UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Dorset Police going under
Newspaper talk of course but a lengthy item on air support and 'no money anyway'.... I like the bit where it says they could join NPAS......
Dorset Police could lose boat unit and helicopter (From Bournemouth Echo)
Dorset Police could lose boat unit and helicopter (From Bournemouth Echo)
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Dear NPAS,
When someone is appointed to manage the fleet of aircraft, can you make sure that the mic tels leads in the different aircraft are compatable with the various helmet connectors around the bazaars?
Thanks
When someone is appointed to manage the fleet of aircraft, can you make sure that the mic tels leads in the different aircraft are compatable with the various helmet connectors around the bazaars?
Thanks
Drip, drip, drip....
Thanks to some help I have been guided to a recent document on the Essex Police web that provides details of a recent approach by the North Midlands Air Support Unit to the Eastern Consortium with a view to join them in their maintenance provision. ECPM offers a cheaper service than available via industry [ie what EC UK is offering] at less than the NPIA posted rates.
The proposal offers some significant reductions in cost to all of those involved [but] the document tells us quite clearly that it 'gives them a lesser service at lower cost than is currently provided to existing Consortium members, which for them represents an acceptable position.'
So there it is in black and white – bail out time .... save money now as the aircraft are going from your control in 2012 and you are unlikely to get a great big thankyou for continuing to spend money on air support unnecessarily...... so a lesser service is OK now. Looks like no increase of maintainers at ECPM despite a 25% increase in workload.
http://www.essex.police.uk/authority/pdf/EPA12511.pdf
The proposal offers some significant reductions in cost to all of those involved [but] the document tells us quite clearly that it 'gives them a lesser service at lower cost than is currently provided to existing Consortium members, which for them represents an acceptable position.'
So there it is in black and white – bail out time .... save money now as the aircraft are going from your control in 2012 and you are unlikely to get a great big thankyou for continuing to spend money on air support unnecessarily...... so a lesser service is OK now. Looks like no increase of maintainers at ECPM despite a 25% increase in workload.
http://www.essex.police.uk/authority/pdf/EPA12511.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAN - interesting document - any idea what these three quotes from it mean, if they're not planning another engineer (I'm told they've got 4 engineers at the moment, so one more makes a 25% increase, by my calculations)?
From para 4.3, I'm presuming "response time" means engineering response to unscheduled events, which is only a problem very occasionally for most 135s, IMHO.
As the 50 hour is basically only a compressor wash, I would have thought that authority for this could be delegated to a pilot - it's just a daily rinse with different fluid in it, after all!
Overall, so long as the N.Mids a/c behaves itself like a normal 135, they should notice little difference from their previous provider, it just won't cost them so much!
"By utilising contract engineering staff"
"will benefit from increased engineering capacity"
"The Consortium will realise the use of an additional full time, experienced, licensed and type rated engineer for all scheduled maintenance Inspections and most unscheduled events . . . engineering availability in respect of hangar floor staff will increase by 25%."
"will benefit from increased engineering capacity"
"The Consortium will realise the use of an additional full time, experienced, licensed and type rated engineer for all scheduled maintenance Inspections and most unscheduled events . . . engineering availability in respect of hangar floor staff will increase by 25%."
As the 50 hour is basically only a compressor wash, I would have thought that authority for this could be delegated to a pilot - it's just a daily rinse with different fluid in it, after all!
Overall, so long as the N.Mids a/c behaves itself like a normal 135, they should notice little difference from their previous provider, it just won't cost them so much!
Last edited by zorab64; 26th Jun 2011 at 21:14. Reason: validation of 25%
Bang to rights!
The dangers of reading on-line documents! I will have to print it out and get the words in the right place before I PAN it.
There is a Nottingham version out there but I will print that and read it properly before writing here!
Thanks.
The dangers of reading on-line documents! I will have to print it out and get the words in the right place before I PAN it.
There is a Nottingham version out there but I will print that and read it properly before writing here!
Thanks.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have North Mids ASU used the new engineering facility at the Eastern Consortium yet ?
There's a full 2 week gap in their Daily Activity Sheet from 30/5/11 to 13/06/11 ?
There's a full 2 week gap in their Daily Activity Sheet from 30/5/11 to 13/06/11 ?
Last edited by Coconutty; 27th Jun 2011 at 08:53. Reason: Forgot to add .....
Coco,
That would be the scheduled 400 hour, tail boom reinforcing plate mod and a couple of avionic snags then. A/C in on time and out on time
.
PAN, 2+2 = 4, not 7
That would be the scheduled 400 hour, tail boom reinforcing plate mod and a couple of avionic snags then. A/C in on time and out on time
.PAN, 2+2 = 4, not 7
There are currently loads of documents out there that seem, in the main, to be various forces introducing NPAS to their Police Authority. Most of these are naturally dated October-November last year and follow a standard pattern as far as content goes.
This year, well in the last month or so, the documents have been such as those already mentioned between North Mids and the ECPM members. Clearly the prices required by the maintainers went up at the end of March and then there is a presentation to the PA up north and then other documents setting out the intent. As the Essex document was dated within the last week it would seem that the 'deal' has not been agreed by all parties just yet. That does not mean NM have not been to ECPM but I expect not just yet. Potentially a July 1 start but maybe August 1. If the 400 has just been done [by EC?] there will not be a mad rush now. The additional engineer I missed is not likely to start next week [and may not be required next year].
I guess the above you will have read for yourselves anyway [and arrived at your own conclusions].
There is another document out there that is dated 23 June and it is a briefing by Hampshire/NPAS to the Hants Police Authority. 'Proposal for a National Police Air Service (NPAS)' and apparently penned by the ACPO Lead.
The content is pretty much identical to everything that was written in October 2010. Despite the earlier post here about 'Southend' being dropped that and Colerne etc remain the same. All the same aircraft deletions and dates of implementation.
So, according to that document its all 'no change' despite all our squabbling here and our expectation that NPAS would evolve - and an assumption that me might sit on the sidelines and 'discuss' as we see it evolve as a result of the NPAS team learning lessons.
According to this document the plan has not evolved, it is as written prior to consultation - the 2010 plan remains the plan for 2012.
This year, well in the last month or so, the documents have been such as those already mentioned between North Mids and the ECPM members. Clearly the prices required by the maintainers went up at the end of March and then there is a presentation to the PA up north and then other documents setting out the intent. As the Essex document was dated within the last week it would seem that the 'deal' has not been agreed by all parties just yet. That does not mean NM have not been to ECPM but I expect not just yet. Potentially a July 1 start but maybe August 1. If the 400 has just been done [by EC?] there will not be a mad rush now. The additional engineer I missed is not likely to start next week [and may not be required next year].
I guess the above you will have read for yourselves anyway [and arrived at your own conclusions].
There is another document out there that is dated 23 June and it is a briefing by Hampshire/NPAS to the Hants Police Authority. 'Proposal for a National Police Air Service (NPAS)' and apparently penned by the ACPO Lead.
The content is pretty much identical to everything that was written in October 2010. Despite the earlier post here about 'Southend' being dropped that and Colerne etc remain the same. All the same aircraft deletions and dates of implementation.
So, according to that document its all 'no change' despite all our squabbling here and our expectation that NPAS would evolve - and an assumption that me might sit on the sidelines and 'discuss' as we see it evolve as a result of the NPAS team learning lessons.
According to this document the plan has not evolved, it is as written prior to consultation - the 2010 plan remains the plan for 2012.
PAN - stop guessing & fishing. ECPM have been providing engineering to NMids since 31st May. FACT. The 400 was carried out at Wattisham together with the tail ring mod. FACT. Happy now?
Delirious.
I thought Pprune was all about guessing and fishing [and making a pratt of oneself from time to time]. If I hadn't guessed wrongly we still wouldn't have known.
Looks like I will have to [wrongly] guess what I need to wrongly guess about next to find out whats really happening.
Why are you so p***** off about it being made public if you are going to blurt it out anyway?
I thought Pprune was all about guessing and fishing [and making a pratt of oneself from time to time]. If I hadn't guessed wrongly we still wouldn't have known.
Looks like I will have to [wrongly] guess what I need to wrongly guess about next to find out whats really happening.
Why are you so p***** off about it being made public if you are going to blurt it out anyway?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAN - yes, this is a rumour network, but it also relies on journo's reading official, public domain, documents carefully, rather than blurting out stuff quickly because time hasn't been spent absorbing the detail which, to your credit, you admit. It's the knee-jerk (maybe careless?) posts that actually get up people's noses, whereas gentler probing & questioning will more likely receive confirmation from those in the know . . . than incorrect "statements", which will attract brick-bats! 
(I'm sure you know all this already!)
Back to the thread, however. There are a number of forces that have seen what's proposed, don't really like the way it's being done, but realise that unless some effort is made locally, to show that the proposals either work or don't (on a smaller, local, scale), the writing will be on the wall for a number of units. It will be a lot easier to refute the NPAS shambles with evidence, as a result of experience, than to just wait for the chop a la Marie Antoinette! (Looking for guillotine emoticon!)
The NM/WM/EM/CC "civil partnership" is just the latest example of this joint working.
The forces in East Anglia have been in similar fashion to this for some while, with slight adjustments in the light of the demise of Norfolk - which was always going to happen, it just came about a little earlier than expected. The formation of ECPM, by the same forces, was a forward-thinking move (long before NPAS), but one that made business, operational & financial sense for all forces - the offer to add NM into the fold is the logical progression of a maturing business, which should be able to realise improvements for all partners, either financially &/or operationally, depending on which force is looking at it. In addition, they are likely to be losing an aircraft next year, so it makes sense to bring others into the fold early. In the longer term, they would appear to be sensibly carving a niche, which will be difficult to argue against when NPAS finally get their s**t in one sock!
And for those who say public operations should not be running businesses, that's exactly the way things should be going, IMHO. It brings competition into the market, utilises existing HR & financial resources, and improves value for public money, rather than the virtual monopoly that has existed for many years. Sensible collaboration (as with the recent aquisition of 5/6 EC135s) is one of the ways to make significant savings that NPAS are looking for.
It's the knee-jerk (maybe careless?) posts that actually get up people's noses, whereas gentler probing & questioning will more likely receive confirmation from those in the know . . . than incorrect "statements", which will attract brick-bats! (I'm sure you know all this already!)Back to the thread, however. There are a number of forces that have seen what's proposed, don't really like the way it's being done, but realise that unless some effort is made locally, to show that the proposals either work or don't (on a smaller, local, scale), the writing will be on the wall for a number of units. It will be a lot easier to refute the NPAS shambles with evidence, as a result of experience, than to just wait for the chop a la Marie Antoinette! (Looking for guillotine emoticon!)
The NM/WM/EM/CC "civil partnership" is just the latest example of this joint working.
The forces in East Anglia have been in similar fashion to this for some while, with slight adjustments in the light of the demise of Norfolk - which was always going to happen, it just came about a little earlier than expected. The formation of ECPM, by the same forces, was a forward-thinking move (long before NPAS), but one that made business, operational & financial sense for all forces - the offer to add NM into the fold is the logical progression of a maturing business, which should be able to realise improvements for all partners, either financially &/or operationally, depending on which force is looking at it. In addition, they are likely to be losing an aircraft next year, so it makes sense to bring others into the fold early. In the longer term, they would appear to be sensibly carving a niche, which will be difficult to argue against when NPAS finally get their s**t in one sock!
And for those who say public operations should not be running businesses, that's exactly the way things should be going, IMHO. It brings competition into the market, utilises existing HR & financial resources, and improves value for public money, rather than the virtual monopoly that has existed for many years. Sensible collaboration (as with the recent aquisition of 5/6 EC135s) is one of the ways to make significant savings that NPAS are looking for.
"Why are you so p***** off about it being made public"
I'm not, but I'd already posted the info once and it's been "public" since the 1st of June
"Sensible collaboration (as with the recent aquisition of 5/6 EC135s) is one of the ways to make significant savings that NPAS are looking for".
Could somebody please tell NPAS!
I'm not, but I'd already posted the info once and it's been "public" since the 1st of June
"Sensible collaboration (as with the recent aquisition of 5/6 EC135s) is one of the ways to make significant savings that NPAS are looking for".
Could somebody please tell NPAS!
Sorry FortyOdd I missed the post where you had said it had happened [and still cannot find it] but thanks for the clarification anyway.
There seems to be an expectation that [unlike eveyone else] that because I only have one handle [unlike everyone else] I will not open my trap unless its 100% Kosher. Well I repeat [again] I do not [and will not] be so constrained!
There is a sea of disinformation around and I am as bad as anyone at being temporarily duped [but hopefully not for too long each time] by the duff stuff.
It goes back 40 odd years when you are told by the grizzled old skipper to stand in the middle of the road and spout in a loud and authorative voice.... [hoping to hide your very red and youthful face face in the shadow of the helmet]
"Did anyone see what happened?"
The reply as we all know is usually a wall of silence and a wish to get out of there asap.
Then the seemingly daft questions are asked face to face and finally you ask one daft enough to get the tart and superior reply.
So thanks, I got the answer and its been a long long time since I flushed up over being the pratt who asked!
But I am still remain puzzled at why the very recent Hampshire CC report to the Hants PA is apparently identical to the October 2010 report [and I have not yet done a word by word check between the two, so we are talking flavour here].
I know what is said here and on other organs of opinion should not have any bearing on the NPAS plan but I would have thought that the [alleged Pprune reported] pressures from elsewhere [ie South Yorkshire CC, Dyfed-Powys, Southend Airport] would have resulted in a significant or at least readily identifiable change in the plans in the last eight months. Even if you totally discount the Pprune stuff some of the other material is real enough and supported by Police Authority minutes.
'Puzzled' is not a statement of fact by the way...... more a 'Did anyone....'
There seems to be an expectation that [unlike eveyone else] that because I only have one handle [unlike everyone else] I will not open my trap unless its 100% Kosher. Well I repeat [again] I do not [and will not] be so constrained!
There is a sea of disinformation around and I am as bad as anyone at being temporarily duped [but hopefully not for too long each time] by the duff stuff.
It goes back 40 odd years when you are told by the grizzled old skipper to stand in the middle of the road and spout in a loud and authorative voice.... [hoping to hide your very red and youthful face face in the shadow of the helmet]
"Did anyone see what happened?"
The reply as we all know is usually a wall of silence and a wish to get out of there asap.
Then the seemingly daft questions are asked face to face and finally you ask one daft enough to get the tart and superior reply.
So thanks, I got the answer and its been a long long time since I flushed up over being the pratt who asked!
But I am still remain puzzled at why the very recent Hampshire CC report to the Hants PA is apparently identical to the October 2010 report [and I have not yet done a word by word check between the two, so we are talking flavour here].
I know what is said here and on other organs of opinion should not have any bearing on the NPAS plan but I would have thought that the [alleged Pprune reported] pressures from elsewhere [ie South Yorkshire CC, Dyfed-Powys, Southend Airport] would have resulted in a significant or at least readily identifiable change in the plans in the last eight months. Even if you totally discount the Pprune stuff some of the other material is real enough and supported by Police Authority minutes.
'Puzzled' is not a statement of fact by the way...... more a 'Did anyone....'
because I only have one handle [unlike everyone else] I will not open my trap unless its 100% Kosher. Well I repeat [again] I do not [and will not] be so constrained!
JAFO (My only handle)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the local Cambridge paper, looks like Cambs considering ditching QH88?
Cambridge News | Latest News Headlines From Cambridge City & Cambridgeshire | National News By Cambridge News | Cash-strapped police set to ditch force helicopter
Or from the Cambs Police website...
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Cambridge News | Latest News Headlines From Cambridge City & Cambridgeshire | National News By Cambridge News | Cash-strapped police set to ditch force helicopter
Or from the Cambs Police website...
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the local Cambridge paper, looks like Cambs considering ditching QH88?
Last edited by Retro Coupe; 29th Jun 2011 at 08:04.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect that the engineering man hours required for the T2 from North Mids would be a lot less than the 902 from Cambridgeshire so when it is gotten rid of it would allow for more flexibility in the engineering service from ECPM .