Police Helicopters - Automatic right of way? (Updated) The Law
Helinut
Sorry that you think I am jumping to conclusions about rule 17 but maybe you should read it more closely.
Yes 17(1)(c) refers to aircraft in formation --- read on.
17(1)(e) refers to an aircraft having right of way maintaining it's course and speed.
17(1)(g)Both of those paragraphs(c and e) do not apply to a police aircraft.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, in which case I need educating. How do you interpret this rule?
Sorry that you think I am jumping to conclusions about rule 17 but maybe you should read it more closely.
Yes 17(1)(c) refers to aircraft in formation --- read on.
17(1)(e) refers to an aircraft having right of way maintaining it's course and speed.
17(1)(g)Both of those paragraphs(c and e) do not apply to a police aircraft.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, in which case I need educating. How do you interpret this rule?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoateallthepies:
If you are interested in another's interpretation:
It is a well known principle that the only person that can rule what a regulation means is a Judge - all other positions are interpretation, including that of the person who wrote it.
Helinut is probably correct in that the alleviation (contained in 17(g)) was given to police aircraft only for the purpose of carrying out the task allocated to them.
An alleviation is only as broad as it needs to be to permit the exempted activity - in my opinion (which is no better than yours) you are reading far too much into the words.
If you are interested in another's interpretation:
It is a well known principle that the only person that can rule what a regulation means is a Judge - all other positions are interpretation, including that of the person who wrote it.
Helinut is probably correct in that the alleviation (contained in 17(g)) was given to police aircraft only for the purpose of carrying out the task allocated to them.
An alleviation is only as broad as it needs to be to permit the exempted activity - in my opinion (which is no better than yours) you are reading far too much into the words.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[1] Police pilots do not have power of arrest.
TC is right. A civilian pilot flying police aircraft in the UK does not have a police constable's power of arrest. If Captain Stable was flying abroad the law might be different.
We all have the right to make a 'citizen's arrest' in certain limited circumstances, but they are more limited than a police constable's.
There are circumstances in which a pilot of another aircraft might be reported and prosecuted for 'Obstructing an (airborne) police officer in the execution of his duty', but the pilot would only be guilty if his obstruction was 'wilful' not accidental.
[2] Police aircraft do not have automatic right of way.
Rule 17 doesn’t require ‘interpretation’ in the sense suggested aboves; it needs understanding. Unfortunately, parliamentary lawyers who draft our laws are notoriously reluctant to use plain English.
The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
Rules for avoiding aerial collisions
17.—(1) General
(a) ..........
(b) ..........
(c) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.
(d) ..........
(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has the right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.
(f) ..........
(g) Sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.
Sub-paragraph (g) allows 'police aircraft' to formate on another aircraft without the agreement of the other commander (the rest of us can only do so if he/she agrees) and, secondly, to alter course and/or speed even if it's the aircraft with right of way. NB: It doesn't change what the rest of us have to do.
So, to answer the point made by whoateallthepies:
No, sub-section (g) does not mean "we all have to give right-of-way to the Police."
All it means is that while the rest of us must maintain our course and speed if we're the aircraft with the right of way, a police aircraft may change course and/or speed even when it's the aicraft with right of way.
Two scenarios involving you and a police aircraft:
(1) Because of your respective positions/course, you have right of way.
The police pilot must take action to avoid you because you have right of way. You are required by law to maintain course/speed whilst he does so.
(2) Because of your respective positions/course, the police aircraft has right of way.
You must take avoiding action. However, the police pilot may, or may not, maintain his course/speed because he's not required by law to do so.
Don't be too alarmed. Unless there's a good reason, the police pilot will maintain his course/speed in accordance with good airmanship, and he's not exempt from the requirement in sub-section (1)(a) to take all possible measures to ensure he doesn't collide with you, nor (1)(b) not to fly in such proximity to you as to create a danger of collision.
[3] Rule 5
Aircraft flying in accordance with a police air operator's certificate do not have to comply with certain specified provisions of Rule 5:
(1)(a)(ii)
(1)(c)
(1)(d)
and
(1)(e).
In the case of aviation legislation, most of the fault for rules and regs with numerous sub-sections and cross-references which are so difficult to understand lies with the CAA, not with the parliamentary lawyers. The CAA ethos is to impose lots of restrictions, which then require a series of exemptions/qualifications; it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to reduce them into an easily understandable form.
Compare, for example, our absurdly long and complicated Rule 5 with the FAA equivalent: FAR Section. 91.119 is a model of simplicity, easily understood by anyone - and a much more sensible rule IMHO.
Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators.
Aviation legislation in the UK is unnecessarily complicated. I work with it daily, but frequently have to read provisions several times to understand what they mean. Sadly, I see so signs of improvement.
I’ll get off my hobby-horse - hope the law is now clear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lu Z
I wouldn't worry too much about police pilots in the UK, Lu. Most are ex-mil, and those who aren't are very experienced civvy operators.
Your description of chases in LA made me smile - you're absolutely right. I flew an ENG helicopter in LA for a week a few years ago and, when there's a chase, the sky is suddenly full of helicopters which seem to appear from nowhere. When the chase ends, everyone orbits overhead. I never saw the stop and inevitable short pursuit on foot, I was too busy avoiding a mid-air! 
(Edited to remove the history/development of the Rule 17 which, on reflection, wasn't necessary.)
Tudor Owen
TC is right. A civilian pilot flying police aircraft in the UK does not have a police constable's power of arrest. If Captain Stable was flying abroad the law might be different.
We all have the right to make a 'citizen's arrest' in certain limited circumstances, but they are more limited than a police constable's.
There are circumstances in which a pilot of another aircraft might be reported and prosecuted for 'Obstructing an (airborne) police officer in the execution of his duty', but the pilot would only be guilty if his obstruction was 'wilful' not accidental.
[2] Police aircraft do not have automatic right of way.
Rule 17 doesn’t require ‘interpretation’ in the sense suggested aboves; it needs understanding. Unfortunately, parliamentary lawyers who draft our laws are notoriously reluctant to use plain English.
The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
Rules for avoiding aerial collisions
17.—(1) General
(a) ..........
(b) ..........
(c) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.
(d) ..........
(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has the right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.
(f) ..........
(g) Sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.
Sub-paragraph (g) allows 'police aircraft' to formate on another aircraft without the agreement of the other commander (the rest of us can only do so if he/she agrees) and, secondly, to alter course and/or speed even if it's the aircraft with right of way. NB: It doesn't change what the rest of us have to do.
So, to answer the point made by whoateallthepies:
No, sub-section (g) does not mean "we all have to give right-of-way to the Police."
All it means is that while the rest of us must maintain our course and speed if we're the aircraft with the right of way, a police aircraft may change course and/or speed even when it's the aicraft with right of way.
Two scenarios involving you and a police aircraft:
(1) Because of your respective positions/course, you have right of way.
The police pilot must take action to avoid you because you have right of way. You are required by law to maintain course/speed whilst he does so.
(2) Because of your respective positions/course, the police aircraft has right of way.
You must take avoiding action. However, the police pilot may, or may not, maintain his course/speed because he's not required by law to do so.
Don't be too alarmed. Unless there's a good reason, the police pilot will maintain his course/speed in accordance with good airmanship, and he's not exempt from the requirement in sub-section (1)(a) to take all possible measures to ensure he doesn't collide with you, nor (1)(b) not to fly in such proximity to you as to create a danger of collision.
[3] Rule 5
Aircraft flying in accordance with a police air operator's certificate do not have to comply with certain specified provisions of Rule 5:
(1)(a)(ii)
(1)(c)
(1)(d)
and
(1)(e).
In the case of aviation legislation, most of the fault for rules and regs with numerous sub-sections and cross-references which are so difficult to understand lies with the CAA, not with the parliamentary lawyers. The CAA ethos is to impose lots of restrictions, which then require a series of exemptions/qualifications; it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to reduce them into an easily understandable form.
Compare, for example, our absurdly long and complicated Rule 5 with the FAA equivalent: FAR Section. 91.119 is a model of simplicity, easily understood by anyone - and a much more sensible rule IMHO.
Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators.
Aviation legislation in the UK is unnecessarily complicated. I work with it daily, but frequently have to read provisions several times to understand what they mean. Sadly, I see so signs of improvement.
I’ll get off my hobby-horse
- hope the law is now clear.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lu Z
I wouldn't worry too much about police pilots in the UK, Lu. Most are ex-mil, and those who aren't are very experienced civvy operators.
Your description of chases in LA made me smile - you're absolutely right.
I flew an ENG helicopter in LA for a week a few years ago and, when there's a chase, the sky is suddenly full of helicopters which seem to appear from nowhere. When the chase ends, everyone orbits overhead. I never saw the stop and inevitable short pursuit on foot, I was too busy avoiding a mid-air! (Edited to remove the history/development of the Rule 17 which, on reflection, wasn't necessary.)
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Jul 2003 at 17:44.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer:
You might properly have prefaced all of your remarks with in my opinion to avoid the implication that what you are saying is absolute. It requires a court of law to establish the exact meaning of any regulation - as you will no doubt agree.
I think that those of us who have read and considered the alleviation built in to Rule 17 for police operators would agree with your interpretation (for that is what it is – albeit an informed one).
However, on a more interesting topic:
I would like to put forward an alternative view. As you are no doubt aware, ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air, is the basis for compliant text in all signatory States (and is absolute over the high seas). Therefore:
Now comes the rub, the simplicity that you point to removes the applicability of regulations to helicopters and replaces the rule with the objective without hazard.
This alleviation permits any helicopter (single or twin - reciprocal or turbine) to fly over cities (and anywhere else) at any height, with impunity – has anyone ever heard of a prosecution in the US of a pilot who crashed into a building? (It should however be added that FAR 135.203 restricts the freedom of flight over cities to 300’.) I would argue that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules.
Do you still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?
Is it worthwhile continuing this discussion in a new thread?
You might properly have prefaced all of your remarks with in my opinion to avoid the implication that what you are saying is absolute. It requires a court of law to establish the exact meaning of any regulation - as you will no doubt agree.
I think that those of us who have read and considered the alleviation built in to Rule 17 for police operators would agree with your interpretation (for that is what it is – albeit an informed one).
However, on a more interesting topic:
FAR Section. 91.119 is a model of simplicity, easily understood by anyone - and a much more sensible rule IMHO.
Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators.
Although the FAA manages perfectly well with a simple low flying rule for a huge continent with diverse landscapes ranging from wide open spaces to enormous, densely populated, cities, the CAA for some inexplicable reason maintains the FAA version would be inadequate for the UK and that we need more restrictions than American aviators.
- FAR 91.119(a) is compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 3.1.2;
- FAR 91.119(b) is compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 4.6 a;
- FAR 91.119(c) is less than compliant with Annex 2, Chapter 4.6 b (compliance would see 500’ as an absolute level);
- FAR 91.119(d) removes, for helicopters, compliance with (b) and (c) and consequently, with ICAO.
Now comes the rub, the simplicity that you point to removes the applicability of regulations to helicopters and replaces the rule with the objective without hazard.
This alleviation permits any helicopter (single or twin - reciprocal or turbine) to fly over cities (and anywhere else) at any height, with impunity – has anyone ever heard of a prosecution in the US of a pilot who crashed into a building? (It should however be added that FAR 135.203 restricts the freedom of flight over cities to 300’.) I would argue that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules.
Do you still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?
Is it worthwhile continuing this discussion in a new thread?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone must have been listening to Flying Lawyer. 
The CAA have just added a second consultation round to their website re: their proposal to change Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air, all about low flying.
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_avi...sp?groupid=362
I suggest that anyone interested in UK aviation has a good look. My initial reaction is that the proposal is a remarkable improvement on the existing Rule 5. It is actually written in English for a start, unlike the existing Rule 5!
The only problem I have found so far is that police aviation is not exempt from the "flying over crowd" rule: at the moment police flying has such an exemption from the current "crowd" rule.
In general, when police aviation gets an exemption it is usually limited. The exemption from the normal rule only exists while the aircraft is being flown within the terms of the PAOC. The PAOC requires compliance with the Police Air Operations Manual. This sets out all sorts of restrictions and requirements that must be followed. If a police pilot does not follow the PAOM, he is not operating in accordance with the PAOC, and therefore cannot use the exemption from the basic rule.
The CAA have just added a second consultation round to their website re: their proposal to change Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air, all about low flying.
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_avi...sp?groupid=362
I suggest that anyone interested in UK aviation has a good look. My initial reaction is that the proposal is a remarkable improvement on the existing Rule 5. It is actually written in English for a start, unlike the existing Rule 5!
The only problem I have found so far is that police aviation is not exempt from the "flying over crowd" rule: at the moment police flying has such an exemption from the current "crowd" rule.
In general, when police aviation gets an exemption it is usually limited. The exemption from the normal rule only exists while the aircraft is being flown within the terms of the PAOC. The PAOC requires compliance with the Police Air Operations Manual. This sets out all sorts of restrictions and requirements that must be followed. If a police pilot does not follow the PAOM, he is not operating in accordance with the PAOC, and therefore cannot use the exemption from the basic rule.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another KOS
I intended my explanation to be read as 'the law.' There was no need to preface my remarks with a caveat on this occasion. The law is clear, although clumsily drafted, and does not require interpretation. I suppose, to be pedantic, my illustrations of the application of the law were in my opinion.
No, the 'alleviation' in FAR 91.119 does not permit helicopters to fly over cities or anywhere else "at any height with impunity."
Firstly, that is not what the 'alleviation' says.
Secondly, it must be read in conjunction with the over-riding 'endangering' provisions/sanctions. From memory, I think reckless flying etc is covered in FAR 91.13 or thereabouts.
The 'alleviation' is not a defence to endangering. If a US pilot endangers, he can be prosecuted by the FAA and will be convicted if the court considers 'objectively' it was dangerous- even if he/she 'subjectively'didn't think so.
I don't agree that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules. The rules are clear.
Do I still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?
Yes. (In conjunction, of course, with our own 'endangering' provisions.)
I agree that if we are to pursue this aspect, it's probably better discussed in a new thread. Good idea. I'll look out for it.
I intended my explanation to be read as 'the law.' There was no need to preface my remarks with a caveat on this occasion. The law is clear, although clumsily drafted, and does not require interpretation. I suppose, to be pedantic, my illustrations of the application of the law were in my opinion.
No, the 'alleviation' in FAR 91.119 does not permit helicopters to fly over cities or anywhere else "at any height with impunity."
Firstly, that is not what the 'alleviation' says.
Secondly, it must be read in conjunction with the over-riding 'endangering' provisions/sanctions. From memory, I think reckless flying etc is covered in FAR 91.13 or thereabouts.
The 'alleviation' is not a defence to endangering. If a US pilot endangers, he can be prosecuted by the FAA and will be convicted if the court considers 'objectively' it was dangerous- even if he/she 'subjectively'didn't think so.
I don't agree that in this case, simplicity equals an absence of rules. The rules are clear.
Do I still advocate that FAR 91.119 would be adequate for the UK?
Yes. (In conjunction, of course, with our own 'endangering' provisions.)
I agree that if we are to pursue this aspect, it's probably better discussed in a new thread. Good idea. I'll look out for it.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Jul 2003 at 17:51.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer:
You are being too defensive of the the FAA:
May I respectfully suggest with the absence of (b) and (c) for helicopters, there is no low flying provision and all that is left is endangement - ipso facto there is no rule.
There is also the question of non-conformance with ICAO - without filing a difference!
You are being too defensive of the the FAA:
FAR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface…
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface…
There is also the question of non-conformance with ICAO - without filing a difference!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another KOS
Defending the FAA?
I merely expressed my opinion that FAR 91.119 is a far better provision in every sense than our Rule 5. With respect, and only in my opinion of course, you appear to misunderstand the effect of the concession for helicopters in sub-section (d).
"ipso facto there is no rule."
There is a rule. Helicopter pilots must not fly below the minimum heights specified in (b) and (c) unless they can do so "without hazard to persons or property on the surface…" The concession doesn't give helicopter pilots in the US carte blanche to fly as they wish; it contains a very important 'unless' proviso which must be satisfied before they may avail themselves of the concession.
You may not approve of the FAA low flying provisions and/or you may think there should be a minimum height in all circumstances (save emergency or 'official' helicopters), but they are nonethless rules.
Helinut
Thanks for the heads-up re the latest Rule 5 consultation. The second round was due to begin last February, and I hadn't noticed it had now begun.
Simplifying aviation legislation to make the rules easier to understand and apply has been a hobby-horse of mine for years. Perhaps we're getting somewhere at last? Rule 5 is a good place to start - only 10,000 more to go!
Defending the FAA?
I merely expressed my opinion that FAR 91.119 is a far better provision in every sense than our Rule 5. With respect, and only in my opinion of course, you appear to misunderstand the effect of the concession for helicopters in sub-section (d).
"ipso facto there is no rule."
There is a rule. Helicopter pilots must not fly below the minimum heights specified in (b) and (c) unless they can do so "without hazard to persons or property on the surface…" The concession doesn't give helicopter pilots in the US carte blanche to fly as they wish; it contains a very important 'unless' proviso which must be satisfied before they may avail themselves of the concession.
You may not approve of the FAA low flying provisions and/or you may think there should be a minimum height in all circumstances (save emergency or 'official' helicopters), but they are nonethless rules.
Helinut
Thanks for the heads-up re the latest Rule 5 consultation. The second round was due to begin last February, and I hadn't noticed it had now begun.
Simplifying aviation legislation to make the rules easier to understand and apply has been a hobby-horse of mine for years. Perhaps we're getting somewhere at last? Rule 5 is a good place to start - only 10,000 more to go!
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Jul 2003 at 22:43.
Flying Lawyer
Many thanks for your expertise on rule 17.
I always thought it was not written very clearly but your explanation is very clear.
I flew police helicopters for a few years but of course always adhered to rule 17, never feeling that I had any more right to a particular piece of airspace than anyone else. (Which is the case).
A police pilot's workload can be quite high and their lookout degraded due to the nature of the job. I think all pilots should bear it in mind when operating close to police operations.
Many thanks for your expertise on rule 17.
I always thought it was not written very clearly but your explanation is very clear.
I flew police helicopters for a few years but of course always adhered to rule 17, never feeling that I had any more right to a particular piece of airspace than anyone else. (Which is the case).
A police pilot's workload can be quite high and their lookout degraded due to the nature of the job. I think all pilots should bear it in mind when operating close to police operations.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A police pilot's workload can be quite high and their lookout degraded due to the nature of the job. I think all pilots should bear it in mind when operating close to police operations.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Guildford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Categories of Police Flights
As one of those lucky coppers who get to fly in police aircraft as observer there are several points to clarify. The Category system is intended to help ATC decide what priority we believe the task should be given.
Normal transits (returning from task or repositioning) will be routine whereby the polioce aircraft will have no precedence over any other aircraft and will stick to heli routes or any route as dictated by ATC.
Normal police tasks supporting officers on the ground will be Cat B and we would "hope" that we may be given some priority on these tasks. These could include searching for missing persons, vehicle pursuits and suspect searches.
Cat A should only be used where life is at risk and we would then expect to be given priority in most cases. I personally have only called Cat A on two occasions in 5 years and that was dictated by restrictions from ATC which would otherwise have prevented us from completing the task. On most occasions there is no requirement to call Cat A as ATC are very good at coordinating us with other traffic. Obviously this only applies in controoled airspace but on our unit we have an excellent liaison with ATC who regularly visit us and even fly with us to assure them that we are doing what is necessary and not just messing people about for the fun of it. We are conscious of the disruption we sometimes cause but, to be honest, you would get out of the way for an emergency service vehicle on a blue light run on the ground, we are doing the same job but just a little higher!
One final thing, Turbo's comment that as a non police officer, the pilot is not interested in what's going on below is way off the mark. The pilot must concentrate on flying the aircraft and on the task on the ground and take into consideration factors from both to ensure that a) The aircraft remains in a safe flight configuration and b) The observers and police officers on the ground have the best chance of successfully completing the task at hand. Our pilots are as keen as they can be to get the job done with due regard for safety and good airmanship and, often it's like having a third copper in the cab.
Normal transits (returning from task or repositioning) will be routine whereby the polioce aircraft will have no precedence over any other aircraft and will stick to heli routes or any route as dictated by ATC.
Normal police tasks supporting officers on the ground will be Cat B and we would "hope" that we may be given some priority on these tasks. These could include searching for missing persons, vehicle pursuits and suspect searches.
Cat A should only be used where life is at risk and we would then expect to be given priority in most cases. I personally have only called Cat A on two occasions in 5 years and that was dictated by restrictions from ATC which would otherwise have prevented us from completing the task. On most occasions there is no requirement to call Cat A as ATC are very good at coordinating us with other traffic. Obviously this only applies in controoled airspace but on our unit we have an excellent liaison with ATC who regularly visit us and even fly with us to assure them that we are doing what is necessary and not just messing people about for the fun of it. We are conscious of the disruption we sometimes cause but, to be honest, you would get out of the way for an emergency service vehicle on a blue light run on the ground, we are doing the same job but just a little higher!
One final thing, Turbo's comment that as a non police officer, the pilot is not interested in what's going on below is way off the mark. The pilot must concentrate on flying the aircraft and on the task on the ground and take into consideration factors from both to ensure that a) The aircraft remains in a safe flight configuration and b) The observers and police officers on the ground have the best chance of successfully completing the task at hand. Our pilots are as keen as they can be to get the job done with due regard for safety and good airmanship and, often it's like having a third copper in the cab.
