UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the "Airwave" ( Police Radio ) was introduced - love it, or more likely hate it, it opened up a new opportunity for those that chose to do so, for Direct tasking requests from the Bobby on the ground that needed it.
Simply change to the dedicated Air to Ground Channel, and speak direct to the crew, with none of the old geographical limitations of UHF radio that demanded all requests at the sharp end for Air Support, had to be routed via the local Control Room first, who then passed on the request via a VHF radio link with greater range, or by telephone.
This innovative approach allowed the crews immediate access to the information required to make a decision as to whether deploy or not, such as precise location, direction of travel of escaping offender / vehicle / misper etc, whether the area was fully or partially "contained" and where the containment was actually placed, etc. and did away with the previous lengthy game of "Chinese Whispers" via someone in a control room, somewhere.
The new Airwave radio system and direct calling approach - on a channel dedicated for that purpose, was SO successful that at least one ASU I know of, when they began trials with a neighbouring ASU consortium of 2 additional Police forces, adopted the same strategy and had all of their Officer's radios across all of the forces re-programmed with a single Air to Ground - Air Support "Hailing" channel. Depending on the incident location, and the location and committments of the two aircraft, then the task would be responded to by the most appropriate resource - with both ASU's constantly monitoring that Channel for task requests. (Air support then being provided generally by the one that was nearest, uncommitted, or had the shortest response time).
I am led to believe that under the new NPAS system, anyone requiring Air support may have to make this request via their local Control Room, who will then pass the request to the National Control Room (wherever that may be).
The National Control Room staff would then assess the task, decide if it is viable for Air support to attend, and deploy the resource that they think is most appropriate.
If this system is adopted then I believe it will be the major cause of a National Air Support scheme FAILING.
Why ? - Because of the inevitable delays in :Passing on the request from Bobby on the Ground, to their own Control Room (who have plenty of free time to deal with such requests don't they ? - Not !), to the National Control Room, who may well refer the request back for more information, which has to be referred back to the Bobby on scene, then back via their Control Room to the National Control Room, who then have to assess the request and decide which aircraft to deploy, and then contact the ASU, who may well ask for further information, which has to be passed back down the communications chain, and then wait for the information, before even turning the key on the Heli-Lift !
If I were a betting man I would put a month's wages (if I still have any) that the average response times quoted of 20 minutes, will actually become MINIMUM response times.
I really hope ( and dare to suggest ? ) that this will be taken into consideration and that the Bobby on the ground - who is after all the primary "Customer" of every Air Support Unit, is allowed to continue having direct contact with "their" ASU(s), and that the ASU would then liase with the National Control Room to confirm/inform them of their deployment.
If not, then it is not only all the Pilots and Observers that should be complaining, but every Operational Police Officer on the streets that will suffer as a result.
Simply change to the dedicated Air to Ground Channel, and speak direct to the crew, with none of the old geographical limitations of UHF radio that demanded all requests at the sharp end for Air Support, had to be routed via the local Control Room first, who then passed on the request via a VHF radio link with greater range, or by telephone.
This innovative approach allowed the crews immediate access to the information required to make a decision as to whether deploy or not, such as precise location, direction of travel of escaping offender / vehicle / misper etc, whether the area was fully or partially "contained" and where the containment was actually placed, etc. and did away with the previous lengthy game of "Chinese Whispers" via someone in a control room, somewhere.
The new Airwave radio system and direct calling approach - on a channel dedicated for that purpose, was SO successful that at least one ASU I know of, when they began trials with a neighbouring ASU consortium of 2 additional Police forces, adopted the same strategy and had all of their Officer's radios across all of the forces re-programmed with a single Air to Ground - Air Support "Hailing" channel. Depending on the incident location, and the location and committments of the two aircraft, then the task would be responded to by the most appropriate resource - with both ASU's constantly monitoring that Channel for task requests. (Air support then being provided generally by the one that was nearest, uncommitted, or had the shortest response time).
I am led to believe that under the new NPAS system, anyone requiring Air support may have to make this request via their local Control Room, who will then pass the request to the National Control Room (wherever that may be).
The National Control Room staff would then assess the task, decide if it is viable for Air support to attend, and deploy the resource that they think is most appropriate.
If this system is adopted then I believe it will be the major cause of a National Air Support scheme FAILING.
Why ? - Because of the inevitable delays in :Passing on the request from Bobby on the Ground, to their own Control Room (who have plenty of free time to deal with such requests don't they ? - Not !), to the National Control Room, who may well refer the request back for more information, which has to be referred back to the Bobby on scene, then back via their Control Room to the National Control Room, who then have to assess the request and decide which aircraft to deploy, and then contact the ASU, who may well ask for further information, which has to be passed back down the communications chain, and then wait for the information, before even turning the key on the Heli-Lift !
If I were a betting man I would put a month's wages (if I still have any) that the average response times quoted of 20 minutes, will actually become MINIMUM response times.
I really hope ( and dare to suggest ? ) that this will be taken into consideration and that the Bobby on the ground - who is after all the primary "Customer" of every Air Support Unit, is allowed to continue having direct contact with "their" ASU(s), and that the ASU would then liase with the National Control Room to confirm/inform them of their deployment.
If not, then it is not only all the Pilots and Observers that should be complaining, but every Operational Police Officer on the streets that will suffer as a result.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If not, then it is not only all the Pilots and Observers that should be complaining,
but every Operational Police Officer on the streets that will suffer as a result.
but every Operational Police Officer on the streets that will suffer as a result.
Like many forces mine has adopted direct contact with the a/c via airwave. Any Officer can contact the a/c or the office for that matter, from anywhere without any authorisation/intervention from supervisory or control room.
We have some of our best jobs from Officers seeing or hearing us nearby and shouting up to say "can you just, while your here"... or otherwise calling up the office to say, were just going to a job, could you........
I fully believe that NPAS will NOT consider everyday policework to be "worthy" enough of an aircraft attending.
Furthermore I can tell you now that most cops, if you tell them that the nearest a/c is 30 mins away, will just say"ahhh forget it"
And as already stated, WHO in the ops room is going to be ringing BTP to request an a/c..? It will be the ops room inspector of course. And this will only happen once they have time..!! so yet more delay..
The result.?
As we all know, the only thing the a/c will get to, is misper searches, bulls**t firearms jobs and football matches. None of which gets any collars felt..!!!
So for all us cops that want to to work at NPAS, (subject to passing interviews and selection of course), that like getting crims locked up. Time for pipe and slippers to come out while we tick all these boxes that need doing.
Last edited by morris1; 27th Oct 2010 at 18:11.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are there many units whose present base can already accomodate 2 or more aircraft
Once the south yorks a/c has been sold off and the staff redeployed/sacked there will be even more room. Perhaps they can move an NPAS aircraft there..!!!
see.. its easy this planning lark. Maybe I can get a job at NPAS doing the drawing circles on maps thingie
Last edited by morris1; 27th Oct 2010 at 18:23.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,611
Received 475 Likes
on
249 Posts
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.
The aircraft spends half it's time in Derbyshire and the spare's down south.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's one I bet they have not thought of.. In the old days a bobby would ask the control room for air support. If the duty officer ( with no air support experience) thought it was a goer he would ring building in at 10 15 min delay. No flight. Now as coco says bobbies on the ground can call direct on the new airwave thingy. So this is how it all changes. I would guess that most units can now say that the large number of ANPR cameras are producing quite a lot of work. Stolen cars that would have normally gone by unseen. Firearms markers, wanted people, missing people, dizzies. The list goes on.
Now these cameras are not situated in rural locations or miles from towns. So why are the NPIA looking at getting rid of busy city units and then moving the rest to the middle of no where. So add a 20 min transit time to an ANPR hit at 100mph no chance.
But I guess there next job will be to write air support out of the pursuit manual. That will solve it.
Now these cameras are not situated in rural locations or miles from towns. So why are the NPIA looking at getting rid of busy city units and then moving the rest to the middle of no where. So add a 20 min transit time to an ANPR hit at 100mph no chance.
But I guess there next job will be to write air support out of the pursuit manual. That will solve it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West England
Age: 61
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been watching the thread with interest.
At last week's symposium there was a mix of Police Officers and pilots with between them,hundreds of years of ASU experience many of whom have been in it since the start. My belief is that NPAS is going to happen and why on earth would all those experienced and dedicated practitioners want it to fail.
I want to make sure that the level of service we have achieved over the past twenty years is maintained to the vast majority of our users. There is nothing in the NPAS ethos that will stop frontline officers using air to ground talk groups to speak directly to aircraft and nothing to remove the autonomy of crews to self deploy.
The working groups that will be set up soon must ensure that these fundamental links and decision making processes are not taken away.
All the practitioners who will be making the reccommendations on the future working methods, command and control etc etc of NPAS have been around for a long time and represent all regions of the country.
I think we can trust them to do the best for air support with what will be at their disposal.
If and when it all goes ahead,we have to make it work.
PS: On the Dutch question, their problem is that all their 135s and 139s are based at Schiphol. The Dutch police want to spread the aircraft around the country to allow access to air support to all their officers not just Amsterdam.
At last week's symposium there was a mix of Police Officers and pilots with between them,hundreds of years of ASU experience many of whom have been in it since the start. My belief is that NPAS is going to happen and why on earth would all those experienced and dedicated practitioners want it to fail.
I want to make sure that the level of service we have achieved over the past twenty years is maintained to the vast majority of our users. There is nothing in the NPAS ethos that will stop frontline officers using air to ground talk groups to speak directly to aircraft and nothing to remove the autonomy of crews to self deploy.
The working groups that will be set up soon must ensure that these fundamental links and decision making processes are not taken away.
All the practitioners who will be making the reccommendations on the future working methods, command and control etc etc of NPAS have been around for a long time and represent all regions of the country.
I think we can trust them to do the best for air support with what will be at their disposal.
If and when it all goes ahead,we have to make it work.
PS: On the Dutch question, their problem is that all their 135s and 139s are based at Schiphol. The Dutch police want to spread the aircraft around the country to allow access to air support to all their officers not just Amsterdam.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coconutty I think NPAS are fully aware of this and will see it as a tool for saying how the aircraft are requested less, fly less cost less and can be cut back even further... So saving more money. Sadly catchin villians is not their priority its value for money results mean FA
Sadly the modern managers accross the Police think this way
Sadly the modern managers accross the Police think this way
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick I assume your are very nieve or are part of NPAS
We can trust them.... on what historical grounds are you basing that one on??
To do the best for air support, run that past the CC of South Yorks...
We have to make it work.... Gaffer speak for if I cock it up your still going to live with it and do your best.....
I think we can trust them to do the best for air support with what will be at their disposal.
If and when it all goes ahead,we have to make it work.
If and when it all goes ahead,we have to make it work.
To do the best for air support, run that past the CC of South Yorks...
We have to make it work.... Gaffer speak for if I cock it up your still going to live with it and do your best.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is nothing in the NPAS ethos that will stop frontline officers using air to ground talk groups to speak directly to aircraft and nothing to remove the autonomy of crews to self deploy.
Different officers with different radios, different levels of knoweldge of talkgroups and indeed some that cant even change the ruddy channel on their radio..
So an officer in humberside wants to deploy an aircraft to an incident in Goole.
He/She has been instructed to do what, shout up on the humbs air to ground..? Oh wait, theyve never worked that way so that could be challenging, but they DO have one in the nationaly mandated folder.(if they find it). But that means BTP monitoring 40 odd air2ground talk groups..??
Otherwise they call up on what,? a nationwide air2ground hailing channel direct to London BTP.. okay..
"BTP control can i have a helicopter please to Back Lane at Goole for intruders on at Walkers Recycling yard. Security cameras have suspects inside the perimeter and are covertly monitering, we have a dog on route and officers are arriving shortly for containment. This is a confirmed break-in-progress."
BTP Reply
"Last Officer, please state your region and county"
Officer
"erm, Humberside..? uuup north"
BTP
"Yes yes, what is the postcode please of the premises"
Officer
"I dont know, its next to the big bakery where all the steam comes out, the helicipoter cant miss it.."
BTP
"Im sorry, we need a post code to respond to your request"
Officer
"standby Ill get it from me satnav..!!!"
BTP
"Thank you, the West Yorks aircraft is currently on a misper search at Halifax, and the Humberside aircraft is engaged on a protracted firearms incident in Sheffield. We are sending the Teesside aircraft to you"
Officer
"How long will that take ?"
BTP
"According to my map, It will only take 25mins once airborne !"
Officer.
"Is it airborne now..?"
BTP
"no"
Officer
"dont bother, we're all here now, we'll manage without, the dog can go in"
But of course NPAS wont allow Officers to call direct. I'll eat my shirt if they do. It will be the Ops Rooms of each force that will be contacting NPAS. Theyll have to because the Ops Inspector needs to know where the nearest a/c is, in case a major job kicks off.
So all that above will take place AFTER the request has gone into the Ops Room.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick85- You state "At last week's symposium there was a mix of Police Officers and pilots with between them,hundreds of years of ASU experience many of whom have been in it since the start. " Yes Mick that part is true, kind of makes me wonder then WHY NOBODY LISTENS TO THEM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West England
Age: 61
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volrider, I would not consider myself a gaffer. I am a cop involved with air support for the last ten years of my service. I am not involved with the NPAS hierarchy, though have every intention of trying to be involved with the consultation and decision making that will have to be done during the next couple of years.
Comms. will be difficult but I am sure we can conjure up one or two regional A2G talk groups that can be monitored at bases within a region. one for the country would be totally unworkable. We already monitor several talk groups and can see no reason why it should be any different in future.
I would like to retain the status quo but cannot see that being an option, given the apparent support at ACPO level.
If you are involved with an ASU make suggestions to your UEOs, Deputies and Chief Pilots all of whom have been invited to join working groups that will steer the future decision making processes.
Comms. will be difficult but I am sure we can conjure up one or two regional A2G talk groups that can be monitored at bases within a region. one for the country would be totally unworkable. We already monitor several talk groups and can see no reason why it should be any different in future.
I would like to retain the status quo but cannot see that being an option, given the apparent support at ACPO level.
If you are involved with an ASU make suggestions to your UEOs, Deputies and Chief Pilots all of whom have been invited to join working groups that will steer the future decision making processes.
I think we can trust them to do the best for air support with what will be at their disposal.
The only word in that sentence that applies is DISPOSAL..
volrider,
Think what you want, like I do. I didn't say anything about not supporting some of the views - It's just that some of the posters are apparently lacking in their 'knowledge'.
Think what you want, like I do. I didn't say anything about not supporting some of the views - It's just that some of the posters are apparently lacking in their 'knowledge'.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick:
Umm seems like you have settled as to which side of the fence your going to slide down already
Rigga:
Thanks for the permission
I am not involved with the NPAS hierarchy, though have every intention of trying to be involved with the consultation and decision making that will have to be done during the next couple of years.
Rigga:
Think what you want
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West England
Age: 61
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you can see I am an infrequent poster on the rumour network.
I have had my say on this issue and henceforth will utter no more.
I may be tempted back in the future, if for example, the great fuel system icing inhibitor thread of 2007 rears its head again.
Good luck, good hunting and safe flying to all in the ASU community.
I have had my say on this issue and henceforth will utter no more.
I may be tempted back in the future, if for example, the great fuel system icing inhibitor thread of 2007 rears its head again.
Good luck, good hunting and safe flying to all in the ASU community.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestions then....
For all of those that believe that NPAS will give a better service, try this.
If we are to do this with 20 aircraft then those aircraft need to be strategically positioned nearest to the highest density crime areas. It is those areas that need the quickest response. This is what air support has been working towards since it's birth and by and large the best positions around the country are already there.
Command and control will not work nationally, not on an immediate operational level, you need regional control with a national overview. Nominate one of the regional ASU's as the master controlling ASU and place command watch keeping staff there. They deploy or liaise with a regional aircraft that has self deployed. They then liaise with national HQ and leave the aircraft to get on with the job. If a national commitment comes up then NHQ can liaise with RHQ to deploy elsewhere. It is more joined up and then allows crime to be tackled in time.
You do not need 20 minute circles as weather and topography often dictate that you can give a better service to adjoining forces from slightly further away but more suitable bases - yes, those bases that have taken years of practice and experience to find and cultivate. This will also save money by not having to relocate.
However, I do not think that the public should be treated like idiots and told we can give the same service with less aircraft and less money, that is plainly wrong. There will be a service but not the service people expect or want.
If we are to do this with 20 aircraft then those aircraft need to be strategically positioned nearest to the highest density crime areas. It is those areas that need the quickest response. This is what air support has been working towards since it's birth and by and large the best positions around the country are already there.
Command and control will not work nationally, not on an immediate operational level, you need regional control with a national overview. Nominate one of the regional ASU's as the master controlling ASU and place command watch keeping staff there. They deploy or liaise with a regional aircraft that has self deployed. They then liaise with national HQ and leave the aircraft to get on with the job. If a national commitment comes up then NHQ can liaise with RHQ to deploy elsewhere. It is more joined up and then allows crime to be tackled in time.
You do not need 20 minute circles as weather and topography often dictate that you can give a better service to adjoining forces from slightly further away but more suitable bases - yes, those bases that have taken years of practice and experience to find and cultivate. This will also save money by not having to relocate.
However, I do not think that the public should be treated like idiots and told we can give the same service with less aircraft and less money, that is plainly wrong. There will be a service but not the service people expect or want.