UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So just how national is this setup?
It's a shame really. A couple of those 145's would be really handy for the more rural forces with the larger areas they will now have to cover. It is only now, when it's too late, that we realise the latest batch of aircraft should have included a larger type with the capability to provide a better service.
But as the Met will be keeping their 3x145s to provide cover to an area smaller than some other units will have to cover with just one 135/902, it just goes to show what a mess this all is.
The good thing about a 'National Air Wing', would be the capability to deploy the Wings resources, such as the larger types, to areas where they are needed most. Incidents such as the Cumbrian floods and those requiring the movement of firearms over areas of moorland, such as in Northumbria and West Cumbria recently, would benefit from access to such resources.
But as the rest of us suffer, the Met gets to keep the luxuries other forces couldn't afford in the first place. Looking at this perhaps in a different more controversial way, the Met equate to perhaps 4 normal ASUs in costs and resources.
I think most of us would agree that a 'National Air Wing' set-up (or whatever you want to call it) is a good thing, but if one unit gets the option to opt out, the whole shebang goes for a Richard.
But as the Met will be keeping their 3x145s to provide cover to an area smaller than some other units will have to cover with just one 135/902, it just goes to show what a mess this all is.
The good thing about a 'National Air Wing', would be the capability to deploy the Wings resources, such as the larger types, to areas where they are needed most. Incidents such as the Cumbrian floods and those requiring the movement of firearms over areas of moorland, such as in Northumbria and West Cumbria recently, would benefit from access to such resources.
But as the rest of us suffer, the Met gets to keep the luxuries other forces couldn't afford in the first place. Looking at this perhaps in a different more controversial way, the Met equate to perhaps 4 normal ASUs in costs and resources.
I think most of us would agree that a 'National Air Wing' set-up (or whatever you want to call it) is a good thing, but if one unit gets the option to opt out, the whole shebang goes for a Richard.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if one unit gets the option to opt out, the whole shebang goes for a Richard
Can't help but agree!
I think the comment was made by the Met that " We can't think about NPAS until after 2012". Really! so if the correct aircraft were in the correct places under a single banner before that, that wouldn't make sense then?
Four aircraft for a huge area (less London) and three large aircraft inside the M25.
Somebody want to keep their empire!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS - you might like to bear in mind that, if the Mets did go their own way, they'd have to pay for it themselves, rather than out of the National budget. That would save some significant £m's (2-3, by my reckoning) more than the current planned £15m! Everyone else can then get on with it at a better cost to the taxpayer.
On the other hand, if they do play ball, the National model is likely to have to put some sort of service agreement together which ensures the Met a/c don't stay huddled inside the M25, and obliges them (with significant financial penalties if they don't) to spread their wings further afield when required.
Any unit/force that opts out, will find themselves seriously strapped, I'd suggest - as others have already said, it's the big boys in the playground who are running all this, and whether or not they ever learnt how to play the games properly in the first place, they've got the ball at the moment & will hold on to it until some
pops it! It's may have been said it's "not about cost", but you'd say that too if your gooseberries were in a vice!!
And as for the earlier post relating to Air Ambulances by night - yes, once they've strapped FLIR/NVG/Nitesun on, they'll be able to carry lots of casualties, won't they?! Or else they'll be in the same position as S Wales used to be (maybe still are) in having to remove & replace heavy kit between day/night operations. What a welcome "improvement" to service & extra expense all that will be to the charity concerned!!
On the other hand, if they do play ball, the National model is likely to have to put some sort of service agreement together which ensures the Met a/c don't stay huddled inside the M25, and obliges them (with significant financial penalties if they don't) to spread their wings further afield when required.
Any unit/force that opts out, will find themselves seriously strapped, I'd suggest - as others have already said, it's the big boys in the playground who are running all this, and whether or not they ever learnt how to play the games properly in the first place, they've got the ball at the moment & will hold on to it until some
pops it! It's may have been said it's "not about cost", but you'd say that too if your gooseberries were in a vice!!And as for the earlier post relating to Air Ambulances by night - yes, once they've strapped FLIR/NVG/Nitesun on, they'll be able to carry lots of casualties, won't they?! Or else they'll be in the same position as S Wales used to be (maybe still are) in having to remove & replace heavy kit between day/night operations. What a welcome "improvement" to service & extra expense all that will be to the charity concerned!!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
SS - you might like to bear in mind that, if the Mets did go their own way, they'd have to pay for it themselves, rather than out of the National budget.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zorab64
Touch a bit of a nerve there! Got a bit of an interest in NPAS?
Surely if the Met stay out they get their money from council tax in the area they cover and that money should by rights be going to the national pot?
Or is this a good idea going badly because there are one maybe two people running with it who don't know a goddamn thing about Air Support or serving the community.
Touch a bit of a nerve there! Got a bit of an interest in NPAS?
Surely if the Met stay out they get their money from council tax in the area they cover and that money should by rights be going to the national pot?
Or is this a good idea going badly because there are one maybe two people running with it who don't know a goddamn thing about Air Support or serving the community.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you guys had several special cloaks to help protect you and keep things the way they are, developed for your force, wouldn't you use them? It may just be that the Met's senior management value what they have and are prepared to defend it..... Unlike some ACPO ranks around the bazaars.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helinut
The point is not that CC's should fight for what they have but that there should not be a a two level system. Either the Met comes on board or it doesn't work. If they don't want to play they should be made to. The capital would then have the same cover as the rest of the country. An obvious conclusion to the Met being left out, would be that the NPAS model is inferior and not as we are told a better more efficient model than we have now.
It should be that as a national asset the aircraft would be deployed to cover the Olympics in a more effective not less effective manner.
The point is not that CC's should fight for what they have but that there should not be a a two level system. Either the Met comes on board or it doesn't work. If they don't want to play they should be made to. The capital would then have the same cover as the rest of the country. An obvious conclusion to the Met being left out, would be that the NPAS model is inferior and not as we are told a better more efficient model than we have now.
It should be that as a national asset the aircraft would be deployed to cover the Olympics in a more effective not less effective manner.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yme - I can assure you I've no vested interest in NPAS and, whilst I understand some need for reductions in many areas of Government funding, I'm firmly of the opinion that the proposals in this area are going a step or two too far.
Any council tax collected by the Met will have to be accounted for in the area and paid for by the, already strapped, London tax-payer. Are they going to be happy to pay over the odds for an enhanced service inside the M25? We'll have to wait & see.
Your last paragraph strikes more of a chord than the first!!
Any council tax collected by the Met will have to be accounted for in the area and paid for by the, already strapped, London tax-payer. Are they going to be happy to pay over the odds for an enhanced service inside the M25? We'll have to wait & see.
Your last paragraph strikes more of a chord than the first!!
Been keeping an eye into here for a while now and its quite obvious that I know a lot more about ASU Ops than a lot of people on here.
Throws Grenade....and retires quickly behind wall.
Throws Grenade....and retires quickly behind wall.
You can easily reach a figure of £2,000 an hour - possibly more- if you actually include all the overheads and if it suits your argument to produce such a figure.
Police aviation across the world has depressed cost figures to suit their own purposes and it must be said that some of the [soon to be] deleted units were less economic than others per hour flown. So it ranges from the $20 an hour to fly a Bell OH58 out of Montgomery AL to this £2,000 an our just quoted to produice what is a police person in the sky.
But there are other sums that can be applied to the argument.
There is a claim that £15M will be saved. Well I m no accountant but...
There is no mention of the throwing away of £1M it cost to set up the brand new 9-5 Mon-Fri SPIFR Dyfed Powys facility or this years £250,000 spent on upgrading security at a number of facilities including West Midlands [to be abandoned]
Ditto costs associated with setting up the moves of Surrey and Chiltern to RAF Stations etc etc.
The costs of setting up new facilities at each of these new places - even though the move of the Suffolk airframe is from one side of Bury St Edmonds to the other side.... a handful of miles a minute in air travel time.
And for those having a good snipe at the Met operation there are difficult costs to swallow if the bean counters actually counted beans there.
Lippitts Hill is a large facility blessed with many acres that used to support radios, cadets, firearms, dogs and helicopters. The sole occupants of this glorious facility are now the MPASU and the radios.
Not their fault but the result is the same.
The announcement of the new plan to the great and the good of Fleet Street on Tuesday did not include any police titles or for that matter anyone with first hand knowledgeof piloting and engineering.
But suffice for you to know, that at the bottom off he press release it stated that ACPO has 340 members..... it has been pointed out to me that if each earns [at least] £100,000 there is an option to save up to £34M - at a stroke!
Year on year.
Police aviation across the world has depressed cost figures to suit their own purposes and it must be said that some of the [soon to be] deleted units were less economic than others per hour flown. So it ranges from the $20 an hour to fly a Bell OH58 out of Montgomery AL to this £2,000 an our just quoted to produice what is a police person in the sky.
But there are other sums that can be applied to the argument.
There is a claim that £15M will be saved. Well I m no accountant but...
There is no mention of the throwing away of £1M it cost to set up the brand new 9-5 Mon-Fri SPIFR Dyfed Powys facility or this years £250,000 spent on upgrading security at a number of facilities including West Midlands [to be abandoned]
Ditto costs associated with setting up the moves of Surrey and Chiltern to RAF Stations etc etc.
The costs of setting up new facilities at each of these new places - even though the move of the Suffolk airframe is from one side of Bury St Edmonds to the other side.... a handful of miles a minute in air travel time.
And for those having a good snipe at the Met operation there are difficult costs to swallow if the bean counters actually counted beans there.
Lippitts Hill is a large facility blessed with many acres that used to support radios, cadets, firearms, dogs and helicopters. The sole occupants of this glorious facility are now the MPASU and the radios.
Not their fault but the result is the same.
The announcement of the new plan to the great and the good of Fleet Street on Tuesday did not include any police titles or for that matter anyone with first hand knowledgeof piloting and engineering.
But suffice for you to know, that at the bottom off he press release it stated that ACPO has 340 members..... it has been pointed out to me that if each earns [at least] £100,000 there is an option to save up to £34M - at a stroke!
Year on year.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga I fear you are just popping in to cause trouble, I doubt you know as much about ASU's as you would like to think otherwise you would be be supporting a lot of views here. Then again you might be a naughty man from NPAS
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will be the separate police authorities, who currently own the air bases and aircraft,
who decide whether the "borderless" air service goes ahead.
who decide whether the "borderless" air service goes ahead.
Perhaps the various Police Authorities should be gently steered in the direction of
our Dutch colleagues to examine how their Police Air Support is provided.
I am reliably informed that they currently operate a National Service,
but ARE LOOKING AT SCRAPPING IT - because IT DOES NOT WORK -
for all the reasons given here, and are hoping to adopt the local approach
used in the UK as a far superior method of providing the service
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The days of lots of many high speed pursuits have long gone. There are occasional "follows", but not like there used to be. Yes, this may be due to ASU availability, but more likely due to the increase in vehicle security over the years. This however, has brought in the trend of "car key burglary" as Billy now needs your wheels for his/her robberies.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A plea to the management...........
You've told us this is the way it's going to be.
I'm an employee, I accept what you've told me.
Those of us crew that remain will do our very best to meet the changes and challenges that you set us.
Now perhaps you'll listen to some of the ideas that may make a difference?
1. If we are 'redeploying' officers from ASUs, consider redeploying some as the SPOCs to run the tasking side of the new system, there is no-one else with the experience to decide quickly what is or isn't suitable tasking.
2. Mandate the aircraft to carry maximum fuel (heaviest crew allowed for) on average this will give us another 25 minutes endurance at no extra cost. It may enable us to carry on to the second or third task rather than rack up the bill for returning to base after most jobs for fuel before setting off for another job in the next county.
3. Mandate each county force HQ to provide a helipad sized area at their HQ so that we can land there if fuel allows, to wait for the next task at a secure (ish) location.
Those are the no-cost options. Now a few that will cost but will pay dividends in the future.........
1. At least one unit in each region to be 24 hour (hopefully the most central one) this would cost 1 extra pilot and 2 air observers beyond the present 19 hour system, we would appear to have a few looking for employment in the near future.
2. Negotiate with the CAA to allow all pilots to hold an 'IMC' type rating to allow return to base via IMC. Without this we're going to play it safe and refuse distant tasking in poor weather or get the aircraft stuck in some very inconvenient and insecure places. Not suggesting a full IR as we don't need to plan IFR trips, just recover on instruments to the operating base.
I'm an employee, I accept what you've told me.
Those of us crew that remain will do our very best to meet the changes and challenges that you set us.
Now perhaps you'll listen to some of the ideas that may make a difference?
1. If we are 'redeploying' officers from ASUs, consider redeploying some as the SPOCs to run the tasking side of the new system, there is no-one else with the experience to decide quickly what is or isn't suitable tasking.
2. Mandate the aircraft to carry maximum fuel (heaviest crew allowed for) on average this will give us another 25 minutes endurance at no extra cost. It may enable us to carry on to the second or third task rather than rack up the bill for returning to base after most jobs for fuel before setting off for another job in the next county.
3. Mandate each county force HQ to provide a helipad sized area at their HQ so that we can land there if fuel allows, to wait for the next task at a secure (ish) location.
Those are the no-cost options. Now a few that will cost but will pay dividends in the future.........
1. At least one unit in each region to be 24 hour (hopefully the most central one) this would cost 1 extra pilot and 2 air observers beyond the present 19 hour system, we would appear to have a few looking for employment in the near future.
2. Negotiate with the CAA to allow all pilots to hold an 'IMC' type rating to allow return to base via IMC. Without this we're going to play it safe and refuse distant tasking in poor weather or get the aircraft stuck in some very inconvenient and insecure places. Not suggesting a full IR as we don't need to plan IFR trips, just recover on instruments to the operating base.
Art of Flight,
If you really think this:
you really do not understand the issue.
An IFR recovery requires the full bag of tools - including (but not limited to): planning; instrument skills that are maintained; procedures to prevent obstacle collision; and instrument let down at the site of recovery.
Point-in-Space procedures can provide the last of these but they still have to be compliant with the regulations, and appropriately tailored for each location.
The punch up into cloud and then 'wing it' philosophy can only lead to the obvious consequence.
Jim
If you really think this:
Not suggesting a full IR as we don't need to plan IFR trips, just recover on instruments to the operating base.
An IFR recovery requires the full bag of tools - including (but not limited to): planning; instrument skills that are maintained; procedures to prevent obstacle collision; and instrument let down at the site of recovery.
Point-in-Space procedures can provide the last of these but they still have to be compliant with the regulations, and appropriately tailored for each location.
The punch up into cloud and then 'wing it' philosophy can only lead to the obvious consequence.
Jim
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ART - I know where you're coming from,but, the Pilot decides fuel load ALWAYS and IMC won't help.Not all bases are at airports so how do you get down again ? Some pilots are I/R and at airports but the Airports aren't open at night,and you then get into the potential of pushing limits which always ends badly for someone.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas - probably because they have a central control centre and NPAS have no infrastructure what so ever. 
...... but that is a shot in the dark (or 15min ring around an air base or some other such nonsense)!
...... but that is a shot in the dark (or 15min ring around an air base or some other such nonsense)!