frustrated for many years at the inability of parochial forces to allow their eagle to fly further than the limits of their own "garden", especially when their eyrie is right next to the neighbours fence and the prey is in full view . . . but the neighbour's eagle is busy prosecuting a mouse in the far corner of his garden, so the new prey will be back in his hole before duty eagle can get there!
Luckily, there are areas where this "my county, my aircraft" attitude is a little more flexible (it's been working for some while in East Anglia, I understand), or new areas (Mids) where NPAS has effectively forced an early change of M.O.
Sadly some on this thread just wish to rail against the proposals, rather than take a leaf out of Morris' book & make some alternative & valid suggestions. Whilst the more mature should all agree with TC's summary of the personal/family/county/country/world situation, and the fact that things are going to have to change, we do not, as a professional collective, tend to agree on the method. Sitting on a NIMBY fence will get us nowhere, but making best use of the kit we've got, and proving that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (which we all know) will, very sadly, be the only way we can show those that are looking for savings, that Air Support may not be the best place to make them, in the manner currently proposed.
I've been frustrated for many years at the inability of parochial forces to allow their eagle to fly further than the limits of their own "garden", especially when their eyrie is right next to the neighbours fence and the prey is in full view . . . but the neighbour's eagle is busy prosecuting a mouse in the far corner of his garden, so the new prey will be back in his hole before duty eagle can get there!
Luckily, there are areas where this "my county, my aircraft" attitude is a little more flexible (it's been working for some while in East Anglia, I understand), or new areas (Mids) where NPAS has effectively forced an early change of M.O.
Sadly some on this thread just wish to rail against the proposals, rather than take a leaf out of Morris' book & make some alternative & valid suggestions. Whilst the more mature should all agree with TC's summary of the personal/family/county/country/world situation, and the fact that things are going to have to change, we do not, as a professional collective, tend to agree on the method. Sitting on a NIMBY fence will get us nowhere, but making best use of the kit we've got, and proving that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (which we all know) will, very sadly, be the only way we can show those that are looking for savings, that Air Support may not be the best place to make them, in the manner currently proposed.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of mandating - the way i read point 10 on this House of Commons - Home Affairs Committee - Written Evidence
is that mandating is not looked upon favourably?
"10. We are aware of Ministers' frustration at the progress made by some police authorities and forces on collaboration. However, where the Government feels the need to intervene in such matters, the APA urges caution. While the APA agrees with police authorities being encouraged to give due regard to collaboration in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency, it does not endorse mandation. Authorities must be given the freedom to collaborate where they believes it makes sense and the numbers "stack up". The proposed National Air Support Strategy is an example of collaboration making no such sense to several police authorities. In this instance, mandating won't change the underlying fundamentals that will result in higher costs and poorer service for the affected communities. "
is that mandating is not looked upon favourably?
"10. We are aware of Ministers' frustration at the progress made by some police authorities and forces on collaboration. However, where the Government feels the need to intervene in such matters, the APA urges caution. While the APA agrees with police authorities being encouraged to give due regard to collaboration in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency, it does not endorse mandation. Authorities must be given the freedom to collaborate where they believes it makes sense and the numbers "stack up". The proposed National Air Support Strategy is an example of collaboration making no such sense to several police authorities. In this instance, mandating won't change the underlying fundamentals that will result in higher costs and poorer service for the affected communities. "
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a world of my own!
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said What
Wherefore,
Your post could be considered a little misleading, it seems to imply that Ministers are against a mandated imposition, however when you read the original in full (which in your defence you provide a link to) it is the Association of Police Authorities that are against being mandated! So the people who may at some stage have it imposed on them are against it? imagine that! Let's not forget, these are the same people who six years ago argued against amalgamation of Forces to save money.
Then again, less Forces equals less Police authorities, could that have something to do with it?
Your post could be considered a little misleading, it seems to imply that Ministers are against a mandated imposition, however when you read the original in full (which in your defence you provide a link to) it is the Association of Police Authorities that are against being mandated! So the people who may at some stage have it imposed on them are against it? imagine that! Let's not forget, these are the same people who six years ago argued against amalgamation of Forces to save money.
Then again, less Forces equals less Police authorities, could that have something to do with it?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control room anyone?
Labour built this white elephant.
It only costs £4m per month to maintain while standing empty!
New control room going cheap anyone?
Regional fire centre plans end in "complete failure" costing taxpayer £469m (From The Northern Echo)
Could have been worse, we might have joined the Euro
It only costs £4m per month to maintain while standing empty!
New control room going cheap anyone?
Regional fire centre plans end in "complete failure" costing taxpayer £469m (From The Northern Echo)
Could have been worse, we might have joined the Euro
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It only costs £4m per month to maintain while standing empty!
although the figure of £4 million per month appears to be for the upkeep of 8 Regional Control centres, not just one.
( i.e. £48 million per year for the 8 unused centres ).
That works out at £6 million each per year, or £0.5 million each per month.
Here in the wonderful Midlands we have a brand new empty and unused Fire Control Centre,
that apparantly only costs a mere £1.4 million per year to be left empty.
Unused Wolverhampton fire control centre costing £1.4m a year in rent - West Midlands News - News - Birmingham Post
That's a HUGE SAVING of £4.6 million per year in the Midlands
There are ( currently ) 4 Air Support Units in the Midlands region with a combined total budget not far off this £4.6 million saving,
so working on the general concept and principal of trying to save 20% overall Policing budget,
the above savings from the abandoned Midlands Fire Control Room would pay for the next 5 years of Air Support in the Midlands region, without needing any cutbacks at all
Anyone know when the NPAS Finance Director's job might be advertised - I think I might apply
