UK Police helicopter budget cuts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whitehead - your post #1937 speaks volumes of sad sense. I, too, feel that once you see units not responding to tasks that they're realistically too far away from to do any good, it's the start of Air Support going down the plug-hole, full-stop. You then only attend proximate (to your base) urgent taking, planning/photographic, the missing & suicidal. If you happen (more by luck than judgement) to be near an immediate requirement when it's called in, you might pick a few up there too.
The problem with all the armchair experts is that the basic theory of getting to urgent jobs, in a sensible timescale, seems to have been done away with. A 15 min radius of actual attendance is great (though a theoretical 15 can often stretch to 20+, if communicators aren't on the ball) but if you start at a theoretical 20-25, the actual figures aren't worth talking about - which SYP Authority, to their credit, have realised.
Borderless tasking can work, we've been doing it for years, but it most often needs the people who are actually doing the job to remain aware of what's going on around them to pick up the tasking, rather than a central tasker, who may not even be able to pronounce the name of the place they're asking you to go to, to deal with the deployment, IMHO!
The real issue is placing (or keeping) bases so that the deployed resources overlap their neighbours - depending on how big the circles are, of course! Some while ago I noticed someone on POLKA comparing the proposed closure plan to pulling teeth. If you take one out, you can maybe fit a brace to close the gap a bit - but you can't really do that when you take out two teeth next to each other!
These gaps will soon be exploited by those who wish to & the appropriate fillings will be expensive, if not impossible, to procure - if anyone wished to!
NPAS may have laudable aims, some of which can be accomplished with relative ease. The more painful bits need more investigation before implementation, I'd suggest, or we'll have many more than a few airborne individuals feeling the pain!
And I'd concur wholeheartedly with ST, too!
The problem with all the armchair experts is that the basic theory of getting to urgent jobs, in a sensible timescale, seems to have been done away with. A 15 min radius of actual attendance is great (though a theoretical 15 can often stretch to 20+, if communicators aren't on the ball) but if you start at a theoretical 20-25, the actual figures aren't worth talking about - which SYP Authority, to their credit, have realised.
Borderless tasking can work, we've been doing it for years, but it most often needs the people who are actually doing the job to remain aware of what's going on around them to pick up the tasking, rather than a central tasker, who may not even be able to pronounce the name of the place they're asking you to go to, to deal with the deployment, IMHO!
The real issue is placing (or keeping) bases so that the deployed resources overlap their neighbours - depending on how big the circles are, of course! Some while ago I noticed someone on POLKA comparing the proposed closure plan to pulling teeth. If you take one out, you can maybe fit a brace to close the gap a bit - but you can't really do that when you take out two teeth next to each other!
These gaps will soon be exploited by those who wish to & the appropriate fillings will be expensive, if not impossible, to procure - if anyone wished to! NPAS may have laudable aims, some of which can be accomplished with relative ease. The more painful bits need more investigation before implementation, I'd suggest, or we'll have many more than a few airborne individuals feeling the pain!
And I'd concur wholeheartedly with ST, too!
Last edited by zorab64; 25th Sep 2011 at 15:02. Reason: To concur with ST - posted while I was typing!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Zorab64, thanks.
Not too long ago our local control room was closed in favour of a "more efficient" centralised one. The police I worked with knew this couldn't possibly work as well as the old localised ones. They were correct; it was a shambles. One of the reasons was with operators now not having a clue about the place names / wider geography involved.
I also experienced this first hand from a consumer point of view. Driving home one night, I found a car on its roof on a local grass verge, wheels spinning, folks stuck inside. I rang 999 and described the precise location (only a couple of miles from my home). The operator had not a clue of the place name (outskirts of town) and repeatedly told me I was talkng about somewhere not in her county and definitely not near where I was (I'd lived in the area for over a decade and knew I wasn't wrong). I had to describe it in fine detail, literally spell everything and give road numbers etc plus driving directions so someone could eventually attend. Thank goodness the passengers weren't seriously injured.
Then not long afterwards we had the almost laughable experience of two policewomen sent to our local police station from the town where the control room was situated (15 miles away). They couldn't find the police station. Instead they went to the local newspaper office for directions, who later printed the story with glee.
Shambolic but predictably so. Police need local knowledge to be most effective. There is nothing better than a bobby in the aircraft directing his colleagues along his old "beat", down back routes and footpaths, giving the bobbies on the ground the local names for little places not on the map. Been there, experienced it.
Sadly, that kind of operation is being thrown away in the name of so called better "efficiency". However, those responsible for NPAS are now thankfully being less successful than they had hoped in getting bull*** to baffle brains.
Not too long ago our local control room was closed in favour of a "more efficient" centralised one. The police I worked with knew this couldn't possibly work as well as the old localised ones. They were correct; it was a shambles. One of the reasons was with operators now not having a clue about the place names / wider geography involved.
I also experienced this first hand from a consumer point of view. Driving home one night, I found a car on its roof on a local grass verge, wheels spinning, folks stuck inside. I rang 999 and described the precise location (only a couple of miles from my home). The operator had not a clue of the place name (outskirts of town) and repeatedly told me I was talkng about somewhere not in her county and definitely not near where I was (I'd lived in the area for over a decade and knew I wasn't wrong). I had to describe it in fine detail, literally spell everything and give road numbers etc plus driving directions so someone could eventually attend. Thank goodness the passengers weren't seriously injured.
Then not long afterwards we had the almost laughable experience of two policewomen sent to our local police station from the town where the control room was situated (15 miles away). They couldn't find the police station. Instead they went to the local newspaper office for directions, who later printed the story with glee.
Shambolic but predictably so. Police need local knowledge to be most effective. There is nothing better than a bobby in the aircraft directing his colleagues along his old "beat", down back routes and footpaths, giving the bobbies on the ground the local names for little places not on the map. Been there, experienced it.
Sadly, that kind of operation is being thrown away in the name of so called better "efficiency". However, those responsible for NPAS are now thankfully being less successful than they had hoped in getting bull*** to baffle brains.
ST
Your recital of problems associated with a lack of knowledge has nothing to do with NPAS more to do with those that are pulling the strings - ACPO.
It is a sad fact that ACPO has for years been digging tank traps designed to scupper proper policing across the board and central control is at the heart of this misguided [actually criminal] activity. These know it all super beings occupying a lofty place of their own making have generally never served as police people for any length of time as they scrambled for promotion to their special place in society. They cannot understand what policing is about because there is no one to tell them that is not on that same mission of betterment.
They discount the advice coming upwards because it is from people who choose to dedicate their lives to serving the public - potentially staying in one rank and one extremely known and understood location for 20 or more years. They see that knowledge as flawed because it 'must' be based on graft and illegal favours of those in over familiar surroundings.
For their part their activities they are rewarded by hero worship from the politicians, a QPM or two and a knighthood here and there.
Your recital of problems associated with a lack of knowledge has nothing to do with NPAS more to do with those that are pulling the strings - ACPO.
It is a sad fact that ACPO has for years been digging tank traps designed to scupper proper policing across the board and central control is at the heart of this misguided [actually criminal] activity. These know it all super beings occupying a lofty place of their own making have generally never served as police people for any length of time as they scrambled for promotion to their special place in society. They cannot understand what policing is about because there is no one to tell them that is not on that same mission of betterment.
They discount the advice coming upwards because it is from people who choose to dedicate their lives to serving the public - potentially staying in one rank and one extremely known and understood location for 20 or more years. They see that knowledge as flawed because it 'must' be based on graft and illegal favours of those in over familiar surroundings.
For their part their activities they are rewarded by hero worship from the politicians, a QPM or two and a knighthood here and there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
im sorry, but are we really going to take lessons on economy and saving from the mil..!!
Having spent some time with things that go bang I know the amount of wastage and p1ss poor planning... is legendary..!
having read some of the previous posts it becomes clear that some (non police) people are losing sight of the bigger picture.
Yes police budgets are being reduced by 20%... that doesnt mean that EVERY department needs to be chopped by this amount.
It is it really beyond the comprehension that some units need ring-fencing..!!
I use the s.yorks example because the figures are available.. but even WITH future procurement taken care of, the budget can come in at 2,000,000.
The full budget for that force is 260,000,000
So the ASU amounts to 0.77% of the total....
Surely, please god, surely... people can see that their budget can be protected, and the savings found from the other 99.23% of the operation..! (start with the CID overtime bill.!!)
Having spent some time with things that go bang I know the amount of wastage and p1ss poor planning... is legendary..!
having read some of the previous posts it becomes clear that some (non police) people are losing sight of the bigger picture.
Yes police budgets are being reduced by 20%... that doesnt mean that EVERY department needs to be chopped by this amount.
It is it really beyond the comprehension that some units need ring-fencing..!!
I use the s.yorks example because the figures are available.. but even WITH future procurement taken care of, the budget can come in at 2,000,000.
The full budget for that force is 260,000,000
So the ASU amounts to 0.77% of the total....
Surely, please god, surely... people can see that their budget can be protected, and the savings found from the other 99.23% of the operation..! (start with the CID overtime bill.!!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
addendum
M1
You can take lessons from everything - good and bad. It seems to me that Forces are faced with some difficult choices and helicopters unfortunately are an expensive asset. While it might be 0.77% of the budget (for other rural forces its going to be a much higher %), but also £2m = 40 officers. And sometimes some aviation people can't see the bigger picture.
But again I think we are on the same side, my earlier message was probably of the wrong tone. Bluntly, the more helicopters the better but reality check kicks in. I think what I was trying to say was ... if separated from the number of helicopters to stay etc, NPAS is the way forward as it delivers savings without affecting ops. But instead of limbering up to the start line, you can't seem to agree where the start line is, and there's much bickering in the team and with the manager. Bodes well.
You can take lessons from everything - good and bad. It seems to me that Forces are faced with some difficult choices and helicopters unfortunately are an expensive asset. While it might be 0.77% of the budget (for other rural forces its going to be a much higher %), but also £2m = 40 officers. And sometimes some aviation people can't see the bigger picture.
But again I think we are on the same side, my earlier message was probably of the wrong tone. Bluntly, the more helicopters the better but reality check kicks in. I think what I was trying to say was ... if separated from the number of helicopters to stay etc, NPAS is the way forward as it delivers savings without affecting ops. But instead of limbering up to the start line, you can't seem to agree where the start line is, and there's much bickering in the team and with the manager. Bodes well.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a world of my own!
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re the .77% of the total
Yes it may only be a small percentage of the total. All forces have been told to save 20% across the board, even the Forces who have sought, and managed to become very lean over the last few years.
At a Force level this implementation is discussed not in percentage terms but in monetary terms, In SYP's case about 50 million, so the mentality is save money, not percentages, so all of a sudden half a million here and there becomes an attractive prospect. Every department within the Police think that they are essential to the efficacy of the Force. I can understand protectionism within Air Support, but somewhere along the line we will have to share our burden of the cuts however painful they are.
It also bears some thought that some departments are ring fenced, local Policing being one, once a department becomes ring fence it affects the percentage level of savings that have to be made elsewhere.
I am not an NPAS appointee, I do think that in general NPAS is a good idea, I do think that it could be marketed a little better though.
I was around in the 90's when pursuits were every evening, we had helicopters then and it still happened. It was more to do with legal changes than helicopters that it went away.
In the late 80's the government lowered the level of vehicle taking by creating TWOC or TWLA(Summary only offences) vehicles crime went mad, ram raiding through the roof, pursuits the same.
Then came along, better vehicle security (no more black boxing) and aggravated TWOC which resulted in a Crown Court appearance and a lengthy stay in prison. The increased vehicle security led to what we have now, two in one burglaries.
So lets not say that Air Support stopped vehicle crime, it was just one cog in a machine that slowed it down a little, that's all.
There are some very valid points on this forum but sometimes emotions get a little high (mine included) and we go around in circles, change in some form or other will happen, it always has within the Police, we will have to learn to live with it and make it work, like we have always done.
Yes it may only be a small percentage of the total. All forces have been told to save 20% across the board, even the Forces who have sought, and managed to become very lean over the last few years.
At a Force level this implementation is discussed not in percentage terms but in monetary terms, In SYP's case about 50 million, so the mentality is save money, not percentages, so all of a sudden half a million here and there becomes an attractive prospect. Every department within the Police think that they are essential to the efficacy of the Force. I can understand protectionism within Air Support, but somewhere along the line we will have to share our burden of the cuts however painful they are.
It also bears some thought that some departments are ring fenced, local Policing being one, once a department becomes ring fence it affects the percentage level of savings that have to be made elsewhere.
I am not an NPAS appointee, I do think that in general NPAS is a good idea, I do think that it could be marketed a little better though.
I was around in the 90's when pursuits were every evening, we had helicopters then and it still happened. It was more to do with legal changes than helicopters that it went away.
In the late 80's the government lowered the level of vehicle taking by creating TWOC or TWLA(Summary only offences) vehicles crime went mad, ram raiding through the roof, pursuits the same.
Then came along, better vehicle security (no more black boxing) and aggravated TWOC which resulted in a Crown Court appearance and a lengthy stay in prison. The increased vehicle security led to what we have now, two in one burglaries.
So lets not say that Air Support stopped vehicle crime, it was just one cog in a machine that slowed it down a little, that's all.
There are some very valid points on this forum but sometimes emotions get a little high (mine included) and we go around in circles, change in some form or other will happen, it always has within the Police, we will have to learn to live with it and make it work, like we have always done.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Why not cut 50% of all police road vehicles?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Developments
Reasons why police air support have developed very successfully since it's inception?
Ram raids were the initial reason but once in service it was soon realised that having a helicopter available actually saved a significant amount of money in search costs and significantly increased successful misper finds - alive! Air operations has produced a substantial deterrent effect and it is this, more than the changes in Law that has produced a decrease in car related crime.
If the criminal knows he/she has a very good chance of getting caught then that's when they actually think again. Not sentencing - getting caught.
And why do they get caught; because the forces with large urban areas have placed their asset (where possible) very near to that centre of crime because, air support is only successful when you minimise TIME. Its all about reducing time on task/speed of response, anything that increases TIME decreases operational effectiveness. Place an asset 20 - 30 minutes away and it is doomed to fail.
A National solution to air ops is a natural sensible progression.
It had to come. But it has been handled really badly. The original statements about air ops were factually incorrect, politically motivated and insulting. If anything, police air ops around the country have led the way (police) in cooperation, coordination and communication. Cross border ops have seamlessly operated for years and cooperation on purchasing and information exchange (User Groups etc) has been in place for years, as has training both regionally and nationally.
The backlash started by SYO was inevitable when the NPAS team (no police aviation knowledge - still) have not been giving the correct costings and providing a solution to air ops that will increase not decrease crime and time.
SYO want the 'gold standard' they are used to and pay for - their words - GOLD STANDARD.
It is after all giving a service to the public not just about cutting costs. Costs can be cut from air ops but the NPAS way is to reduce operational effectiveness by placing the assets away from the centres of crime and increasing response times. The beer glass principal. Do this and you also reduce deterrent effect (West Mids a/c etc). The central control room idea will only exacerbate the problem.
The Police Authorities are not stupid. They realise that they or the replacement system, the new commissioner set up, will get it in the neck from the public if, a) crime increases in that area and b) if they are in the long term going to receive a worse service for the wrong costs. This is only the start. September is going to be an interesting NPAS milestone.
It doesn't help that NPAS has indicated that it's own funding formulae will not work in the long term!
What would be refreshing, if NPAS would take a step back, take a breath, employ some aviation experts, observers and pilots, perhaps an aviation engineer, to look at a better national solution. The operational aspects like local control not national control need to be looked at again.
Are emotions high on here? Of course they are. Many air observers (of all ranks) and pilots have built up the service and operated it for the benefit of the public only to see it being systematically changed and destroyed in the name of savings! Did not ACPO state that front line assets would not be touched?
In essence Waging Finger, there are 3 groups of people that contribute to this thread. Interested outsiders, passionate practitioners and ostriches!
Living with it and making it work is not a responsible way forward.......
Ram raids were the initial reason but once in service it was soon realised that having a helicopter available actually saved a significant amount of money in search costs and significantly increased successful misper finds - alive! Air operations has produced a substantial deterrent effect and it is this, more than the changes in Law that has produced a decrease in car related crime.
If the criminal knows he/she has a very good chance of getting caught then that's when they actually think again. Not sentencing - getting caught.
And why do they get caught; because the forces with large urban areas have placed their asset (where possible) very near to that centre of crime because, air support is only successful when you minimise TIME. Its all about reducing time on task/speed of response, anything that increases TIME decreases operational effectiveness. Place an asset 20 - 30 minutes away and it is doomed to fail.
A National solution to air ops is a natural sensible progression.
It had to come. But it has been handled really badly. The original statements about air ops were factually incorrect, politically motivated and insulting. If anything, police air ops around the country have led the way (police) in cooperation, coordination and communication. Cross border ops have seamlessly operated for years and cooperation on purchasing and information exchange (User Groups etc) has been in place for years, as has training both regionally and nationally.
The backlash started by SYO was inevitable when the NPAS team (no police aviation knowledge - still) have not been giving the correct costings and providing a solution to air ops that will increase not decrease crime and time.
SYO want the 'gold standard' they are used to and pay for - their words - GOLD STANDARD.
It is after all giving a service to the public not just about cutting costs. Costs can be cut from air ops but the NPAS way is to reduce operational effectiveness by placing the assets away from the centres of crime and increasing response times. The beer glass principal. Do this and you also reduce deterrent effect (West Mids a/c etc). The central control room idea will only exacerbate the problem.
The Police Authorities are not stupid. They realise that they or the replacement system, the new commissioner set up, will get it in the neck from the public if, a) crime increases in that area and b) if they are in the long term going to receive a worse service for the wrong costs. This is only the start. September is going to be an interesting NPAS milestone.
It doesn't help that NPAS has indicated that it's own funding formulae will not work in the long term!
What would be refreshing, if NPAS would take a step back, take a breath, employ some aviation experts, observers and pilots, perhaps an aviation engineer, to look at a better national solution. The operational aspects like local control not national control need to be looked at again.
Are emotions high on here? Of course they are. Many air observers (of all ranks) and pilots have built up the service and operated it for the benefit of the public only to see it being systematically changed and destroyed in the name of savings! Did not ACPO state that front line assets would not be touched?
In essence Waging Finger, there are 3 groups of people that contribute to this thread. Interested outsiders, passionate practitioners and ostriches!
Living with it and making it work is not a responsible way forward.......
Well said Gas producer!
The biggest problem NPAS have yet to overcome is one of credibility. There is only one person on the team that can speak with any knowledge, authority and experience on the subject and only one other who has been honest enough to put her hand up and admit that she knows nothing about the subject.
Spending wisely on Air Support will increase efficiency.
Simply spending less on Air Support will not produce savings.
Effectiveness, especially 100% effectiveness, has an efficiency all of its own.
The biggest problem NPAS have yet to overcome is one of credibility. There is only one person on the team that can speak with any knowledge, authority and experience on the subject and only one other who has been honest enough to put her hand up and admit that she knows nothing about the subject.
Spending wisely on Air Support will increase efficiency.
Simply spending less on Air Support will not produce savings.
Effectiveness, especially 100% effectiveness, has an efficiency all of its own.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gas generator, you talk a lot of sense but the reality is that NPAS seem to be hell bent on plan A and nothing else. All the wise words and common sense in the world makes no difference if the power brokers are not willing to listen or take note and adapt. It is very sad, and unfortunately ever increasingly likely, that we will end up with a sub standard and not really fit for service air support. I fear the writing is on the wall.
I really do wish that some of the NPAS representatives would engage in this discussion at a more ground roots level and stop what seems to be an idealistic and self promoting attitude to this.
I really do wish that some of the NPAS representatives would engage in this discussion at a more ground roots level and stop what seems to be an idealistic and self promoting attitude to this.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a world of my own!
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not cut 50% of all police road vehicles?
As regards GG comments
Ram raids were the initial reason
A report that recommended that all of the then Metropolitan Police areas looked at aircraft as an asset.
Air operations has produced a substantial deterrent effect and it is this, more than the changes in Law that has produced a decrease in car related crime.
I am all for quoting things as fact, yes this is a rumour network but lets at least have them backed up by the most tenuous of stats.
For the record I would class myself as a passionate practitioner. I am all for healthy debate and discussion, but please back it up with some hard facts otherwise it's just a waste of time and effort on everyones behalf.
It is probably unfair to say that NPAS will not move from Plan A.
There are clear signs that there is a Plan B which is Plan A modified to keep the detractors off the back of NPAS [but no more].
Aspects of Plan A (Mod) are an apparent late realisation that the world is not occupied by helicopters alone. So we get the late [post October 2010] mention of a fixed wing for Dyfed-Powys and courting of light twin manufacturers including Tecnam and Diamond.
Fixed wing plans have been otherwise remarkably absent from the NPAS plan. Why would you only want one of anything at GMP to cover the whole of England and Wales? And why would BN Surveillance be at Gamston last week?
There are clear signs that there is a Plan B which is Plan A modified to keep the detractors off the back of NPAS [but no more].
Aspects of Plan A (Mod) are an apparent late realisation that the world is not occupied by helicopters alone. So we get the late [post October 2010] mention of a fixed wing for Dyfed-Powys and courting of light twin manufacturers including Tecnam and Diamond.
Fixed wing plans have been otherwise remarkably absent from the NPAS plan. Why would you only want one of anything at GMP to cover the whole of England and Wales? And why would BN Surveillance be at Gamston last week?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
and there was me thinking that the inception of Police helicopters came about following the report into the tragic events in Hungerford A report that recommended that all of the then Metropolitan Police areas looked at aircraft as an asset.
A report that recommended that all of the then Metropolitan Police areas looked at aircraft as an asset.
A number of factors hampered the police response:
The telephone exchange could not handle the number of 999 calls made by witnesses.
The Thames Valley firearms squad were training 40 miles away.
The police helicopter was in for repair, though was eventually deployed.
Only two phone lines were in operation at the local police station which was undergoing renovation.
The telephone exchange could not handle the number of 999 calls made by witnesses.
The Thames Valley firearms squad were training 40 miles away.
The police helicopter was in for repair, though was eventually deployed.
Only two phone lines were in operation at the local police station which was undergoing renovation.
As police realised the seriousness of the incident armed officers and helicopters were rushed to the area.
By 6pm, Ryan, was cornered at John O'Gaunt school, surrounded by armed police and police helicopters.
The Hungerford police were already undertaking a manhunt for the killer and a police helicopter spotted Ryan. They warned ground units to set up a roadblock around South View, to stop any drivers entering the area, although they had no idea what Ryan would do next. In an unfortunate turn of events, the police at the roadblock actually sent some drivers directly towards Ryan.
Despite the police helicopter hovering above him and telling him to lay down his weapons, Ryan merely walked away. The police officers at the scene did not apprehend him at this point, as they were unarmed. At 1.30 pm specially trained officers from the Tactical Firearms Unit were brought in and local police officers assembled closer to town. After killing his mother, Ryan walked across the school playing field, firing randomly.
The police were not certain if Ryan had shot himself or just fired off a round. They flew the police helicopter past the window, but could not see in to the classroom.
Despite the police helicopter hovering above him and telling him to lay down his weapons, Ryan merely walked away. The police officers at the scene did not apprehend him at this point, as they were unarmed. At 1.30 pm specially trained officers from the Tactical Firearms Unit were brought in and local police officers assembled closer to town. After killing his mother, Ryan walked across the school playing field, firing randomly.
The police were not certain if Ryan had shot himself or just fired off a round. They flew the police helicopter past the window, but could not see in to the classroom.
The first police helicopters
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
North Yorkshire to back National Police Air Service
8:29am Tuesday 27th September 2011
POLICE chiefs in North Yorkshire are set to back plans for a new UK-wide airborne service to fight crime.
Helicopters run by forces across England and Wales are to be merged into a single National Police Air Service (NPAS) in a move intended to save more than £15 million off the bill for policing from the air.
The new service would see the number of aircraft operated by police reduced from 31 to 23 across 20 bases.
However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has said the new service will provide 24-hour cover for 97 per cent of the population.
North Yorkshire Police Authority will next week agree “in principle” to support the NPAS plan after hearing it would give them a better service and see them pay £4,000-a-year less for air support.
North Yorkshire Police does not have a helicopter and calls in help from neighbouring forces, usually West Yorkshire and Cleveland, when it needs help with incidents and searches.
Wakefield, which is 13 minutes’ flying time from York, is currently the nearest base to North Yorkshire where police aircraft are housed, and this would continue under the NPAS arrangements as they stand.
Temporary assistant chief constable Iain Spittal and temporary superintendent Aubrey Smith, writing in a report to go before NYPA next week, said: “The benefits for North Yorkshire Police of this service would be enhanced effectiveness and efficiency to service provision, improving air support coverage and response times across the force area together with initial savings of approximately £4,000 per annum.
“The NPAS model aspires to provide a 24/7, single and cost-effective solution to provision of police air support.”
But the report also said some forces had “understandable concerns about any possible reduction in service as a result of the new scheme.
North Yorkshire Police has also raised concerns over costs and the areas which would be covered.
It said more detail, including a full business case, would emerge before the force decided whether to formally commit to the NPAS proposals.
A national roll-out of the scheme is scheduled to begin next April, with any new arrangements for North Yorkshire coming into force in about a year’s time.
8:29am Tuesday 27th September 2011
POLICE chiefs in North Yorkshire are set to back plans for a new UK-wide airborne service to fight crime.
Helicopters run by forces across England and Wales are to be merged into a single National Police Air Service (NPAS) in a move intended to save more than £15 million off the bill for policing from the air.
The new service would see the number of aircraft operated by police reduced from 31 to 23 across 20 bases.
However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has said the new service will provide 24-hour cover for 97 per cent of the population.
North Yorkshire Police Authority will next week agree “in principle” to support the NPAS plan after hearing it would give them a better service and see them pay £4,000-a-year less for air support.
North Yorkshire Police does not have a helicopter and calls in help from neighbouring forces, usually West Yorkshire and Cleveland, when it needs help with incidents and searches.
Wakefield, which is 13 minutes’ flying time from York, is currently the nearest base to North Yorkshire where police aircraft are housed, and this would continue under the NPAS arrangements as they stand.
Temporary assistant chief constable Iain Spittal and temporary superintendent Aubrey Smith, writing in a report to go before NYPA next week, said: “The benefits for North Yorkshire Police of this service would be enhanced effectiveness and efficiency to service provision, improving air support coverage and response times across the force area together with initial savings of approximately £4,000 per annum.
“The NPAS model aspires to provide a 24/7, single and cost-effective solution to provision of police air support.”
But the report also said some forces had “understandable concerns about any possible reduction in service as a result of the new scheme.
North Yorkshire Police has also raised concerns over costs and the areas which would be covered.
It said more detail, including a full business case, would emerge before the force decided whether to formally commit to the NPAS proposals.
A national roll-out of the scheme is scheduled to begin next April, with any new arrangements for North Yorkshire coming into force in about a year’s time.
North Yorkshire to back National Police Air Service (From York Press)
"North Yorkshire Police Authority will next week agree “in principle” to support the NPAS plan after hearing it would give them a better service and see them pay £4,000-a-year less for air support."
So despite the report mentioning other forces concerns, the descision has been already made. Do they somehow have the answer to the statement made continuously on here, that you can't get more for less ?
Perhaps we should all get rid of our air units and sign up to NPAS !
I feel that penultimate sentence will be the clincher though
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a world of my own!
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS, I was thinking more of the rapid growth in Police Aircraft that occurred after the publication of the HMI's report into the Hungerford shootings, There were not that many Police aircraft then and they were mainly clustered around London.
There is a world North of Watford Gap(cue abuse and even more sarcasm!)
At that time there were very few aircraft in this area, PA News covers this in the History of Police aviation article on his site.
WF
There is a world North of Watford Gap(cue abuse and even more sarcasm!)
At that time there were very few aircraft in this area, PA News covers this in the History of Police aviation article on his site.
WF
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signed up "in principle"
I've lost count now of who has published what about how many Police Authorities have "signed up" to NPAS,
but the comments from North Yorks signing up "in principle" are interesting.
I'm interpreting "in principle" as being the much quoted "Better service for less money" - Come on now - who WOULDN'T sign up to that as a principle ?
SOUTH Yorks appear to have reached the decision that that principle was not going to be achieved through NPAS in it's current form,
and have taken the commendable (IMHO) act of standing up for themselves.
Does anyone know whether there are ANY Police Authorities, who are quoted as having "signed up", have signed up in any way other than "in principle" ?
Has anyone / how many P.A's have actually formally and irrevocably committed to NPAS yet ? or, as I suspect, are they are ALL still waiting for some sort of guarantee, reassurance, or demonstrable and realistic financial business plans - to convince them that the "principle" they signed up to is ever going to happen ?
Oh, by the way, anyone know how much South Yorks are going to charge NPAS for Mutual Aid Air support
but the comments from North Yorks signing up "in principle" are interesting.
I'm interpreting "in principle" as being the much quoted "Better service for less money" - Come on now - who WOULDN'T sign up to that as a principle ?
SOUTH Yorks appear to have reached the decision that that principle was not going to be achieved through NPAS in it's current form,
and have taken the commendable (IMHO) act of standing up for themselves.
Does anyone know whether there are ANY Police Authorities, who are quoted as having "signed up", have signed up in any way other than "in principle" ?
Has anyone / how many P.A's have actually formally and irrevocably committed to NPAS yet ? or, as I suspect, are they are ALL still waiting for some sort of guarantee, reassurance, or demonstrable and realistic financial business plans - to convince them that the "principle" they signed up to is ever going to happen ?
Oh, by the way, anyone know how much South Yorks are going to charge NPAS for Mutual Aid Air support
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS - Well observed. Of course if you don't have your own aircraft, and normally have to "buy-in" from neighbours (at relatively high, per-hour, cost), you're likely to be easily sold by the idea of getting more regular air support, and saving a massive £4,000 in the process!! {What on earth is it coming to when they're trumpetting about an annual saving that's probably less than a few days overtime, in many Forces}!?
The fact that the nearest aircraft starts with a 13 min response time, seems ludicrous, unless N. Yorks are only going to want cover for non-urgent jobs. The result will be the stretching of response times, with resultant reduction of service, in the aircraft base area, as previously discussed.
The fact that the nearest aircraft starts with a 13 min response time, seems ludicrous, unless N. Yorks are only going to want cover for non-urgent jobs. The result will be the stretching of response times, with resultant reduction of service, in the aircraft base area, as previously discussed.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
SS, I'm not sure how many police helicopters were involved at Hungerford. I was on the staff of the Puma OCU back then and know that at least one RAF Puma was sent to assist; I even remember the name of the pilot .
.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
and there was me thinking that the inception of Police helicopters came about following the report into the tragic events in Hungerford
.
.
I was thinking more of the rapid growth in Police Aircraft that occurred after the publication of the HMI's report into the Hungerford shootings,
.
.
I was thinking more of the rapid growth in Police Aircraft that occurred after the publication of the HMI's report into the Hungerford shootings,
in·cep·tion/inˈsepSHən/
Noun: The establishment or starting point of something; the beginning.
You meant 'rapid growth' !
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
There is a world North of Watford Gap(cue abuse and even more sarcasm!)
....Hungerford isn't part of that World !