Police officers 'Commandeering' civ helos - opinion?

[STANDTO]

Let me give you a set of circumstances:

A police officer in the Uk in a county without air support, needs to search an area for a missing person or vehicle.

He knows someone with a helicopter, and so rings them up. The pilot agrees to this and gets airborne with the police officer.

They are up there for an hour, searching for a missing person.

Questions:

Is this legal?

Does the pilot need an ATPL(H) even though no written contract of or for transport is entered in to?

If the A/C crashed, what would the insurance position be?

Is the Police officer, who is not a trained air observer but effectively co ordinating the search, in any sort of position? ( This is notwithstanding the primacy of the pilot)

I'd be grateful for advice either on the thread or by email or PM as soon as possible. I think I need to provide some advice to our senior managers!!!!!

[Helinut]

Like most of these things it will probably end up depending upon the facts of the case, but it is an interesting one.

First thing that occurs to me is what "the public" would think of the police force after the accident. Not a strictly legal issue, but how would the force argue that what it had done was sensible.

Because it involves some sort of police work, I see no reason why a PAOC is needed per se. If a police force wanted to hire a helicopter from an AOC holder to, for example, do some aerial photography or search for someone, then as long as the helicopter was operated in acordance with the AOC and the normal ANO rules, I do not see a problem. Under an AOC, I have done work for police forces and other enforcers in the past.

If they just asked a nice kind PPL(H) who had a helicopter if he/she would take a nice policeman for a helicopter ride, again I can't see what rule would be broken either, but there could be some peripheral questions raised. It would be necessary to show that there was no "valuable cosideration given or promised", to quote Article 130. So no going easy on the pilot's next speeding offence!

I guess it may be OK as an exceptional event, but it surely cannot be sensible if regularly carried out. These days officer "health and safety" is a big issue. I am sure that someone like the Police Federation would ask for the risk assessment that justified using a private operation and pilot of unknown quality.

Flying Lawyer's thoughts would be interesting too.

All this would need to be done in accordance with all the standard low flying rules, cos none of the PAOC exemptions would apply.

I wonder what the aircraft insurance company would say though, or the police officer's life insurance company. I can imagine them trying to wriggle like hell after an accident to avoid having to pay out.

The other thing that occurs to me is a legal question about what difference it might make that you are not on the UK mainland - definitely don't know the answer to that one.

Email me if you want to make it less hypothetical!

[misterbonkers]

This question has appeared recently atr the realms of the CAA.

Basically, Skywatch is an initiative to get aircraft owners to be willing to help out in such situations as missing persons.

A good friend of mine recently became on of the first helo supporters with his bell 47.

The CAA were not very happy and did deem it commercial work. But they have agreed to turn a blind eye so to speak as it is for a good cause.

The police/authority don't commandere (sp?) they just ask 'if you are flying in THIS area will you keep an eye out for.... (pretty please).

But, as a very soon to be commercial helo pilot, i wander, is it taking potential work away from the likes of myself who could (with an AOC) charter a helo to the authorities and then start to recooperate my expenses so far?)

[Letsby Avenue]

This is pretty straightforward. The pilot has no exemptions under the PAOC and therefore has no easements, he must therefore comply entirely with the ANO.

The policeman would at all times be JUST a passenger and at no time would he be in a position legally to dictate the course of action taken by the Captain

If the pilot is getting any sort of remuneration then he must be suitably qualified with the correct licence ie; CPL(H) minimum and operating iaw a company AOC.

If the pilot is doing it for free (including the fuel) then a PPL is sufficient. (notwithstanding any caveat in the hull insurance)

If the A/C crashed then it rather depends on the above as to the stance taken by the insurance company.

In other words I agree with Helinut!

[Helinut]

Misterbonkers story is pretty much the sort of reaction you would expect from the CAA in a case like this. I am not 100% sure, but I think it got a fairly cool reception from some parts of the Police too. Which is why STANDTO's original post was interesting because it was a rather different response from a different part of the Police community.

Not sure about the "deemed to be commercial work" though. The CAA would surely have to prove it was public transport as defined in the ANO - without "valuable consideration" I can't see how they could make it stick.

[john du'pruyting]

I suspect that the biggest problem here would be insurance cover for the policeman rather than any 'is the trip legal' type point. The well aired difficulties in the east midlands case show just how difficult it can be to extract money out of an insurance company who think they have found a loophole. The force would have a duty of care to their officer. Oh s**t, helinut has already said all this, so I'm with him.

[Thomas coupling]

Legally I suspect this practice is fine. Much to the consternation of the CAA
However from a practical point of view it is a non starter:
What height is the search going to be done at? We do this every day and need to be 'low' level WITH 40 zoom cameras
And still we aren't able to find the misper!!
The PC would also need individual contacts 'checked out' and this requires talking to ground troops to identify individuals. He hasn't got a licence to transmit from the air to the ground on UHF above 500'
He won't have dedicated VHF police channels in the a/c either.
So he's stuck really -about as useful as a chocolate ash tray!!

Commercially -he's on a sticky wicket because 'favours' run out and the private operator of the helo is going to want paying eventually. Then we are definitely on a sticky wicket when money changes hands!

Good idea at the time - the C Constable showed initiative, good use of facilities, forethought, etc. Complete waste of time in the long run though.
Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc. Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant relaying of messages to the local constabulary, or transmitting blind on UHF across neighbouring force areas
What a complete load of B***ks.

[PANews]

Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc. Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant


The trouble is that Sky Watch has got off the ground and there are now upward of 150 of them.

So it is really a case of close your eyes to them or watch and perhaps direct them a little .....

IMHO closed eyes aint no good ....

... but that is a little off the original question. On that I can add nothing new. The CAA has leant backwards so insurance calls the tune.

[helmet fire]

Doesn't this now make all over flying aircraft a potential adversary (and thus target) for the bad guys??

[STANDTO]

Basically I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the police and general aviation worlds, but I do know more than the average plod. I agree withone of the replies that the pax on this occasion would in reality be about as much use as t*ts on a kipper, as we say out here!

Let me throw in another couple of parameters:

Some of the search is carried out over water

The a/c (fixed or rotary) is operated under a permit to fly

I think what I am going to suggest is that we examine closely our insurance situation, and issue a policy . I would never wish to deny anyone a jolly in an aircraft, however it was dressed up, but the bottom line, as we have seen before, is when it blunts in, the problems really start.

Please keep posting

[md 600 driver]

i know of one time this has happened

some years ago a north yorkshire police officer asked a owner of a 500 to look for a missing person

the flight went well unfortunately the person was not found untill later when it was too late

the police asked a local owner no money offered or inducements to assist in a life saving opperation

no it was not me but if i was asked the same i would help

thankfully we now have profesionals in our area in carr gate and it would never be required but the offer stands [please bring blue flashing lght and the night sun and of course the flight suit and leather jacket

steve

[Bearintheair]

Given the problems with insurance payouts over police helo crashes (thankfully rare) that were fully certified for police ops and operated iaw the police AOC, I would expect the insurance companies to take a big step backwards for any claim for a case like this.
Whether the pilot was receiving cash or not and even if he is operating within the normal rules of the ANO he is still conducting police work and we all know how the insurance companies will use any excuse to keep our cash !!!!
Finally, the police force concerned in this would, I believe, be operating against Home Office policy, another excuse for the insurance companies to drag their heels !!!!

With regard to Skywatch, I can't see a problem for them if all they do is keep their eyes out whilst airborne and report something back but I think they should check with their insurers if they are going to get airborne specifically to carry out search tasks.
As an aside, do they carry an observer with them ? Its impossible to carry out an effective ground search and a proper lookout if you are flying single pilot.

[PANews]

THE OTHER SIDE?

I notified Sky Watch of the pprune interest in their operation and pasted some of the earlier text over. Thiis was received this morning.


Dear Bryn ... thanks for the info.
I can't get on the pprune network - but for your info and if you would like to post it on my behalf the Sky Watch response is as follows. (and would you copy me any response that refers please?)

Sky Watch's Opinion
Such a flight would be legal if the aircraft was operating inside the
requirements of the Air Navigation Order with an Air Operator's Certificate, or a Police Air Operator's Certificate - and flown by a Commercial Pilot or ATPL.

BUT - the policeman involved would negate any insurance policies which he had taken out in respect of his life or injuries because of the normal "light aircraft" exclusion clauses. Whenever police officers have been flown in Sky Watch aircraft the force has taken out special insurance for the individual officer. However because of the complications of this - and the side issue of blowing the officer's personal insurance - and possible compensation claims in the event of an accident - Sky Watch's policy nowadays is never to carry passengers other than Sky Watch volunteer personnel - members of the public, or civil or military services personnel will not be carried.

Also the Home Office have pointed out that any police officer requesting aircraft co-operation would be in breach of strict Home Office and Police rules forbidding the use of non-police air operator certificate aircraft on police operations.

Therefore Sky Watch no longer offers its co-operation to the police - even with aircraft in the organisation which operate under an Air Operators' Certificate - and anyway the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that it does not want it and has circulated all police forces warning them off (even though some serious police opinion says that it is crazy not to use in some simple ways a resource of 150 aircraft and helicopters - particularly as the trials with North Yorkshire Police proved
the service worked well).

Sky Watch will not provide free voluntary community air service where the work involved is already covered by a commercial operator, or where a commercial operator would normally be engaged.

Hope this helps,

Kind regards
Arnold Parker, gaffer, Sky Watch

The only paragraph I may take issue with is the one where Arnold states

Also the Home Office have pointed out that any police officer requesting aircraft co-operation would be in breach of strict Home Office and Police rules forbidding ........

I would see these as guidlines rather than strict rules ... after all some forces still use Cessna 172s for police work no matter how often the Home Office wrings its hands.

[StevieTerrier]

Isnt there something similar in the States? I seem to recall Indiana Jones (in his civvy guise as Harrison Ford) rescuing people in his Bell 407. Perhaps one of our New World cousins can enlighten us on how it works over there?

[STANDTO]

nothing in this post is intended to put the willies up an airman trying to rescue a person in distress under their own steam - I am more concerned about misguided plods flitting about in things they don't really understand, oblivious to the consequences if it happens to blunt in.

[Mstern1908]

public use helicopter ops in US

In the US there is a "public use" exemption from all FAA and other local aviation enfocement activity, including maintenance for a/c and operations by the government or police organizations. A good explanation of this is at the ALEA Airorne Law Enforcement Assoc. www.alea.org) website. In order to have this exemption the mission must be flown at the direction of sworn police or fire personel and any other "necessary" personel for the mission, which can include a pilot for the public need and convenience. I current fly police search and rescue missions for Eagle 1, a retired military helicopter unit. see. www. eagle1sr.homestead.com This unit is completely privately funded, but directed by the sponsoring police department. Donations are needed and appreciated. Also, more recently after Sept 11 here in the states, the US Coast Guard and other federal, state and local law enforcement offices have utilitzed private aircraft and pilots to fly patrol, coastline defense and other related homeland security flights. In each event, there is substantial training involved and even not required by law, usually the aircraft and pilots are trained and flown to military standards, beyond most general aviation capabilities. Historically in the US since WWII we have had the Civil Air Patrol, made up of civillian aircraft and pilots who operate organized search and rescue as well as coastline defense missions with their own independent command structure, but overall command of the US air force. I am also a practicing attorney. In most cases pilots would fall under the "firefighter" rule and be exempt from most liability as a person serving the public good. It encourages volunteerism, rather than punishing it. Also, most requested agencies would cover the insurance, and the pilot or a/c owner's insurance would be secondary. The real issue is who pays first for what (pilot liability vs.passenger liability vs. third party liability vs. hull, etc.), not overall coverage. Igor Sikorsky was proud that his inventions, including improvements and production of the helicopter were used to save lives, not destroy them. This is the type of use of our talent that should be encouraged, not denigrated in any way. Sterno.

[PANews]

I am again the carrier of a message ... raw nerve touched here by someone in Wales ...

Dear Bryn
Thanks for your help in this. Would you kindly add the following - and send
me any response please?
Kind regards and thanks
Arnold

Sky Watch
Just a couple of notes of clarification because some folk are commenting on Sky Watch without knowing much about it.

For example the comment : "Can you imagine if this "Skywatch" got off the ground (so to speak). Dozens of puddle jumpers squirming around the countryside not having the faintest idea about search patterns/comms etc.
Either wasting ATC time with irrelevant .....

Does the correspondent mean "Line Search" ... "Expanded Square Search" ... "Sector Search" ... "Creeping Line Ahead Search" .... etc - which are covered in the Sky Watch Manual and training exercises?
The manual was produced with input by RAF Search & Rescue personnel, Police Aviation Experts, Military, Channel Islands Air Search, etc. and Sky Watch (after only a year of operation) is now up to the standard of getting its approval for "Declared Facility" status via Sea Safety and HM Coastguard.
Individual Sky Watch crews are not classed as of operational standard until they have located a five foot square flag on a stick inside twenty five square miles of mixed countryside using the Mk.1 Eyeball only ... three times out of three on three separate exercises.
Sky Watch is not a full time dedication - our pilots only carry out
observations when they safely and conveniently can - probably about half an hour for every five or so hours of normal flying. Sky Watch observation is only carried out with a minimum of two crew - the pilot whose prime responsibility is the safe operation of the aircraft - and the Observer to deal with the task.
Our basic role is limited to "Observe & Report" - calling in any
incidents to ATC for relay of a 999 call to the relevant emergency services - and then clearing off when the professionals have the job in hand. But we will help out on other community and humanitarian work where we can.
Sky Watch's relations with ATC are excellent and co-operative. We actively search for missing persons, livestock etc, monitor dangerous areas (eg coastlines, rivers, flood plains, rail lines). We don't need anyone's permission because we are operating legally in free airspace. We will launch for any emergency where an eye in the sky can help - but ATC are always kept aware of our operations and we will immediately clear the scene if professional air units need to cover it.
Generally Sky Watch pilots are well experienced (average 500+ hours) with an extensive core of particularly highly experienced colleagues including ex-service personnel, ATPL's, Commercial Pilots, Instructors and CFI's - and more instrument and IMC ratings than you can shake a stick at.
Anyone who would like a list of the twenty odd incidents where Sky Watch has helped this year are welcome to one if they just e-mail me with their post address to [email protected] and I'll also send a collage of the pro-aviation press coverage that has resulted from Sky Watch's work in the community.
Although we have only been going a year we have already become acclimatised to the British obsession with knocking anything new - but on the other hand we have in aviation a lot of people who feel that the fact that they can fly means they have been well blessed with more of lifešs good stuff than most other people - and helping out on Sky Watch is a way of paying a bit back.
Sky Watch is happy to answer any reasonable queries addressed to it.
Kind regards
Arnold Parker

Definitely sensitive!

It does remind me of that sector of society [particularly in the police] that maintains that no-one can do a police persons job as well as a policeman ... usually when addressing the subject of civilian observers. As if each future police person has its backside stamped with the fact at birth and has its brain removed at the hour of retirement.

Strangely enough not so.

We are all born civilians and many of us die in the same state ... if we are lucky.

[STANDTO]

Personally I quite agree that a police observer doesn't need to be a police officer. There are some quite useful bits, for example, when in a pursuit, knowing what it feels like to be up the **** end of a car at 130 on the GROUND, and what it feels like to point a gun at someone, when containing a firearms incident. However, quite often, police air observers have never specialised in these areas themselves, which negates this.

Bottom line is that more emergency air cover is needed and I think Skywatch is an excellent idea. How much of a help would something like this be with a missing child. Sussex are now looking at early intervention with the media, broadcasting messages of missing kids as early as possible. Integrate eyes in the air and thngs get even better.

Going back to my original post, I think the big issue is - what happens when one drops out of the sky?

[Thomas coupling]

So let me get this right:

A child is missing, has been for some hours now. In the mainland Uk, which is served by 52 police forces, 43 of which now have air cover; who actually calls who out?

When that somebody gets to the last known location, having been given all the relevant details by whoever, they commence a search (because the police unit isn't/cant get airborne!).
What height do they fly at, what type of search do they fly (dependent on the type of misper - decides on the type of search (alzheimers do certain things, children do other types).

How do they identify their 'target'? How do they report their findings?

I've heard briefly about this idea, some months ago...thought it was a joke! Somebody as having me on!

Never heard any other unit mention it because their area is always covered by their helo/plankwing. When exactly would this 'reserve' force be called upon???
Who pays for it?
Do they fly around for a couple of hours free of charge.
Are they on standby, or does the facility that calls them out just keep ringing down through the list until someone answers the phone and happens to be free (with their buddy the observer)?

C'mon pull the other one Bryn........smell the coffee

[STANDTO]

Thomas, I have read your profile and it appears we are essentially in the same industry!

It appears to me that Skywatch is trying to do something worthwhile in a reasonably structured format. To fail to embrace that is ignoring a protentially useful asset.

Look at the LAPD and GMP websites and compare their air cover. GMP actually has a bigger area to cover with one machine than LAPD does with dozens more.

In the UK, air support is never likely to reach the situation where a chopper is just looked at as another police vehicle. If, within CAA guidelines, we can work towards a properly coordinated, voluntary body of pilots with access to expensive aircraft then I think we should look closely at it.

I have to say, Thomas, that fifteen years ago, most chief constables would have looked upon the idea of air support units with the same amount of derision as you appear to view Skywatch. This isn't a personal attack so don't take it the wrong way.

Look at it another way: You know how wealthy you have to be even to own an R22! Its nice to see these well to do people wanting to put something back into society.

However, if Skywatch is going to go anywhere, then I think a memorandum of understanding needs drawing up with each of the UK police forces. The questions of insurance, whether or not an a/c is working under police coordination or not when they are on task.

lets not be too blinkered about this