UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Art of Flight - wrong
Art of Flight, if your new employer said put your finger in the socket, would you? No, the potential in an aviation environment for an accident is high and the reason that the UK police aviation community has an excellent safety record is the professionalism, honesty and candidness of its pilots.
You cannot mandate for maximum fuel because your next job may be taking a negotiator/dog handler + fluffy missile to the scene or a casevac - you will be too heavy!. It is the pilots decision, it can only be because they are the ones that carry the can if things go wrong.
Likewise, part of the new process will be a crew brief if the task out of local area, it has to be, only then will you put on more fuel but this all takes time, and because you are going out of area more kit will be put on (overnight, bad weather?) so less fuel can be carried, requiring a very limited time on scene out-of-area or a refuel before arriving on scene. These are complex planning issues that the pilot has the decision on.
One of the big factors in the enviable safety record is pilot local knowledge when operating in bad weather, local trends and escape routes. You do not have that when you go out of area so it is inevitable and prudent to operate to a better weather limit. It's all common sense. And, remember the CAA has mandated that if the pilot is unhappy at anytime they can call it a day, they do not have to operate down to the written limits, there are many other factors. Do not compromise safety.
IFR is not a magic trick. Much of the time we do not have the correct quantity of fuel for proper IFR diversion. It really is an emergency situation with pilots and crews that never do it for real and the pilot only has practice every 3 months. Local knowledge in this situation is paramount - especially at night.
You have just given a quality example of the type of thinking that is driving the NPAS - no experience and an inability to listen.
I cannot over state the importance of local knowledge to efficient and safe local air operations. Out of area will require more planning time and higher weather criteria, more fuel and consequently a knock on in time to respond.
Equally, landing at a HQ is fine BUT you need FUEL.......You land where the fuel is......
You cannot mandate for maximum fuel because your next job may be taking a negotiator/dog handler + fluffy missile to the scene or a casevac - you will be too heavy!. It is the pilots decision, it can only be because they are the ones that carry the can if things go wrong.
Likewise, part of the new process will be a crew brief if the task out of local area, it has to be, only then will you put on more fuel but this all takes time, and because you are going out of area more kit will be put on (overnight, bad weather?) so less fuel can be carried, requiring a very limited time on scene out-of-area or a refuel before arriving on scene. These are complex planning issues that the pilot has the decision on.
One of the big factors in the enviable safety record is pilot local knowledge when operating in bad weather, local trends and escape routes. You do not have that when you go out of area so it is inevitable and prudent to operate to a better weather limit. It's all common sense. And, remember the CAA has mandated that if the pilot is unhappy at anytime they can call it a day, they do not have to operate down to the written limits, there are many other factors. Do not compromise safety.
IFR is not a magic trick. Much of the time we do not have the correct quantity of fuel for proper IFR diversion. It really is an emergency situation with pilots and crews that never do it for real and the pilot only has practice every 3 months. Local knowledge in this situation is paramount - especially at night.
You have just given a quality example of the type of thinking that is driving the NPAS - no experience and an inability to listen.
I cannot over state the importance of local knowledge to efficient and safe local air operations. Out of area will require more planning time and higher weather criteria, more fuel and consequently a knock on in time to respond.
Equally, landing at a HQ is fine BUT you need FUEL.......You land where the fuel is......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas is absolutely right about the BTP control thing. Bizarre. It also means our railway system will be covered by air support for free to the railways, to a level of detail never even dreamed of previously.
In itself that will build in significant extra delay. Having worked around the bazaars, it was very noticeable how different the deployment times were between different ASUs in the existing system. When an ASU responds to more than one force, the control/computer information side of things gets much more difficult/slower. That is an unavoidable consequence of the added complexity. Multiply that by all the forces in the country and the problem is huge. The BTP control room has none of the individual proper police force systems within its control room (I am fairly sure). So any request will have to be combined with a full transfer of the information about a job. Whether phone or typed into a separate system it all adds significant time.
Then you need to add the situation the BTP CR staff will find themselves in. They know nothing about:
Air Support
The area where the incident has occurred
The force where the incident has occurred
Any special initiatives relating to operations or whatever
The most effective jobs are often those where very rapid deployment occurs, as we all know. [Better still are the ones where you are airborne already in the vicinity]. In some of the ASUs the very best jobs come from situations where the observers self-deploy because they KNOW they will be able to have a major impact. That will pretty much disappear completely. So will local knowledge of the crew of most of the forces that an ASU covers. It also will have a direct impact on the conduct of flights - perhaps even flight safety, especially at night. In the present system crews have a detailed knowledge of the area they fly over and the forces they support - this will be diluted in the "new" system. ASUs also have access to the force control/computer systems that they work for. Not under the new regime. They will be working in the dark in more ways than one. They will simply have to follow the requests of someone who knows little or nothing about the job or air support, and are unable to look at the job information themselves.
Much much more pointless, wasted flying, more box-ticking exercises after the event to cover senior management backsides, fewer scrotes caught and more mispers not found.
But then fewer criminals arrested may help the D of J budgets .............
In itself that will build in significant extra delay. Having worked around the bazaars, it was very noticeable how different the deployment times were between different ASUs in the existing system. When an ASU responds to more than one force, the control/computer information side of things gets much more difficult/slower. That is an unavoidable consequence of the added complexity. Multiply that by all the forces in the country and the problem is huge. The BTP control room has none of the individual proper police force systems within its control room (I am fairly sure). So any request will have to be combined with a full transfer of the information about a job. Whether phone or typed into a separate system it all adds significant time.
Then you need to add the situation the BTP CR staff will find themselves in. They know nothing about:
Air Support
The area where the incident has occurred
The force where the incident has occurred
Any special initiatives relating to operations or whatever
The most effective jobs are often those where very rapid deployment occurs, as we all know. [Better still are the ones where you are airborne already in the vicinity]. In some of the ASUs the very best jobs come from situations where the observers self-deploy because they KNOW they will be able to have a major impact. That will pretty much disappear completely. So will local knowledge of the crew of most of the forces that an ASU covers. It also will have a direct impact on the conduct of flights - perhaps even flight safety, especially at night. In the present system crews have a detailed knowledge of the area they fly over and the forces they support - this will be diluted in the "new" system. ASUs also have access to the force control/computer systems that they work for. Not under the new regime. They will be working in the dark in more ways than one. They will simply have to follow the requests of someone who knows little or nothing about the job or air support, and are unable to look at the job information themselves.
Much much more pointless, wasted flying, more box-ticking exercises after the event to cover senior management backsides, fewer scrotes caught and more mispers not found.
But then fewer criminals arrested may help the D of J budgets .............
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas, Sulley.
I think it’s correct about BTP as having a national setup and being all joined up unlike the rest of the law enforcement in the UK.
I hear where Artist is coming from, most Police pilots have held IR ratings and have a fair bit of experience, that’s normally why they’re hired. (I know that Artist comes complete with both those attributes) and he is simply stating that wx is not the same in one area as it is in another and to be able to get to some jobs, and return from others one may need to pass through poor wx. Perhaps completing an NPAS in house similar to a military instrument rating, could be considered.
I think it’s correct about BTP as having a national setup and being all joined up unlike the rest of the law enforcement in the UK.
I hear where Artist is coming from, most Police pilots have held IR ratings and have a fair bit of experience, that’s normally why they’re hired. (I know that Artist comes complete with both those attributes) and he is simply stating that wx is not the same in one area as it is in another and to be able to get to some jobs, and return from others one may need to pass through poor wx. Perhaps completing an NPAS in house similar to a military instrument rating, could be considered.
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
Instead of military 'type' of instrument rating (full airways for some) and military 'type' of exemptions for ASUs, why not just get the military to do the job?
It's a Civil Operation, with civil licences and civil rules and regs. If you want IFR pilots, then give them an IR and keep them current.
It's a Civil Operation, with civil licences and civil rules and regs. If you want IFR pilots, then give them an IR and keep them current.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the whole IFR thing, cans open, worms everywhere! It wouldn't work. All the time you can't see the ground- the observers can't do their job. The areas under NPAS are larger, local knowledge wont be able to be used and yes areas will have different weather, however.The national control will probably retask you before you get to home base, if you happen to be IFR , you can't do an awful lot! 
If you have an instrument rating then it should be kept current - no questions asked.
If you have an instrument rating then it should be kept current - no questions asked.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear the met have decided not to play
Police forces in England and Wales will share helicopters to save money
Police forces in England and Wales (except the met because their special) will share helicopters to save money
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, thanks for the various responses.
JimL, hope you are well, i'm not suggesting a full IR, as you well know at present we have a made up 3 monthly cycle of IFP which doesn't actually 'allow' us to do anything. If we're to broaden our horizons I'd be concerned that we will still have no safe method of returning to base in less than the prescribed limits. We'll end up with aircraft all over the place, I'm asking those that can influence these things to think ahead. Perhaps the new system will have the funds for full IR for all
.
Sulley, the 3 units of the consortium I work at cover 5 counties, each unit has a prescribed standard fuel which allows for enough spare payload for a person to be carried from base though generally we fly to pick up said person rather than them drive an hour to us. We just can't have it both ways, either we can do tasks 90 miles from base or we can leave room for that occasional person.
Also you make the point that if we're IMC we can't retask in the air, well if I'm stuck in a field near Dover out of limits I can't get to Peterborough anyway.
TC, I bow to your experience, I'm just trying to get people to think about the near future and what new training and infrastructure we need as an absolute minimum. Your point about bases without instrument approaches is heard loud and clear, the current plan has at least 2 bases moving away from ILS equipped airfields to bases without! Having said that I can't currently use the ILS as the employers can't afford IRs for us.
GG, with 16 years of Army flying and 11 at Air Support, I feel I have a little to offer. I operate regularly over 5 largish counties with one aircraft, It's not pretty, and sometimes it doesn't go to plan and sometimes we get stuck where we didn't want to be. I work hard at it so If anyone can say they've been to the future I can. You have to work with what you've got and I'm making the point that we can try to influence the operational level detail in this new plan that seems to be a done deal.
Yme, thanks for your support, some can't see the sarcasm in the first few lines of my previous post.
Now do any of the professionals on here have any ideas of how to make this new set-up work at our level (ie those who do this job, night in and night out)?
Bye the way, where did the BTP thing come from?
Regards
JimL, hope you are well, i'm not suggesting a full IR, as you well know at present we have a made up 3 monthly cycle of IFP which doesn't actually 'allow' us to do anything. If we're to broaden our horizons I'd be concerned that we will still have no safe method of returning to base in less than the prescribed limits. We'll end up with aircraft all over the place, I'm asking those that can influence these things to think ahead. Perhaps the new system will have the funds for full IR for all
.Sulley, the 3 units of the consortium I work at cover 5 counties, each unit has a prescribed standard fuel which allows for enough spare payload for a person to be carried from base though generally we fly to pick up said person rather than them drive an hour to us. We just can't have it both ways, either we can do tasks 90 miles from base or we can leave room for that occasional person.
Also you make the point that if we're IMC we can't retask in the air, well if I'm stuck in a field near Dover out of limits I can't get to Peterborough anyway.
TC, I bow to your experience, I'm just trying to get people to think about the near future and what new training and infrastructure we need as an absolute minimum. Your point about bases without instrument approaches is heard loud and clear, the current plan has at least 2 bases moving away from ILS equipped airfields to bases without! Having said that I can't currently use the ILS as the employers can't afford IRs for us.
GG, with 16 years of Army flying and 11 at Air Support, I feel I have a little to offer. I operate regularly over 5 largish counties with one aircraft, It's not pretty, and sometimes it doesn't go to plan and sometimes we get stuck where we didn't want to be. I work hard at it so If anyone can say they've been to the future I can. You have to work with what you've got and I'm making the point that we can try to influence the operational level detail in this new plan that seems to be a done deal.
Yme, thanks for your support, some can't see the sarcasm in the first few lines of my previous post.
Now do any of the professionals on here have any ideas of how to make this new set-up work at our level (ie those who do this job, night in and night out)?
Bye the way, where did the BTP thing come from?
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bye the way, where did the BTP thing come from?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Art - assuming that the rules could be changed for ASU's - how do you propose that a non-SPIFR aircraft with a non-IR pilot returns to a non-aid equipped base in below VFR weather (safely).
If you are thinking GPSNPA's then you'll find that the minima for these approaches are well above your current VFR limits - and that you would still require SPIFR aircraft, IR's, fuel reserves etc.
If you are thinking GPSNPA's then you'll find that the minima for these approaches are well above your current VFR limits - and that you would still require SPIFR aircraft, IR's, fuel reserves etc.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft are all SPIFR, I'm asking experts like you to start thinking about the changes in regulation and training we need to enable wider based operations. Just because things have in the past been done in a certain way doesn't mean they fit the bill for the future. I say again, I want an IR but they can't afford them!
Come on guys, start adding to the thread in positive way, rather than constantly knocking some-one who wants to make a difference in a bad situation.
Like most in this tiny little part of aviation, I care, but the budgets been set, change is being forced on us so lets get our collective experience together and force through the things we need to do the job safely and effectively.
You'll notice I don't post often, mainly because of the armchair knockers, take aim and fire if you will, meanwhile I'll be banging on the bosses door to ensure progress is made safely rather than expecting me to carry on playing met roulette in unfamiliar areas on sparse fuel.
Come on guys, start adding to the thread in positive way, rather than constantly knocking some-one who wants to make a difference in a bad situation.
Like most in this tiny little part of aviation, I care, but the budgets been set, change is being forced on us so lets get our collective experience together and force through the things we need to do the job safely and effectively.
You'll notice I don't post often, mainly because of the armchair knockers, take aim and fire if you will, meanwhile I'll be banging on the bosses door to ensure progress is made safely rather than expecting me to carry on playing met roulette in unfamiliar areas on sparse fuel.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm on a run.....
I train for 1 hour every 90/120 days in simulated IMC (actual if the IRI/IRE so wishes) to recover from UPs, self vector to an ILS, and carry out 1 coupled approach with go around and 1 un-coupled approach as do all police pilots, just in case I get caught out. The further we fly, the longer the task, the more likely we are to 'get caught out'. Why constantly train me for the 'caught out' scenario and then not rubber stamp the ability legally. In my opinion we're pretty much in a no mans land and I fear it won't do for the new set-up.
As an aside I regularly fly with 2 IR pilots who have both said the currency for an IR (whilst more demanding) is less than that for an unrated police pilot?
I train for 1 hour every 90/120 days in simulated IMC (actual if the IRI/IRE so wishes) to recover from UPs, self vector to an ILS, and carry out 1 coupled approach with go around and 1 un-coupled approach as do all police pilots, just in case I get caught out. The further we fly, the longer the task, the more likely we are to 'get caught out'. Why constantly train me for the 'caught out' scenario and then not rubber stamp the ability legally. In my opinion we're pretty much in a no mans land and I fear it won't do for the new set-up.
As an aside I regularly fly with 2 IR pilots who have both said the currency for an IR (whilst more demanding) is less than that for an unrated police pilot?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: By the beach
Age: 58
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that that the cracks are already beginning to show.
BBC News - Concern South Yorkshire helicopter 'could be scrapped'
FB
BBC News - Concern South Yorkshire helicopter 'could be scrapped'
South Yorkshire Police's chief constable has expressed concern the force's Sheffield-based helicopter may be scrapped.
Med Hughes told BBC Radio Sheffield future plans meant the aircraft may be removed from its current base.
He said they would then have to get the service from neighbouring regions.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said it was working with the government to establish a National Police Air Service.
Mr Hughes said: "There's a project to turn the current system, which has over 30 independently-owned police helicopters, into a national system.
"I support the proposal in the broad terms, it's much more effective to have a national police helicopter and fixed-wing network.
"But the plans in detail would take away the air base which we currently have at Sheffield, and we would then get our service from bases in West Yorkshire, Humberside and Ripley in Derbyshire.
"I think that's too far away."
'Difficult times'
He added: "I will fight to make sure we continue to get the service we need in Sheffield, which of course is our busiest area."
An ACPO spokeswoman said: "The government has expressed a commitment to establishing a National Police Air Service by April 2012.
"Air support illustrates how the police service is working hard to make savings in difficult financial times.
"A new service would work collaboratively to provide capability from the air that maximises the delivery of front line public services, but with a lower cost than services procured and managed on a local basis."
Med Hughes told BBC Radio Sheffield future plans meant the aircraft may be removed from its current base.
He said they would then have to get the service from neighbouring regions.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said it was working with the government to establish a National Police Air Service.
Mr Hughes said: "There's a project to turn the current system, which has over 30 independently-owned police helicopters, into a national system.
"I support the proposal in the broad terms, it's much more effective to have a national police helicopter and fixed-wing network.
"But the plans in detail would take away the air base which we currently have at Sheffield, and we would then get our service from bases in West Yorkshire, Humberside and Ripley in Derbyshire.
"I think that's too far away."
'Difficult times'
He added: "I will fight to make sure we continue to get the service we need in Sheffield, which of course is our busiest area."
An ACPO spokeswoman said: "The government has expressed a commitment to establishing a National Police Air Service by April 2012.
"Air support illustrates how the police service is working hard to make savings in difficult financial times.
"A new service would work collaboratively to provide capability from the air that maximises the delivery of front line public services, but with a lower cost than services procured and managed on a local basis."
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly cried when I read how enthusiastic the Notts police authority was about the new arrangements, they'll be having one of the National spares at the counties base so they 'can just pull it out of the hangar when theirs is unavailable'. Don't think they understood that 'their' aircraft would no longer be theirs and would often be in another county (with its crew) and that 'their' spare will spend most of its time at other (national) bases.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The NPIA Paradox?
Are there many units whose present base can already accomodate 2 or more aircraft, that have to move to a base that would have to have significant investment in order to build facilities that could accomodate 2 or more aircraft, because the plan wants to base 2 or more aircraft at the 'new' location, which at the moment can only house 1?
Nearly cried when I read how enthusiastic the Notts police authority was about the new arrangements, they'll be having one of the National spares at the counties base so they 'can just pull it out of the hangar when theirs is unavailable'. Don't think they understood that 'their' aircraft would no longer be theirs and would often be in another county (with its crew) and that 'their' spare will spend most of its time at other (national) bases.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An example of this is their cavalier attitude to picking the wrong aircraft for the job even after they were 'advised' by all the other air consortiums otherwise and also thinking they could 'con' the CAA into allowing them to rapid rope and fire from helosNumpties. Now London has all those 145's boring circles in the sky waiting for the fuel to drop so they can come to the hover. What's that all about.
I also find it rather strange, having read the doom and gloom here, that the Met are being portrayed as 'too precious' and too up there own ****s because they have seen sense and pressumably have put together a strong case to stay out.