UK Police helicopter budget cuts

[nodrama]

Chopjock

You need to ask the people who wrote this:

[morris1]

Frankly, I cant believe the arrogance of the home office and ACPO. To think that they actualy believe that drawing circles on maps and erasing the units that are overlapped by other circles, is in any way sensible, beggars belief.

As far i can tell they are working on 15 min response times as being the "superior" cover proposed.
But as usual this is half a*rsed. They're working on 15 mins FLYING time.. ie already airborne. With the best will in the world, you can add on at least 5 mins onto that for dragging it out the hangar, flashing up and actually getting airborne. Then throw in a headwind to further slow things down. So those unlucky enough to be victims of the "chop" will be lucky to average 20 mins to get an a/c overhead..

Of course thats only if the said a/c is available for deployment, not currently on task, or already at the other side of the 15 min circle to where its needed next..

Sadly the work that will suffur will be the quality air support jobs where having the a/c close by and available makes all the difference.
We get so much work by simply "being there".. that regionalisation is going to kill everything we worked for. Listening into to the cops where your currently flying gets us all the nice little quick jobs we would otherwise miss.
The "intruders on" calls, cop with a suspect running, suspicious car cruising a housing estate, driver out and running from a traffic stop, even chasing down shoplifters running through a retail park.. and of course vehicle pursuits which last for 4 or 5 mins tops.. and these are all jobs where the a/c makes the difference between someone getting arrested or getting away.

What will be left when all this goes away.?
Regionalised a/c will spend ALL their time looking for mispers (that never get found) firearms tasks that plod on for ages and ages while someone decides to knock on a door, looking for drunk drivers that legged it from their car crash, (after ten years ive yet to find one laid out in a field..!!) and public order events which would manage quite easily without the a/c.

I can only imagine the comments the beat boys and girls are going to say, when they are told by dispatch that the helicopter they asked for to come and search for the car thieves that have just legged it from them, is 30 minutes away at best and 2 counties away...!
I know what i would say.!!

[zorab64]

heli - feel free to gloat, this ear-seal is delicious! However, it's not relevant in the scheme of things - what is relevant is that the law doesn't permit single engine machines at the moment and, as I've said before, the job we do (over 50% of the time) involves hovering over built up areas such that you remain VFR, and can also recover from a SEF before your MSD. Most of the time, especially at night, the weather only allows a very small height band and would completely preclude these operations in a single engined machine, of any capability. I could certainly suggest a few locations in our area for your 600ld dustbin, however!

hughes500 - I did not say that everybody is efficient and would completely agree that, in your area, the placement, aircraft type, equipment, apparent tasking etc don't seem to make complete sense - and not just from your comments either. But it's not my area and I don't pay my Council taxes in that neck of the woods - but I do care about my area, and how my taxes are spent, and also do my best to ensure that the money we spend in operating our machine is used as efficiently & effectively as we can. Waste, of any sort, is completely unaccceptable, IMHO.

chopjock -

I still can't get my head around ASU's being classed as public transport. Just who are the fare paying pax? If they could change that bit a whole new rule book could be written and cheaper, wider coverage would be the result, in my opinion.

There are a number of reasons for this - with Police as Pax, they can still be policemen, be used to patrol the streets when the aircraft is down for maintenance, and be generally stuffed around with, as far as shift patterns go. If they were "Crew", they'd be stuck on a roster, minimum flexibility, especially to their employer, and would require expensive medicals etc. etc. The Police hierarchy already resent having to kow-tow to another organisation (don't we all?) but the CAA do, at least, protect our interests, whether you agree with their methods or not.
Flying lesser equiped aircraft with worse limitations will reduce the effectiveness of aerial policing. How much cheaper it will be, when bases and salaries are unlikely to change significantly (unless, in your view, they're in the firing line too), I'm not sure, but I don't expect you'd see much "cost-benefit". And yes, you'd have a number of the current crop of Police pilots, some who have argued here because they know what they're talking about, pulling the plug; only to bring in some single-engine wanabees who, sure as eggs is eggs, will . . . I'm not continuing this one, the results are too expensive to contemplate!

I know you started the (silly) question part of this thread, but the possilby valid suggestion/question you origially raised has been more than answered if you actually read the posts which have been made clearly by the many professionals on this thread, most of whom are, or have been, doing the job for some while. On the other hand, as has been hinted at by 40odd2, tigerfish, nodrama, morris, shytorque, non-PC et al, feel free to pull your own plug from this thread

[jayteeto]

My last posting was miles back, but I was asked why a single engine failure would mean disaster. When a buck goes garden hopping in somewhere like Anfield/Bootle/Kensington/City Centre and you are over an area with no open spaces in the hover, you are only going straight down in a single engined helicopter. Bringing up the Wales incident shows your ignorance. If you fly high enough you can just about get away with a tail rotor fail in an EC135. It is practiced in the simulator and involves getting into autorotation VV quickly and getting the nose down. I managed it from 800ft in the sim (only just). The aerofoil design of the 135 tail allows it to fly (only just) if you maintain fwd speed and allows you to position for an EOL in a safe area. I guess thats ANOTHER reason why we use these expensive helicopters. Playing devils advocate is ok when you accept answers that disprove your theory. I accept that we COULD do things with these simpler aircraft, but we would also have to accept that we would just have to let people go if they went into built up areas. The criminals would NEVER soon catch on to that one!!
Cutting numbers is going to happen, the country is skint. The problem is one that some career bosses are saying that service will not suffer. Circles have been drawn on a map in the NW, the bosses didn't notice that at night we go around liverpool bay, not over it. As mentioned earlier, the country is not flat, hills mean weather and we have to go around, not over. The service WILL suffer, if the management admit that and then ACCEPT it, then fair enough. Decisions should be made with facts not projections. Sadly, these days you can only prove some ideas as bad by letting the idiots implement them first and noting the results.
Final answer to another question, would I prefer to have no job than to use an inferior helicopter? At night in a february snow storm heading into the hills......... Actually I would prefer no job

[morris1]

crew

And the other element to all this.. is that one can expect, as part of the cost cutting exercise, the new "National Air Support" organisation will crew its' aircraft with civilian air observers.. ie not cops.
Thus further eroding the quality of the service provided..!

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Doubt it....last study that was done this year states they are only cheaper in year 10...so if its cost cutting were after thats not the way to do it.

Glad to see chopjock has got the hint and stopped posting such rubbish.

[morris1]

yes i know..

but the trend now for the police is to civilianise as much as possible. Any post where police powers are not used is ripe for the chop.
Its not just salary costs but things like pension contributions to factor in. Plus of course the old "public perception" wild card..

If some bright spark at ACPO comes up with the idea that public favour will be won by showing how they have put cops "back on the street" rather than in the air, then it will more than likely happen.. Even if it costs more.!!

and the formation of national air support is prime time for it to happen..

[Bertie Thruster]

Thank goodness the UK air ambulances are locally funded by local charities.
...otherwise the threat of imminent government cuts would now be hanging over them as well.

Hang on!...........local police helicopters, funded by the local community.....

The charity copper chopper..........Don't think so, somehow.

But compared to police flying, its amazing not having to justify the costs of a helicopter, almost daily, to grumbling bean counters.

[timex]

Chopjock, some of us on here have flown singles at Night in all sorts of cruddy weather, its not nice. Would I prefer to do it in a twin with a comprehensive AP and nav system to help take the load off me? Oh yes, every time.

[chopjock]

Chopjock, some of us on here have flown singles at Night in all sorts of cruddy weather, its not nice. Would I prefer to do it in a twin with a comprehensive AP and nav system to help take the load off me? Oh yes, every time.

Of course you would, so would all of us when someone else is paying for it.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by tbc

Looks like I might need to find that job as a fluffer after all!!

Still not convinced you know what a fluffer is

Cheers

Whirls

[morris1]

fluffer

is it something to do with hoovering..?

[Whirlygig]

Only in that it tends to be women who do it

Cheers

Whirls

[tigerfish]

Chopjock

What it seems impossible to get through that thick scull of yours is that we are talking about lives here! When timex commented about not wanting to fly in a single in bad weather at night, and wanting the right equipment, the best that you could do was to make some smart comment like "OF course you would when someone else is paying for it"

That proves to me a number of things (A) You are just an armchair theorist and have never actually had to risk your neck doing it. And (B) From the basic lack of aviation law and knowledge you know jack all about the subject.
(c) As you are so against providing people with the right equipment, - perhaps you work for MOD procurement?

I note that you have never denied my challenge that you might be a journo!

Remember " Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

I suspect that you know very little of this subject at all.

Tigerfish

[chopjock]

I suspect that you know very little of this subject at all.

Tigerfish

You suspect right, that's why I have been asking questions. I'm learning as I go.
I have flown P1 plenty of times over various city's at night in a single, yes I wish too it was a twin, however can not justify the extra expense.

I'm not a journo either.

[peterprobe]

Your bang on there tiger!!!!

Chopping police aircraft what bollocks!!! They need more in UK not less, look at USA and other countries don't see them cutting. Yes fairly expensive but then the police as the military are doing, really need to have a good hard look at where their budget goes, overtime, clothing, crap procurement procedures that senior blokes and blokesses wrote!!! O and a good hard look at all those 1000 s of HQ office jobs filled with serving bobbies. Thats where all the ones who should be doubling up with their collegues on the beat are. Plus the PC bollocks that ties up a busy copper for about an hour when nicking someone for some minor crap. Of the bobbies I have met they rely on having an eye in the sky for tons of different situations.
Surely even those bean counters who I would assume (yes I know thats the mother of all f. ups ) are good with money, must realise that when people start to burn and damage your aircraft it is having a massive effect on the activities that they are trying to get away with. So buy robbing peter to pay paul that saved money will be burnt elsewhere........... o of course not in THEIR budget so they give not a toss, they look good.

[timex]

Chopjock, some of us on here have flown singles at Night in all sorts of cruddy weather, its not nice. Would I prefer to do it in a twin with a comprehensive AP and nav system to help take the load off me? Oh yes, every time.

Of course you would, so would all of us when someone else is paying for it.

You obviously missed the whole point...which is safer?

(I guess in your heart of hearts it must have been disappointing to discover you're actually a bean counter..)

[zerosum]

Police heli budget cuts

This is the reason why just about all UK Air Ambulances are run by charities. If they were run by the NHS, just imagine where the blue pencil would fall when the inevitable budget cuts had to be made.

[chopjock]

You obviously missed the whole point...which is safer?

Now someone else is asking questions. I don't know. Is there any evidence that twins are more reliable or safer than singles? Which has the most accidents? Singles are much more practical and would give more mission time when compared to an equivalent twin. Most accidents are caused through pilot error, not engine failure. Where do you stop? two engines did not help the Cardiff incident, or G-SPAU. Perhaps two tail rotors next or a co-axial helicopter would be safer?

[ShyTorque]

Singles are much more practical and would give more mission time when compared to an equivilent twin.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.