UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Oh Dear!
Seems over at BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site), choppy and his mates are saying that it has been found that ambulances, in the vast majority of incidents, only carry one patient and that the average daily mileage when on emergency calls is 45 miles. Again less than choppy, H500s etc own cars.
The solution to them was simple;
With 2 (driver and medic) on board, the speed through a built up area was comparable to a Transit sized slab sided ambulance. With the patient on board, the speed decreased somewhat, however this was balanced by better patient comfort and treatment capabilities.
Relatives of the casualty, should they need to be carried, would be given transport by the lawyers at the scene as they would be going the same way anyway.
Seems over at BARs (Big Ambulance Rumour site), choppy and his mates are saying that it has been found that ambulances, in the vast majority of incidents, only carry one patient and that the average daily mileage when on emergency calls is 45 miles. Again less than choppy, H500s etc own cars.
The solution to them was simple;
With 2 (driver and medic) on board, the speed through a built up area was comparable to a Transit sized slab sided ambulance. With the patient on board, the speed decreased somewhat, however this was balanced by better patient comfort and treatment capabilities.
Relatives of the casualty, should they need to be carried, would be given transport by the lawyers at the scene as they would be going the same way anyway.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may come a surprise to you but these things were actually considered before the move happened.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
brings to mind the following expresion " quantity has a quality all of its own"
Helicopter Safety | Common Helicopter Accident Causes
Taken from a study of the Griffin Helicopters accident database since 09 Jan 1997 the study comprises a review of 398 rotary wing accidents and incidents involving UK registered aircraft of which 379 involved helicopters and 40 were fatal.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Looks like the 355 is worse than the 350 !
Not bad IMHO, considering the amount of hours flown and the conditions in which they are.
Mind you, can make figures say whatever you want..
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
And before chopjock harps on about the 130;
Not YET!
Not YET!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of air support is a fast response
Anyone got a horse in need of some flogging ? - Please post it here
CoConutty's dead horse!
coconutty,
I am sure that "fly for Fun" didn't mean to imply that speed of arrival was the only important issue, - of course there are many others, but in my humble opinion, it is one of the most important. I have been closely involved with Police Air Support since 1984, - not the first by any means but nevertheless one of the longest so connected.
One of the first lessons we learned was the absolute need to get to the scene quickly (& remember I am talking about the days before FLIR ). Our role was containment, - the ability to prevent the escape of the culprit before adequate ground based resources could be got there. In the case of rural burglaries we were almost always the first on scene, and in extreemis were able to land and effect arrests if necessary.
We quickly established that as a general rule, unless we could be overhead the scene of the crime within 20 minutes from its inception, then our ability to affect the outcome declined rapidly (Because the culprit had already gone)
You will note that I said "From its inception" and not "From when we were called"
The same applies to vehicle pursuits. The huge danger to the public caused by high speed vehicle pursuits can be markedly reduced by having the pusuit taken over and managed from the air. Ground based resources can be dropped back, so as not to increase the danger to the public, BUT contact with the criminal will not be lost, as is so often the case when there is no air cover.
Vulnerable missing persons are another area where early location can & does save lives.
My concern, as I have said so many times is this:- If as a result of the planned restructuring, the jam becomes so thinly spread, then Police aircraft will routinely take more than that vital 20 mins ( And remember that is the outside figure) to getto the scene or where they are needed, and as a result its ability to help will be much reduced. Then at some point in the future someone will say " Just look at what that helicopter is costing, its always too late to do anything so we might as well do away with it all together."
Remember too, that both Cumbria and Hungerford, devoid of immediate air cover, went on too long and as a result people died.
I can recall that in the late 80's as a Chief Inspector in a busy city division remarking one night that if things didnt improve soon, the owners of Ford Escort XR3i's would be cutting notches in their car bonnets to record the numbers of times they had been stolen. Well things did improve, we got air support! That stopped ram raiding too!
So I agree speed of arrival is not the only consideration, but its a bloody important one!
Tigerfish
I am sure that "fly for Fun" didn't mean to imply that speed of arrival was the only important issue, - of course there are many others, but in my humble opinion, it is one of the most important. I have been closely involved with Police Air Support since 1984, - not the first by any means but nevertheless one of the longest so connected.
One of the first lessons we learned was the absolute need to get to the scene quickly (& remember I am talking about the days before FLIR ). Our role was containment, - the ability to prevent the escape of the culprit before adequate ground based resources could be got there. In the case of rural burglaries we were almost always the first on scene, and in extreemis were able to land and effect arrests if necessary.
We quickly established that as a general rule, unless we could be overhead the scene of the crime within 20 minutes from its inception, then our ability to affect the outcome declined rapidly (Because the culprit had already gone)
You will note that I said "From its inception" and not "From when we were called"
The same applies to vehicle pursuits. The huge danger to the public caused by high speed vehicle pursuits can be markedly reduced by having the pusuit taken over and managed from the air. Ground based resources can be dropped back, so as not to increase the danger to the public, BUT contact with the criminal will not be lost, as is so often the case when there is no air cover.
Vulnerable missing persons are another area where early location can & does save lives.
My concern, as I have said so many times is this:- If as a result of the planned restructuring, the jam becomes so thinly spread, then Police aircraft will routinely take more than that vital 20 mins ( And remember that is the outside figure) to getto the scene or where they are needed, and as a result its ability to help will be much reduced. Then at some point in the future someone will say " Just look at what that helicopter is costing, its always too late to do anything so we might as well do away with it all together."
Remember too, that both Cumbria and Hungerford, devoid of immediate air cover, went on too long and as a result people died.
I can recall that in the late 80's as a Chief Inspector in a busy city division remarking one night that if things didnt improve soon, the owners of Ford Escort XR3i's would be cutting notches in their car bonnets to record the numbers of times they had been stolen. Well things did improve, we got air support! That stopped ram raiding too!
So I agree speed of arrival is not the only consideration, but its a bloody important one!
Tigerfish
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiggerfishes L-O-N-G reply !
Easy Tigerrrrrr ! 
Did I say that a fast response wasn't important ? !
Of course it is important, I totally agree with that, but the post quoted stated
which is WRONG, and people seem to be getting hung up on that one issue.
Before the horse finally keels over, if an ASU can find a cheaper place to operate from, and still maintain adequate response times, then the operating costs will be a far more important point - both to the local taxpayers, and the Police force finance manager(s) who are facing ever increasing budget cuts.
Other "important" points will include, for example, the geographical layout and demographics of the area concerned. The Force may decide to base its aircraft near to the most highly populated area, at the expense of response times to the more rural areas that are further away, where demand for Air Support is far lower.
Then there are travelling times for the crew which may impact upon Flight Time Limitations, Security ( esp. in light of recent events ) if based at remote locations.
I would have thought that the "whole point" of Air Support would be to provide a range of services, in support of Police Officers on the ground ( and "the Community" ), as efficiently and effectively as possible
Did I say that a fast response wasn't important ? !
Of course it is important, I totally agree with that, but the post quoted stated
The whole point of air support is a fast response
Before the horse finally keels over, if an ASU can find a cheaper place to operate from, and still maintain adequate response times, then the operating costs will be a far more important point - both to the local taxpayers, and the Police force finance manager(s) who are facing ever increasing budget cuts.
Other "important" points will include, for example, the geographical layout and demographics of the area concerned. The Force may decide to base its aircraft near to the most highly populated area, at the expense of response times to the more rural areas that are further away, where demand for Air Support is far lower.
Then there are travelling times for the crew which may impact upon Flight Time Limitations, Security ( esp. in light of recent events ) if based at remote locations.
I would have thought that the "whole point" of Air Support would be to provide a range of services, in support of Police Officers on the ground ( and "the Community" ), as efficiently and effectively as possible
Ok OK ! coconutty, I have no problem with those comments whatsoever! Whilst my response might have been long, I think yours was a bit short!
But we are not far apart!
Tigerfish
But we are not far apart!
Tigerfish
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Tigerfish has just admitted, Coconutty isn't that far off talking the same language - speed is important, but not to every job, where a little bit of prior planning can significantly affect performance. PPPPPP & all that
It's the message we try to get to everyone who calls for Air Support - it's not when the call came in that's important, it's when the person was actually last seen . . . such that we can calculate our chances of either catching, or just containing the task & allowing the ground officers to search for, the gone-to-ground blagger.
It's true that there could be merit in biasing the basing of ASUs towards the greatest density of population, where the cr*p tends to land more often, but it can only be a long term change, as moving bases around is an absolutely massive problem in many areas, costs likely in £1.5m - £2m bracket (before talking about adequate security) unless you've got a friendly airport or old hangar to re-vamp. Friendly airfields are becoming further apart, in case one hadn't noticed, and moving bases closer to denser
populations could reduce the service the rural areas also pay for! All this is before you start talking to the planners and, worst of all, the locals who are likely to be affected by your day and (specifically) night-time activities. In the current environment, savings would take some years to achieve and juggling bases would need to be done over a relatively short period for it to work - and cost a lot in the short term.
And yes, those who question the placing of D&C have my complete sympathy - it's a question I've asked for years. If I was a taxpayer in Kernow, I'd hope that the "joint aircraft" is funded significantly more by D than C, given the limited (reactionary) service it can ever be expected to provide in the West.
It's the message we try to get to everyone who calls for Air Support - it's not when the call came in that's important, it's when the person was actually last seen . . . such that we can calculate our chances of either catching, or just containing the task & allowing the ground officers to search for, the gone-to-ground blagger.
It's true that there could be merit in biasing the basing of ASUs towards the greatest density of population, where the cr*p tends to land more often, but it can only be a long term change, as moving bases around is an absolutely massive problem in many areas, costs likely in £1.5m - £2m bracket (before talking about adequate security) unless you've got a friendly airport or old hangar to re-vamp. Friendly airfields are becoming further apart, in case one hadn't noticed, and moving bases closer to denser
populations could reduce the service the rural areas also pay for! All this is before you start talking to the planners and, worst of all, the locals who are likely to be affected by your day and (specifically) night-time activities. In the current environment, savings would take some years to achieve and juggling bases would need to be done over a relatively short period for it to work - and cost a lot in the short term. And yes, those who question the placing of D&C have my complete sympathy - it's a question I've asked for years. If I was a taxpayer in Kernow, I'd hope that the "joint aircraft" is funded significantly more by D than C, given the limited (reactionary) service it can ever be expected to provide in the West.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Value
At last, I’m driven to comment!....
It seems to me that we need to be concentrating more on selling our overall cost effectiveness (best value), i.e if a unit costs £X per year to run, we need to prove that we can achieve a cost saving of several times that amount.
I appreciate that in some activities this can be difficult to quantify. We often, quickly ‘clear’ search areas thereby ‘saving’ money, knowing that the more expensive alternative – using ground resources over more protracted periods – would not be practicable or logistically achievable.
However, much of our activity can be costed and savings demonstrated to our ‘bean counter’ masters and the public, e.g. involvement in life-saving missions/direct arrests of prolific criminals.
The survival of some of our units could depend on it (I’m sure some forces have already offered up their ASUs as sacrificial lambs).
We need to act now, before its too late!
It seems to me that we need to be concentrating more on selling our overall cost effectiveness (best value), i.e if a unit costs £X per year to run, we need to prove that we can achieve a cost saving of several times that amount.
I appreciate that in some activities this can be difficult to quantify. We often, quickly ‘clear’ search areas thereby ‘saving’ money, knowing that the more expensive alternative – using ground resources over more protracted periods – would not be practicable or logistically achievable.
However, much of our activity can be costed and savings demonstrated to our ‘bean counter’ masters and the public, e.g. involvement in life-saving missions/direct arrests of prolific criminals.
The survival of some of our units could depend on it (I’m sure some forces have already offered up their ASUs as sacrificial lambs).
We need to act now, before its too late!
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
There are ways to save on flying hours and I offer myself up to any forces as an aviation consultant. (For a small fee of course). If all units are tasked like my old one, I could save approx 20% of your flying hours in an instant...... It would also eliminate the frustrations of crews who burn holes in the sky with zero chance of success..........
It would also eliminate the frustrations of crews who burn holes in the sky with zero chance of success..........
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quantifying the benefits is always / has always been, difficult -
Take the Met for example - they try and have an aircraft in the air as much as possible, but how do they measure the effect on preventing Crime, or the level of Public reassurance - just by being there ?
Has anyone ever looked at actual Crime figures and compared any difference between the times that a Police helicopter is present, and when they are not, to gauge any impact on Crime Prevention / Reduction ?
e.g. Last time I was in Hyde Park with a 145 circling overhead I felt very reassured that there was less chance of having my mobile phone stolen from me ( or worse ), because - I thought - the presence of the helicopter would deter anyone thinking of doing so. The crew probably weren't even looking in the park, and if I had been robbed, they might not even have noticed, but I felt safer - How do you MEASURE that for the mighty bean counters, without sending out endless ( costly and time consuming to administer ) questionnaires, which I wouldn't have received as I don't live in that area, or conducting street surveys - which I never participate in ?
Granted, the Met are a little 'different' in the way they operate, but I know they are not alone amongst ASU's in conducting airborne patrols - particularly at peak times, to increase efficiency and response times.
Here's an interesting comment I heard :
'A Police helicopter is 0% effective when it is on the ground. It therefore follows that to get the best value from the asset, which may have cost £millions to purchase, it should be on the ground as little as possible.'
Compared with the initial purchase price, the increased costs of flying for an additional 100 Hrs per year for example, are relatively minimal.
.... and at least one ASU have INCREASED their annual flying rate in recent years for this very reason !
Take the Met for example - they try and have an aircraft in the air as much as possible, but how do they measure the effect on preventing Crime, or the level of Public reassurance - just by being there ?
Has anyone ever looked at actual Crime figures and compared any difference between the times that a Police helicopter is present, and when they are not, to gauge any impact on Crime Prevention / Reduction ?
e.g. Last time I was in Hyde Park with a 145 circling overhead I felt very reassured that there was less chance of having my mobile phone stolen from me ( or worse ), because - I thought - the presence of the helicopter would deter anyone thinking of doing so. The crew probably weren't even looking in the park, and if I had been robbed, they might not even have noticed, but I felt safer - How do you MEASURE that for the mighty bean counters, without sending out endless ( costly and time consuming to administer ) questionnaires, which I wouldn't have received as I don't live in that area, or conducting street surveys - which I never participate in ?
Granted, the Met are a little 'different' in the way they operate, but I know they are not alone amongst ASU's in conducting airborne patrols - particularly at peak times, to increase efficiency and response times.
Here's an interesting comment I heard :
'A Police helicopter is 0% effective when it is on the ground. It therefore follows that to get the best value from the asset, which may have cost £millions to purchase, it should be on the ground as little as possible.'
Compared with the initial purchase price, the increased costs of flying for an additional 100 Hrs per year for example, are relatively minimal.
.... and at least one ASU have INCREASED their annual flying rate in recent years for this very reason !
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I'm trying to make is that we can all look at ways of reducing costs (reduced flying hours etc.) but this might miss the real issue which is to prove our 'profitability' to the beancounters.
If our very survival is being contemplated, they are not bothered whether we cost say £1.6M or £1.3M a year to run.
We must and can prove that it is more expensive without air support.
If our very survival is being contemplated, they are not bothered whether we cost say £1.6M or £1.3M a year to run.
We must and can prove that it is more expensive without air support.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Granted, the Met are a little 'different' in the way they operate, but I know they are not alone amongst ASU's in conducting airborne patrols - particularly at peak times, to increase efficiency and response times.
I'm not so sure an airborne patrol would increase efficiency and response times, surely we want to increase efficiency and REDUCE response times.
What if an incident occurs when the asset is in need of a refuel any time soon, could actually reduce efficiency and increase response times .
