SilsoeSid

Of course we do, but you must realise that we Brits are a bit of a different breed than most

Lemain

I say, that's pretty good. You could make a career out of that, Mr Sid.

ShyTorque

Of course, no sane pilot would do the job.

helmet fire

with all due respect to Black Adder and General Melchet.......

this thread has drifted off into a discussion about the viability or efficacy of Police Aviation in the UK. Interesting, but a little irrelevant with all due respect.....

It is not what the title points to. Suggest we separate that discussion from the discussion surrounding two pilots, a discussion which I believe should be widened beyond Police Avn, beyond the Glasgow incident and expanded into a professional discourse across all night ops requirements in RW.

Or, will we behave exactly the same after another accident as we have always behaved? Will that solve it???
OR in the words of the great General Melchet when questioned if the secret plan was to jump up over the trenches and run screaming at the enemy like the last 17 times: "Precisely.....the enemy will never suspect we will do the exact same thing for the 18th time....."

Is that what we are doing here?

ShyTorque

The issue here is that some self appointed experts, some with no knowledge of the job, are over-reacting in trying to find a "solution" to what they believe to be a major problem with police aviation in general (and there is no evidence to suggest that there is) when the cause of this accident isn't yet known.

SilsoeSid

hf, conversation moved to appropriate thread

SilsoeSid

Shy, What are the 2 most common expressions used by the public in reference to the police?

1. Aren't police officers looking young these days.
2. Why aren't there more officers on the beat.

a. Thanks to A19, they are looking so young because they are. I think I can safely say that every officer in the force that I until recently worked for, is younger than me!
b. Thanks to cutbacks and the red tape that still exists, despite claims that it is being reduced dramatically, there simply aren't enough officers to routinely patrol the streets, reassuring the public, serving our communities and protecting them from harm.


How can air support help with either of those main public concerns?

i. Well, with our greying hair and ruggedly handsome good looks, we can only do our best.

ii. I cannot believe that you honestly think routinely patrolling is a sign of bad management and a waste of money as opposed to having the ac sit in the hangar or on the dispersal all day, while the crews are waiting to be dispatched. Please tell me what is wrong, especially on a quiet day in NPAS (there's a reason why those radios are so quiet), for the ac to be taken up for an hours patrol where it can be seen to be around, can react immediately to any jobs that appear and can be up on patrol during times of known skulduggery, based on local knowledge.

Let me assure you that on these patrols, you can flit from one job to the next, finding people in gardens, following off road bikes, clearing large areas, searching canal towpaths, getting onto misper jobs, helping out that bobby that calls you direct to help them out etc etc ... all without the hassles of multiple control room talk and that immortal phrase, "Do you have a postcode?", even if it is a pursuit that the force control room needs the ac for. Its not unheard of to have to return for fuel in order to complete these tasks that, if the ac wasn't up doing these patrols, would have just seen the ac sat on the ground doing nothing, getting itself cleaned, helping no-one and fighting no crimes.

In the scope of things, what would it really cost for each NPAS unit to have an hour a day where, if it was quiet as far as dispatch was concerned, to self launch on a patrol based on local knowledge? (it doesn't have to self patrol launch every day, just if there might be some bubbling's based on the 'bobbies nose')

Of course, this amount of busyness, I guess, only applies to the more urban areas, however as I've mentioned before how do you gauge a deterrent? Rural units, getting to know their patch and further afield better, may well deter some criminal activity or simply be in the right place at the right time for a job they can be called to having been seen in the area, a job that wouldn't normally get the request up the chain for. On a cold dark early morning, I have been glad of a little bit of previous bungee stretching, especially when the wind farm lights get closer while on a motorway pursuit!


I wonder what you would consider to be a better efficiency & management strategy; Having 3 different aircraft from 2 different regions en-route to the same misper job in Gloucester, or have an ac do a 30 min patrol when the local bobbies know something is bubbling out there, yet the dispatch chain radios remain quiet?


Just to remind us all;

SilsoeSid

MG, I think it was shown more as a Gypsy's warning than to show a sense of humour. Apparently it was said that we'll see just how far that sense of humour goes should anything similar appear! Put it this way, I have been told that there are a few marked cards in our pack

Anyway, despite having nothing to do with its creation, for those that haven't seen it yet;

Colonal Mustard

i loved it and fell about laughing.......... (the video).... i would say the jury is still out on NPAS but to be honest they (the jury) voluntarily left the court building months ago.....

ShyTorque

Sid, It appears that you haven't read the previous posts properly and find confrontation where there is none. I commented because someone else on that thread objected to the thought of tax payers' money being wasted by airborne "patrolling". This was always an extremely contentious issue at the unit I flew for. My experience was that we did not ever fly patrols, we were required (for financial reasons) to respond to specific tasks only. The tasks quoted by that person did not come under the description of "patrols, but were examples of more specific reasons to be airborne. Then you jumped in....

Working for the police authority as a contracted pilot (actually, two authorities, ours was a joint ASU), I had absolutely no authority to decide which task to take, or decline, except for safety related reasons. The unit aircraft was flown in accordance with the requirements of the PAOC holder's financial guidelines and after the first year, we (I mean the unit police staff, not the pilots) were told to be very careful with the hours flown towards the end of the financial year, because we were likely to overfly the costed hours. We were told by the PAOC holder himself (the CC) that the unit was being run only on probationary terms.

The unit was usually very busy. In addition to our two counties, we also provided limited tasking for two more adjacent ones (who had no air support of their own at that time), so we covered four counties in all. If we had also flown routine patrols we would have gone way over budget, totally against the wishes of the big boss, the CC!

Your unit was/is obviously running on different terms to the one I worked at. As I hoped you might gather from my response on the other thread (see my comment: "horse for courses"), I have no personal preference or argument over whatever policy the unit worked under, but if it helps you understand my personal viewpoint, I'm quite prepared to fly all day, rather than sit in a boring crewroom.

jayteeto

We were frequently allowed to patrol at specific 'demand profile' times with excellent results. If you know where to look it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Cannabis farms, stolen cars, burglars and drunk drivers were easy meat.

SilsoeSid

Sorry Shy, I was under the impression that when you said, "The unit I worked for was a joint forces one and we never did "patrol" due to correct management of the resource.", you were saying that patrolling was an incorrect use of the resource. As you say, we must have been running under different terms and that is where the misunderstanding came

Like you, we were also told to watch the hours, as the service dates loomed closer, yet on the other hand there were times when we were told to patrol more. Whichever, the weather always seemed to be a good manager of hours come the day! No overflying, no over budget, no complaints, just effective planned use of the resource. A police vehicle doing police work.

Like you, I'd rather be proactively strapped to the cab 'Serving our communities, protecting them from harm', than sat dunking another digestive.

ShyTorque

One huge bone of contention at our unit was the sudden introduction of road signs which declared "Police helicopter traffic enforcement", along with some speed camera signs, as if we were routinely airborne on patrol, with "nothing better to do than persecute motorists".

We on the unit saw this as hugely counterproductive with regard to how the general public saw the basic purpose of their police helicopter, not least because it was actually a false declaration of intent. We most certainly did not get airborne with the sole intent of checking the speed of motorists. Not to say we never noticed a speeding vehicle, but it would need to be very blatantly obvious speeding and probably connected to some other criminal misdemeanor.

SilsoeSid

OooH, are you saying this wasn't your lot?

SilsoeSid

whitehead06; Please tell me that you realise it's a video and not a picture

ShyTorque

No, it's definitely not the correct side of the Atlantic. The signs I'm on about are blue in colour and are still in place, well over a decade later. Every time I pass them I'm tempted to go and write a big "NO" in front of the words "Police helicopter traffic enforcement" in black spirit marker pen....

P.s. We only used machine guns, much more fun..

SilsoeSid

aeromys

It was certainly done in the past in the UK, usually as a high profile method of enforcing notorious speed sites. I recall the Met carrying a battery powered Vascar system in the back of the old 222's in the early 90's.

Certainly these days it is considered an unsuitable use for a Police Air Ops resource.

Edit - Talking of which I see G-META is still flying !!! Whump Whump Whump
http://www.pprune.org/8194331-post5512.html

SilsoeSid

WH06, No-one has said it is suitable etc.

Just like #2 in this vid, the last few posts seem to have gone over your head, especially the helicopter enforcement vid


I bet you watch the whole of this video

Tandemrotor

whitehead
You couldn't possibly be more wrong! I'm a huge fan of police air support. I accept, for disagreeing with the received view of safety here, I have become something of a whipping boy for many issues. But you should not ascribe to me views which I have never expressed!

As I have said previously, I have seven years experience in the role at a very busy metropolitan unit. I also did precisely the same job in a fixed wing (a HUGELY underrated asset in these cost conscious times!)

NPAS looks to me like a total disaster for the role of aerial support. The shorter the response of the aerial asset, so the results improve exponentially! We pursued armed robbers from the scene of a raid, mostly because we were airborne when the call came in, and with no information whatsoever, I spotted a car with an open sunroof. On an overcast day in December!! There was a period in the early nineties when we had additional flying hours financed purely for patrolling the urban area! Police aviation has probably NEVER been more effective than those times! Times that I lived through! And as I also said previously, times that for me began at the very basic genesis of police aviation!


It's a tragedy that cost cutting (and nothing else!) has led to the second rate policing we have now.

But just because I want the guys on board, and those below to be as safe as they can possibly be, don't you dare corrupt that into painting me as just another ignoramus with no appreciation!