Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?
 

I am looking for response / comment on the following set of circumstances.................


This tale relates to a Police aviation unit, operating light helicopters on a 24/7 basis. It is a single pilot operation with the 2 observers trained to support the pilot aswell as the policing of incidents when deployed. Cops coming onto the unit complete a 3 week basic course, covering basic met/ nav and a brief introduction to role equipment. Once appointed to the unit further online training is carried out with the cop being mentored by a training officer for 10 weeks................getting the picture.

2 officers complete the course, this is a pass or fail course, lots to take in during the 3 weeks. 1 student makes reasonable progress with the nav, while the other student struggles with their "finds" and repeatedly fails to call on-route hazards to the pilot, this continues throughout the course.

Come line-check day student No1 acheives a pass, student No2 fails......................

student No1 continues training, while student No2 is returned to normal duties and does not continue training.

The 2 course trainers & the line check pilot concur student no2 fails..................the course notes recorded on student No2 support this, and the line check report conducted on the third week of the course is endorsed..."fail "

There then follows the usual political wrangles, student no1 returns to normal duties to await appointment to the unit, and student No2 is no more...................

However, student no2 makes representations, and is offered a further 4 weeks of training to bring them up to standard, sufficient to pass the line check.

Taking into account this is a single pilot operation, what are the readers thoughts, is it correct that student no2 gets further training ?, is it essential that observers call on route hazards to the pilot, or is that simply "his job".?

Student No2 was totally maxxed out with the nav side of the course, with no more capacity to add on use of role equipment, additional thinking..............is student No2 a liabilty to the safety of the aircraft ?

would love to hear your thoughts please.................

Of course he is, or would be, at the moment.

There are those people who can take these things in their stride first time round; there are those who will never master it no matter how long they try; and there are those who will, eventually.

If he is one of the last group, then it is possible he will eventually make a good team member. It depends, among other things of course, on how long and how much money the Force is prepared to spend teaching him. That is what the selection process is all about.

I'm with Farmer 1. Sometimes simple exam passes or failures are no measure of a candidates suitability for a role in the long term, simply a measure of their ability to pass exams at any given point in time.

I know you suggest that there are more subjective issues here relating to the opinions of trainers, but these people can be, and often are, completely wrong. I know several pilots who have had great difficulty in their initial training who have subsequently progressed in impressive fashion later in their careers, but to apply the criteria you wish to see implemented in your post would have prevented this from happening.

Sometimes an outside opinion from somebody independant to a degree from the process can be a useful addition to the process.

Why don't you tell us what your real beef is? Candidate 1 by any chance?

We do observer training here at merseyside. I actually teach the nav package to some courses and certainly fly and assess a large number of course training sorties. I taught low level nav in the military as well.
THIS IS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM.
The pilot is THE flight crew member........ full stop. He is ASSISTED by the observers who should assume the tactical navigation for the sortie and police job at hand. If he busts controlled airspace or danger areas, guess who is at fault?? Do not under any circumstances blame student B for the safety of the aircraft.
If a student fails the course for navigation, it is usually because they cannot control the tactical navigation aspects that are required for the job. As Farmer 1 states, some people take extra time (often ending up as brilliant observers) and some will just never get it in a million years. This is important to differentiate, the bad observers lose the success of the police incident at hand NOT the safety of the aircraft.
I hate to say this, but anyone who disagrees is operating the aircraft in an incorrect manner IMHO.

Thank you...........keep going with replies
 

Thanks,

The replies are very interesting , particularly the view from the Merseyside end of the world.................arent merseyside a national training centre for Police aviation .

I have intentionally left my text vague so as not to cause embarrassment to those involved, however I agree that the with student No2 struggling to nav (at the moment), the police work side of the job may be lost. Poor nav to the job may lead to joey the burglar making good his escape.................may be a minor issue . But at a few pounds an hour to launch, then results are a requirement of the post. If your crap at the job joey wins !

More angles of reply would be interesting reading so please carry on......................

Waldo

Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?
 

The Police do not share the same tradition as the military chop ride with no appeal. They need a totally transparent system that stands scrutiny if a student should apply a grievance procedure to the outcome, which is their right.

Police training culture tends to ask the question “Did the training fail the student, rather than the student fail the training?” There is a possibility that further training just might offer the solution to a slow starter.


On the three separate occasions that I have faced this very issue, I came to these conclusions:
• Further training didn’t work, it prolonged the agony and made the final outcome even more expensive, disappointing (and bitter) for all concerned.
• The unit training processes probably benefited by being scrutinised and tested
• The whole procedure was seen to be fair and transparent.

Look on the bright side, there is one more benefit from this, a bigger ASU budget for next year!

We do national obs courses too.

It doesnt help when there are NO national guidelines to follow. This leaves the whole process wide open to challanges from the onset!

However, with the case in question:
IF student B fails on safety and obstruction reporting and this alone, then I'm afraid he has our full support in complaining. It is NOT his/her job, full stop. It's nice to have the back up and we employ this tactic to afford the observer more responsibility.

When we select a candidate to join us, we are looking for a rounded person, not just an expert in one small area. If they have the general aptitude to tactically think in the air...that is what we want. We orientate our checks and measures therefore to weed out the weaker candidate. It would however amount to a series of 'black marks' across several check areas before we failed them totally. This also leaves us less exposed to any failed candidate who chooses to challenge our findings.

At the end of the day they are after all - passengers!

More replies please keep them comimg.............
 

The officer involved , student No2 has shown a lot of commitment and motivation to get on the unit, giving up there own time to fly..............

armed with the replies I have already received, and my knowledge of the people , I would expect student No2 to raise their game to pass the line check.

As to how student No2 fits into the Police role, and works with cops who know the politics and the additional training, we shall see............


Waldo

Good stuff,


Id like to think I can generate a good flow of comment here,


If anything this case, to me unearths a pre-course lack of selection............

If thorough and all encompassing selection was used, then this very difficult situation would not have come about....to see the character flaws/ ability or lack of it during a deep selection process may be the answer.......

However I do keep harking back to the Police reason why the machine is up in the air.....................catching joey !

If the observer cannot show aptitude to getting joey in the cells while on the 3 week initial course, is it right to keep training them ?


Waldo

It depends. This is why we are assessors, we are supposed to be experienced enough to make a decision on the likelyhood of a candidate making it with further training. All I know is that if the RAF had been an absolute pass/fail twenty years ago, I would not be a pilot now. A bit of extra flying got me through the Jet Provost course with a helicopter recommend. I think that I did pretty ok after that!!!

Jayteeto

Sorry but couldnt disagree more chap. you say

It doesnt matter whos fault it is if the result of the 'bust' is a mid-air or incursion of a danger zone that could result in the loss of an aircraft.



so the observer should assume tactical navigation and he should ASSIST the pilot, yet still to this point the observer is not given ANY form of crew status by the CAA and therefore should NOT assist the pilot, particularly with TAC nav near Controlled airspace.

These guys are not given the costed hours to develop, and in many cases not given the development by pilots in the air. The reason you 'developed' to an OK standard following difficulties on the JP was that you were given costed hours, you were both developed and you were treated as a crew member.

The observers should be given crew status (only a cost issue with the ASU's)by the CAA to make the set up as legal and as safe as possible. Then they would have to have costed hours training etc. You say this is not a safety issue well in my eyes in terms of operating the aircraft ( talking as a mil rotary pilot) and in terms of CRM it definitly is an issue. It is an accident waiting to happen.

The whole ASU business needs revamping on a national basis to get qualified , accredited, licensed coppers in the left hand seat.

Waldo this is the right forum for this subject.

Tigs, still disagree!! If the observers become crew in the future and aircraft nav is handed to them, then yes, this scenario could be dangerous.
You misunderstand my words....... At the moment, as the rules are NOW, the PILOT is responsible for the position of the aircraft. If the aircraft was to be lost, it would be the fault of the pilot. The crew recognition by the CAA argument is a totally separate issue. When this rule changes, then potentially this thread changes. What you have said is EXACTLY what I am talking about. There has been a 'creep of percieved responsibility'. When we fly in merseyside, 'assist' would work something like this:
"JT, we need to go to XYZ on a heading of 120, 3 miles"
"OK, I am routing around the prison avoid and everyone look out for the mast at ABC"
In other words they tell me where the target is, but I am responsible to get there safely. If a pilot believes that there is potential of a 'bong' of airspace, they should not blindly follow where the bobbies are directing them. That is why you are employed and paid all this money (:yuk: ), your experience and CAPTAINCY!!!!!!!!!

While that is technically correct what about human factors angle?

The pilot might be responsibly but he is expecting the observer to be warning of hazards.

Is that a power line I see before me? I'm not sure....No it can't be
my observer is good and would have said something...

I think (and that makes a change) that this whole thread revolves around a diversity or equality issue in the first place. Clearly the police bosses didnt want the student to fail and the student was encouraged to either submit a grievance or make a complaint. There is an attitude in police training that a) anyone can do police "job" and b) if they fail the course its the fault of the trainer.

We are without doubt passengers, and long may it continue. If only for the overtime. No Chief constable will want to lose control over their officers, so being "crew" simply isnt going to happen.

To answer an earlier point... there is a National Air Suport trainers manual...therefore there is a National standard. Any unit having problems with initial air observers courses should re-visit their selection procedure. I am reasonably confident with ours now, to the point i know when I start a course, I am working with people who have the potential.

HnH

The crew/passenger debate is a strange anomaly. It appears that it is allowed to continue in the system simply for the purposes of fudging the issue of police rostering.

Any objective assessment of what takes place in the aircraft would conclude that those on board are working together as a "crew" in order to achieve the mission. The precise division of responsibility is immaterial - the captain of the aircraft remains the captain, and the buck stops there.

In order to work to maximise both safety and efficiency, we use CRM - even PAOM 1 which classifies observers as "CAA-agreed passengers" requires annual combined CRM training for flight crew and observers because: " the successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires effective coordination between flight crew and observers". It is no great surprise that this wording is somewhat similar to JAR-Ops 3 which states that "the successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires effective coordination between flight and cabin crew"

Observers are seen as equally important in CRM terms as cabin crew are for airlines. This is why we need to select people to do the job who we can work with, and who will be an asset rather than a hindrance in terms of achieving the mission. The organization needs to have confidence in its training staff to pick those people. If it doesnt trust their judgement, it needs to change the training staff.

Shall I get off my soap box now?

Hmmm...now there's a novelty. :rolleyes:

I've seen the occasional student who, applying the standards in my previous life as a military QHI, would have failed. In fact it took great effort, for quite a while, for me not to apply those standards/criticisms.
Well most of them are,maxxed out that is, which is why we tend not to get them using the role equipment, but just concentrate on nav and map reading. Safety liability? No, not really, when there are two other experienced people in the aircraft. Anyway, even the most experienced observers sometimes can't see the wood from the trees when trying to find a back street in downtown Liverpool. As for controlled airspace, I wouldn't expect them to call it.
We used to do selection. Not allowed to anymore. Some elitist/human rights/diversity c**p.

I was once low level due to weather one evening as we were diverting. PF had eyes outside while I, PNF, had eyes on map tracking control zones and obstacles.

Sounds to me that the coppers don't want to spend the money for two qualified pilots up front -- in an environment that demands it.

The human factors side of somebody somewhat qualified next to me who can assist to an unofficial (here I mean the CAA or equivalent national aeronautical authority) standard is insidious.

That said, I have not heard of any police helicopters striking obstacles; so, maybe they're doing it right. Local area knowledge has to count for something.

I think part of the problem.... is that the Observers role is in fact probably one of the MOST challenging of any police specialist role... in that its most UNLIKE any other Police work an officer is likely to face..

Therefore not all Officers are going to possess the skills necessary for the role.

This does indeed go against current Police training culture, which is the biggest pile of ..... limp-wristed, arse about faced, softly softly, human rights, diversity friendly, bul**** loaded crap..... as you would ever wish to meet.

Thankfuly... at the moment.. my own force DOES do aptitude testing prior to interview for the observers role, and the interview doesnt make up the entire score for the post.

(However... should you wish to be an armed Officer... you can be the stupidist, laziest, mentaly unstable, alcoholic in the job... but if you pass an interview.. YOUR IN MATE..)

I agree with jaytee... im simply freight..!! get me to the job and i'll point it out on the ground and do the stuff as far the police work is involved. Put me in with a floating pilot who doesnt know the area, and i'll do the same.. we will still get around the county (safely)
My skills or otherwise at reading air charts, GPS readouts, TCAS indications, approach plates, Ts and Ps etc etc are of no consequence if it all went tits.. the Pilot would be held blameworthy.
That doesnt mean i wouldnt be prepared to learn, and pass examinations on such such matters, should i be required, and given the right motivation..!! I enjoy my job, and if i was given the opportunity to train, and learn new skills to get the job done better, I'd gladly take them.
Just need the powers that be to realise that we do have people doing this job that are willing, and capable of being more than cargo...

And bring back the good old days of.... drop em at the deep end... sink or swim training... 'cos pressure is what its all about.. put "student number 2" over a fast moving pursuit, thats goes next door into a neighbouring county, or an unfamilair Town centre, dodgy comms due to Airwave, a floating Pilot and **** weather... No matter how much training time he's been given.... he's going to be weak at the important stuff

Ah Morris1......


".....
And bring back the good old days of.... drop em at the deep end... sink or swim training... 'cos pressure is what its all about.."

Sounds like you are as old as the rest of us mate!!!!

Hnh

ha ha....
actualy im not (that) old at all.... but old enough to have seen both ways of training, in the Police and the military.

Ive seen the results of both... and I know which type produces the best final product..!!

Cheers.. Morris1 (not quite ready for pipe and slippers..)

Waldo, whilst I sympathise with the individual concerned, there must be a standard which has to be achieved or there is no point in having training at all.

The problem of when to stop the training is always a difficult one and as old git says - it usually prolongs the agony for all involved.

It depends on your budget but all training systems are in some way constrained by cost and if the trainee can't achieve the standard in the required time then, providing you satisfy yourself that they were given a fair crack of the whip, the sad fact is that they might not be the person you need for the job.

All flying instructors have had students who needed a little more time to achieve the standard - that was built into the military training system in the form of 'flex' - and most responded like Jayteeto but if they are not quite there at the end of the flex, how much more do you throw at them in a 'law of diminishing returns'?

The New Labour PC way requires all training to be transparent and fair (no problem with that) but can lead you into accepting mediocrity when you really want excellence just so no-one fails the course.

Safety problem or not?

No, it's not a safety problem. If it is, the pilot needs more training.

The current situation with the PAOM and the status of observers is a bit tricky, in my view. It can give rise to problems, some of which might have detrimental effects on safety.

There can be no doubt that the way that the flight is conducted, especially in connection with anything to do with flight safety is the responsibility of the pilot, in the sense that he carries the can. This is no different from the position of a PIC in command of a multi- flight crew flight. However, the way that the PAOM allows a police helicopter to operate to lower weather and altitude limits than "ordinary" public transport, is surely partly justified because of the assistance that the observers should provide to the pilot. So they are more than "ordinary" passengers. The analogy with cabin crew seems to me to be a good one; indeed observers are perhaps more involved in carrying out the flight than cabin crew.

For me, a CRM issue is the uncertainty about what observers can be expected to do, in different circumstances. This varies not only between Units, but between observers in the same Unit, in my experience.

Current CRM training does not deal well with the "ordinary" single pilot situation - single pilot CRM was an afterthought, and there is precious little guidance about it. The single pilot working with pseudo-crew is even less well dealt with.

And the "contract" pilot working with the observer "customer" adds another level to the CRM issue! (in as much as pilots have been moved on, as the "customer" did not like them)

CAA pax
 

Give the cop extra training, as they are cops NOT pilots after all.

As its been stated, the paom states they are a ' CAA agreed pax'

Many hands or eyes help, but it sounds like it might have been a personal issue, more than a training issue, according to the grapevine.

Give the candidate more training, and dont expect them to fly it.

The pilot does the flying.

:ok:

Air Support is becoming an evermore demanding environment as more complex equipment is being developed and fitted.

I was always of the view (and argued the point with some vigour) that police observers were pax, no more no less, and the pilot was solely responsible for all aspects of the flight - any additional information offered ie; nav, airspace, hazards etc, I could take, or leave, and make my own informed decision as to what we were going to do, frankly the quality of the police observer was of little interest to me.

However nowadays, having mellowed somewhat, my opinion is that the 'crew' concept is the only way to go - obviously the pilot is still ultimately responsible for the operation of the aircraft but now everyone gets (and expects to get) an input.

It would be difficult to imagine a difficult vehicle pursuit in a built up area next to a busy major airport in a cross force area with the other force helicopter in close proximity, ending up resolving itself successfully without all members of the crew working extremely well together. So in answer to Waldo's initial question it is essential that you recruit the right kind of person who has a natural ability to operate in that complex environment. As Crab so rightly said, if you accept mediocrity just to keep sweet with the HR PC parasites then all you are ultimately doing is devaluing your operational effectiveness (you will also double your unit trainers workload for evermore)

Just to take my theme one stage further. The CAA now requires a fully trained and competent 'crew' member to sit in the LHS whilst the pilot flies on NVIS. If the pilot is required to undertake an Ad-Hoc landing in the sticks for whatever reason that LHS crewman has a definite role to play in the safe operation of the aircraft and believe me if they fail in their duties ie; 'incompetent' I will personally ensure that they do not fly in that position again until the unit NVIS trainers (who, incidentally, are pilots) have been all over them like a rash! and if they're still not up to it then we will have to face up to the fact that some observers will be out of a flying job!

So what you ae really saying is there is so much equipment on board you need two pilots up front as clearly the observers arent good enough? or should you be ditching some of the gear and concentrate on flying in better weather?

and to take your last line....

without the Police... and the observers they supply...there wouldnt be a need for the pilot at all would there?:ok:
Hnh

Huntnhound,

I think you are taking Letsby Avenue comments the wrong way.

Looking at your comments about the Police supplying observers so that the likes of me have a job (not for much longer), the observer doesn't need to be a Police Officer, he/she could be a suitably qualified civilian.

FNW

Hunthound - You are indeed reading my comments the wrong way. Two pilots up front is no safer than one pilot and one competent observer. Waldo asked what the implications would be if they took someone on to the unit who, in their opinion, was unlikely to make the grade; in my opinion there would be few, other than to reduce the operational effectiveness of the unit - but if he is maxed out now how is he going to cope with the extra demands that future equipment will bring and how will he cope when, as I said before, he will be an integral part of the crew when operating on NVIS.

Air support is no longer the place for tourists or passengers I'm afraid...

Two pilots up front is no safer than one pilot and one competent observer....................
That might raise a few comments, by competent, do you mean having an understanding of instrument plates, and rules, air law and airspace regulations, aircraft systems including engine, electrics, hydraulics, avionics etc. When there is an emergency, this knowledge improves safety. The famous Chuck Yeager said that technical knowledge has saved his life on many occasions.
I am all for an observer to be trained to these standards, but the course would be months long, CAA/JAA exams would have to be introduced and continuation training would be hard to fit in. Postings would have to be longer, ideally permanent and most of all, it would be EXPENSIVE.
What do you think, would it be worth the money to train up observers to a 'copilot' standard or would it be easier to employ copilots??

I'm not going to offer any opinions one way or the other on this particular topic. However I would be keen to know how a Police Sergeant recently qualified to JAA CPL(H) with ATPL's passed might be able to serve on an ASU?

Any ideas?

PS Are there any Police Officer Pilots in the UK

Why couldn't you serve on an ASU? You have the correct licence (my CAA ATPL will not get me a JAA ATPL, only a CPL) and if you meet the minimum experience levels set out in the PAOM you are competetive with everyone else. Being a policeman should give you an extra bit of credability at interview.

I dont think a lot of pilots would agree with that..but most are big enough to defend themselves:cool:

R1Tamer - get your CV in the post to everybody. I get the distinct impression there are more jobs than suitable pilots at the moment. You might have a snag with lack of hours or experience but if you can get someone across an interview desk, all bets are off.

Wright123 - we are on different grapevines! Mine says the candidate in question was "hopeless!" Personality doesn't enter in to it at that level of performance.

JT - months of training? Even the old AAC Observer course was only 3 months, including groundschool, and qualified one to tac llmr, recce, recognition, and even to handle the aircraft to the ground safely following the theatrical death of the steely-eyed pilot - ah, them wer't days.

ps - thanx for your helpful comments re strawbs at shawbs!

3 months IS months of training. At the moment, our course is only two weeks and people on this force do the course BEFORE they get posted to the unit. This means a block have to run one man/woman light for the duration of the training. Loser units do not like doing that for more than a couple of weeks. If we post in early, then we run a man short on one of the flights, meaning the two bobbies left on flight cannot take any leave. Manpower and money are short everywhere these days.

It's not the basic quals needed to get the police job...it's the experience needed.
Having said that, I am sure the entry levels advertised on certain air support units could be 'massaged' to indoctrinate lesser mortals.
For instance the entry level for any ASU is usually governed by their own ops manual. This is invariably modelled on the national entry level which is a CPL. Normally you won't get a look in unless youve got an ATPL.
Flying eternally over a brightly lit urban area within a tiny force area does not require an ATPL pilot, I would suggest.

On the other hand - applying the same logic to an ASU which encompasses huge tracts of dark rural and inhospitable terrain is a recipe for a disaster.

We fly observers because they are our customers! We taxi drive for them. They are the 'principles'. They committ aviation in various guises, but the majority committ heavily.
I for one rate a good observer very highly on a dark and stormy night trying to get home sometimes.

Ironically, it is them who become more and more sophisticated as police equipment, tasking, CRM, nav systems etc become more sophisticated, burdonsome.
The pilot continues to tread water (relatively).

Only Hampshire employs pilots who are 'policemen' but they are a dying breed down there.

The qualifying is the easy bit....where do they get the experience?

"Only Hampshire employs pilots who are 'policemen' but they are a dying breed down there"


Is this a particularly distasteful joke?:oh:

Since the Optica crash, policeman do not fly police aircraft. Hampshire ASU employ civilian pilots.

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/PDF/P...nnel/11803.pdf

TC,

You must be limited for diversion airfields!
Safety Alts, flight in icing conditions bearing in mind your environment. (Is that legal?)
Of course you will be flying with the relevant fuel reserves at all times, won't you!

ATPL, now is that CAA or JAA? :confused:


;)
SS

Ariston: I believed your CP was a bobby???Or has he now retired?

Silsoe: But of course....

ATPL(H)CAA or CPL(H)JAA frozen ATPL.

TC, just to clarifyThat's CAA ATPL(H) or JAA CPL(H)
Neither with an IR?

:confused:
SS

Does this conversation ring any bells?!