Paarmo has admitted something I've suspected all along, he is a wind-up merchant. :}

There are numerous civvies who have many hours operating aerial camera kit, who direct aircraft and ground units who would have no problem with the kit/flying/navigation side of the role.

No doubt that 2 years on the street would teach a young bloke a few things about criminal behavior, but I submit that the life experience of an older applicant wouldn't be too far behind a 20 something with a few years on the beat.


I believe the steepest learning curve for such applicants to be coming to grips with esoteric acronyms and arcane nomenclature..



mickjoebill

I believe the steepest learning curve for such applicants to be coming to grips with esoteric acronyms and arcane nomenclature..

That and the Airwave radio, which most Officer's should know how to use on arrival to the unit.:eek:

PAARMO, Yes your original question was can a civilian do the Police observers job. It looks like the answer is yes. However, I would ask you two questions in response.

Can a Civilian EFFECTIVELY do a Police observers role?

If they both cost the same, why would you employ a civilian when you could have a well qualified Police officer?

Before you start on the cost I get about £35,000 gross PA and I'm on top whack. a scale six support staff member is on around the same money when you add shift allowance and weekend working. Scale six covers people like Police photographers and control room staff. Their level of technical knowledge is about the same as the observers, albeit in a diffrent field.

Unison are not going to allow Police staff air observers to be on much less than scale six. so once again I would ask you,

If they both cost the same, why would you employ a civilian when you could have a well qualified Police officer?

That's it game over:D:D


I also seel cheap clockwork toys if anyone wants one!!!:E

therealpieboy

You're still guessing too high for Scale six with allowances but you're much nearer than paarmo.

The best thing about this thread is all the ex mil police pilots who read it and would rather keep quiet...:ok:

The difference between a civilian and a police officer is the pension :rolleyes:

Letsby, Don't get him going on the pension thing, He (PAARMO) will convienently forget the 11% contribution we make towards our pension.:confused:

Irrespective of who would make the best observer; policeman or civilian - Is the argument simply this, if the selection process were opened up to all, then diversity enters the equation. One would be forced to consider those chaps for whom a helping hand was felt necessary when the role demands a standard of excellence for all. Simply slotting 40 year old housewives or some of our less able ethnic chums into the rota simply to please witless HR types is a major distraction for all with a consequent reduction in efficiency. Once progressed into the second or third 'generation' the ASU will have suffered a massive dilution of expertise and will end up concentrating its efforts on child minding, pregnancy management, and endless 'on the job' training days.

Pieman how long is the training course to be an air observer? How long does it take to train a Police Officer? Factor in the costs of the training and tell Unison that there is no equivalent job in the Police Service and " we will decide on the pay scale thank you for asking ".
Chief Officers have to account for the time spent by their Police Officers on a regular basis but do not have to do the same for civilian staf. No worries about downtime and inventing tasks to keep the notional time spent on the streets or in this case over the streets up to a reasonable level.
Well qualified Police Officers are in short supply if you believe what was reported by your Union/Federation at their recent conference so why not free another one up to Police and cover the job with a civilian.
As for pensions I belive that any person can pay into a pension and certainly Police Civilians are given the opportunity to do so.
As for 11% contributions do not bleat about it because the maximum that you could be made to pay is 15% and if the economy continues as it is then the call for 15% by Police Authorities may come sooner than you think.
As for your earlier post about employing a person and then he fails basic air observer training. I think your grasp as to what happens in the real word of employment is a little lacking. You fail you're out.
Another post from J2O suggests that he can see identify offences being committed from the air. Possibly driving offences but very little else. As I understand it the CPS ( a civilian operation ) actually tells you what to charge people with as Police have made so many mistakes in charging incorrectly in the past.
Budgie. Who did this meticulous study on civilian versus Police costs and what was their motivation for the study.
Get yourselves some real concrete evidence to support your jobs because the civies are coming boys.
PS looking at your address Letsby it would appear that you fall into the ethnic catergory.As for your other views I take it that Welsh Forces have not yet joined the 20th century yet let alone the 21st.

Paarmo, as is yours when it comes to police air support, you have made that very clear.

Is That It?

Paarmo

Having been on the recieving end of Police Observers experience, I'd rather it was a man of the cloth I was talking too.

Firstly, as has been said many times by Police Observers on here, because they talk and think the same way. They have the experience I had, and knew what I could and couldn't do. When it came to car chases, again, they knew how I was going to drive, they were trained the same way, therefore knew what I would and would not do.

There has to be trust between the 2 ends of the equation, because the bionic budgie jockey had done my job, I trusted him. Would I feel the same way about a civvie? No.

Civvies, yes, ok, some good, most avarage and some awful. Take Civvie Comms officers for example. I've thrown more than one out of a the Divisional Control Room I was supervising, for being useless, only to have some idiot further up the food chain put him back. Fortunatly, the majority of Communications staff in the large Force I worked in were Police Officers who rotated in and out of Comms duties. That mix of experience, of being on both ends made for better comms officers.

Leaving efficency aside, a civvie can do one job, and one only. If he/she is employed as a comms officer, thats it, if the front office Civvie goes sick, you can't redeploy, you can't get them to do both jobs. A Police Officer can and at my stations often did.

Last point against them is, and I can only speak for the Met, but our civvies pension was non contrabutory. So that has to be added to the cost, along with additional pay for weekends, nights etc, again not something you pay a police officer.

So in terms of flexability, experience and cost, there is no good reason to employ a civvie. The only argument in favour of it is to put more police on the streets, but as the numbers released would be a drop in the ocean, thats really not a good argument, when compared against the loss it would entail.

Letsby, did you get my PM re pension???

BJCC have you never worked with a useless Police Officer? Have you ever tried to get rid of one? Unless he commits a criminal offence then as I understand it there are two chances of getting rid of him, fat and no.
These useless civilians who you ejected from the control room. Did you actually do anything constructive about them apart from throwing a strop and chucking them out? Did you give them extra training or support? Did you bring their failings to their notice? Did you record their failings and how you tried to retrain and support them?
No you did what all Police Officers tend to do, according to this post anyway, call them useless and try and move them along.
Things have changed in the world since Ashes to Ashes and it would appear that it has passed some of you by.

Its easier to get someone promoted than get rid of them. Works every time!!

A Freudian Slip!!
 

No you did what all Police Officers tend to do, according to this post anyway

At last it looks like PAARMO has shown his true colours, I have no doubt that at some stage PAARMO has had a bad experience of the Police or even Police Air operations. His continued reluctance to nail is colours to the mast is telling.

I still havn't had a PM about a visit to the unit and s/he is not that far away from me!!:ugh:

Come on PAARMO tell us your real beef?

So which UK forces have (or planning to have) Civvie Observers ?

Dear Pie person.
I have no axe to grind and no ulterior motive for my comments. The British Police Service is the only single tier and in all but name only national police service in the Western World. To single out Spain as an example they have three tiers of police. The Guarda Civil deal with remote areas , street crime , speeding on motorways , riots and border patrols. All Guarda helicopters(and boats) are flown by Guarda Officers with Guarda Observers.The National Police deal with cross border offences and also VIP and royal protection and the Policia Locale deal with other offences not dealt with by the others. A complete mess to the outsider and is it any wonder that the alleged crime rate in Spain is claimed to be much less than that in England and Wales. Nobody seems to check any of the figures which are produced.
The Guards are are para military organisation and live in barracks in the main.
Compare that with Britain at the moment. Local Authorities are setting up their own local pseudo police and the Police themselves have employed what can only be described as Fred Karnos Army to patrol the streets. Why? Because Police Officers are very expensive and take a long time to produce.
Core policing can only be done by Police Officers and the only way to do it is to free up all Police Officers possible to do it and sub contract other duties to civilians.
If you don't like that scenario would you fancy being a Guard in Spain and live in barracks under strict para military discipline.

Paarmo - congratulations - you certainly have the knack of stirring up some lively comments, but I do have to take exception to your comment :

Really ? - That is the law according to who ? - You ?

The ONLY way ? - Naaah - If more "proper" Police Officers were employed, i.e the establishment were increased, then that would do the trick too - surely ?
( ignoring the argument that Police Air Obsevers ARE involved in Core Policing - from the air ).

You do seem to be getting a little emotive, and on the face of it appear to have some sort of an axe to grind against warranted Police Officers employed as Police Air Support Unit Observers. It is of course your right to have such an opinion, but it seems that those "in the know" disagree with you, and that no matter what is discussed here, you will not be disuaded from your opinion.

I would agree that there are various roles performed by Police Officers that should be examined to determine if they could be performed by a civillian, freeing up that Police Officer to patrol the streets, ( in fact this question is often considered - particularly in light of financial cutbacks ).

The real difficulty is in determining exactly which roles these are, and it seems that the role of Police Observer has been considered by the vast majority of Police forces and REJECTED.

In this day and age of accountability you can bet your bottom dollar that it is not just the employment costs that have been looked at in reaching this conclusion, but the effectiveness of the service provided too.

Most Air Support Units operate with 10 to 12 Police Officer observers, depending on size of force, operating hours etc, and releasing those Officers to patrol the streets will only have a minimal effect, on what you describe as "Core Policing".
This needs to be balanced against the cost of recruiting, training and equipping new civillian staff, plus any possible ( but not guaranteed ) savings in salary, and also taking into account the potential for reduction in quality of service, loss of experience, and loss of confidence in the service provided etc.

It is easy to say "Civilianise the role of Police Observer", and I am convinced that if doing so would prove to be cost effective AND would have no detrimental effect on the service provided, then more Police forces would have done so by now, and those that have, would not have regretted that decision, and be looking at returning to employment of only warranted Police Officer Observers at the earliest oportunity.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1.../Coconutty.jpg

Dear Luverly Bunch,
I say that this is the only way to find core policing numbers. Face facts. There are no more establishments for Police Forces. You are not going to get any more money even in the medium to long term and in fact in real terms your money will fall so the chances of employing any more Police Officers are remote.In the future real Police Officers are going to be as rare as rocking horse s***.
It follows therefore that every possible way to redeploy Police Officers will be sought which includes observers and who knows there may even be civilian Chief Constables.

Speaking as an ex member of HM Forces, surely every police officer already is a civilian.

We've already been there shytork. No body liked being called a civilian even an exmil pilot who still considers himself as non civie.

I'm an ex ASU Chief pilot and was definitely an ex-mil civvie back then.

It's ShyTorque, by the way - and get yer air cut! :E

Nature has cut my head hair. The only hair I cut now is orifice hair.

Way too much detail there :yuk:

Cheers

Whirls

Coconutty

Who's doing that, then?

PS - 10 to 12 officers? I think not in many, many cases.

"who knows there may even be civilian Chief Constables."

Already happened.

Civilian is made chief of nuclear police force - Times Online

Though you will note he did have some previous and relevant experience to draw upon......... which brings us back to the "having something to bring to the party" point.

Apparently that new Chief Constable had glowing references :}

If he keeps hanging around Nuclear Establishments it won't only be his references that glow!! :E

paarmo
 

You may need to cut it cause you sure as hell have spent enough time talking out of it judging by the ill informed comments you have been coming out with. I recall previously you being invited to see what an air support unit does Take the chance...Stop watching skycops and get some realtime information. :ok:

Dear Budg
I don't think my opinions are ill judged and neither do the civilian observers on this post. Civilian observers are the way forward and you must get used to this idea.
I remember many years ago going into the Police Station with found property and the found property officer was a Police Officer.You probably don't remember those times but times change and I'm afraid so must you.
I'm afraid the staff won't allow me to do a personal visit to your unit but thank you for the offer.

Anyone reading this thread would be forgiven for thinking that there are some very entrenched views which could be considered variously as insular, protectionist and possibly slightly blinkered? I can't say I agree totally with Paarmo but, whatever his real job, some of the points have an astute validity.

I've put my cards on the table before in agreeing that there has to be merit in at least considering civvie Police Observers - so long as the cost benefit is calculated accurately. It's not only about cost, of course, but it's often a driving force - if there's no real benefit, there seems no point in going down the route. I'd agree with others that complete civilianisation could damage credibility, but one or two (MAN777 - Suffolk have two & I believe Surrey have one or two?) can inject a different (and often refreshing) perspective into a unit.
Realpieboy (#123 22nd May) is unsure whether a civvie can EFFECTIVELY operate in the police role? I reckon the right one can manage at least 98% - the only sticking point being their powers of arrest . . . but as we tend to note the "Air" bit of our title, the occasions are spectacularly few & far between - as soon as we're on the ground, we've lost the aerial advantage.

Letsby may feel that diversity will force politically correct incompetants onto a unit but I'd suggest a robust selection procedure is put in place . . . we've had one working well for some years since, previously, getting rid of Police Obs who couldn't actually cut the mustard took far too long! That's not to say that a civvie would be easy to get rid of, but at least it could be written into a contract that they would be obliged to maintain a certain standard. That's in theory, of course - as soon as they saw the "competence" level of their compatriots, they probably wouldn't find it too difficult to remain in post!

Personally, Police experience on the ground notwithstanding, I'd rather see a competent equipment operator who can maximise the complexities of the kit, is able to think fast, communicate succinctly and manage the highly technical role of the aerial tactician than a Bobby with 10 years on the street who stumbles over the myriad of multi-tasking because his brain just can't keep up with the aircraft. It's not rocket science but there's actually more science in the kit & the role than most experienced PCs will have utilised in a whole career! ;)

It's really not about "Police" experience, it's about balance & using the right person for the job because they are better at doing it, in order to provide the best service to the team on the ground, the force and the public we serve.

I was told once that some good Policeman know how a crooked mind works because they may hail from just the other side of the fence - currently it would appear that UK Police have to be more akin to Parliamentarians than the common burglar!!:eek:

Yes it is. As I have said before, the pilot of an Apache is far more effective as he is a soldier first. If experience counts for nothing lets privatise the RAF Tristars, Hercules, BAe146s, C17s etc as there is no reason that they need to be flown by military aircrew,is there? Change is not ALWAYS better. In fact, in my experience, most change seems to be made by people entering an organisation with big ideas and absolutely no idea of the core role. It normally impacts on staff moral, costs a fortune and lasts until that person is promoted or moves on, then reverts to the tried and tested position that it was at originally.

Aerodynamik - a glance at your profile doesn't say much but indicates that you may not have all the facts at your disposal. I would opine that your argument is also getting a little trite in opposing "change" per-se. Everything "changes" and most people (not all, I'd agree) try to change things for the better. To resist change because you think you've already got the best system and are too blinkered to try something new will have you branded a Luddite. Anyway, it's not change to consider Civvie Observers as there are already a number in circulation - the main reason that there aren't more is probably due to the limited financial benefits. All the pilots are civvies, a number are not ex-military, but in that area direct employment has been welcomed by many forces due to the significant savings.

Having done this job for more than a decade, worked with both good & bad Police Obs, and a few good civvies, I'd refer you to my earlier post - we're here to provide the best service to the team on the ground, maximising the use of the plethora of highly technical equipment and ensuring the most efficient use of the taxpayer's pound. If that means a more able civvie wins out over a less able copper, I'm all for it. It's teamwork in the air anyway and the guy on the ground doesn't care (or know, more often) who's in the air if he gets good support & also gets his man! That said, and as previously mentioned, any civilianisation should remain limited to one or two per unit, in my opinion.

There are some capable Policemen who can be trained to become capable Police Air Observers. There are also some very capable non-Policemen who have already been trained (without extra hours etc) to become very completent Observers. Those who insist that the ONLY person able to be considered, for Police Air Observer training, is an experienced officer are deluding themselves into believing that they're better than they think they are - or are a little too keen to protect "jobs for the boys"?:=

For he, read she, etc.

Aeroperson
I think you will find that many of the flights for Transport Command are now contracted to civilian airlines. RAF crews are used when using hot air space and airfields.Not only do the civilian contractors use civilian pilots but they also have real life cabin crew.
I know it's a problem for you but civilians are permeating into all aspects of Service and Police operations apart from fighting and frontline core policing. Thank your lucky stars there are no takers from the private security industry to take over core policing.Not as yet anyway.

paarmo - I presume you are talking about the Falklands air bridge - the only reason we use civilian companies is because of the woeful lack of investment in the AT force and the fact they are stretched providing troop transports into the conflicts we find ourselves in. It is not done because of value for money or efficiency - it is just because we can't do it ourselves due to lack of resources.

Back to policemen in helicopters - on a job I did on Sunday rescuing 3 men from a crashed/sinking speedboat, the police heli was top cover and asked if we could keep hold of one of the men as they wanted to talk to him. We landed on the top of a headland closely followed by the police heli and the uniformed police observer was able to do what policemen do best - detect crime with the ability to detain if required. This would not have been possible with a civilian observer and would have required a ground policeman to be diverted from other duties to carry out the interview/arrest.

In rural areas I think it is vital to retain that police capability in the helicopter - they don't always work with ground units and having to wait for them to catch up could lead to losing the arrest completely.

Zorba - change is not always good and is often instigated for change's sake and not because there is a better alternative. The world is full of ambitious middle management who think their new initiative is better than the last blokes new initiative. Unfortunately there are those who cannot see that a task has been performed a certain way for many years for good reasons and insist on going through the painful process of reinventing the wheel. There is nothing Luddite about trying to save people from their own ambitions and trying to prevent real capability being lost for the sake of a few quid.

Many people seem to be ignoring one of the main points of Zorab's post, that is that there are civilian air observers so the constant debate on whether it would be possible to train a non-police officer to be an effective air observer is really null and void as it has been done. It's like debating whether we should invent the motor car to replace the horse and carriage - it's already been done.

There are many points worthy of debate - selection, training, benefits, costs, the extent of civilianisation etc but you cannot debate whether civilians can be observers because they already are.

There are police officers who make bad observers and non-police officers who make good observers, sorry but that's the way it is.

I echo all that Zorab has said and, if he is who I think he is, he would know.

Thank you J.A.F.O. - at least some people read the content!

I don't like getting into arguments with Crabs (beneath my dignity) but I do have significant experience with both useless (and good) Police Obs, and with very capable civvies.

Please read my previous posts again and be reminded (again) that my view is that the smattering of civvie Obs that is already in place is not necessarily a bad thing for a unit and could be considered by others. Two civvies seldom, if ever, get crewed together and, given the frequency of actually laying hands on a criminal, there's invariably a "proper" policeman in every crew anyway.

Please feel free to read the handle without dyslexia - I'm neither related to, nor associated with, any Greeks!:=

Dear Zorba
I am no good at acronyms ( Is that right? ) In fact I am useless at Countdown and the anagrams. What is a CRAB?

Hello All,

As a ex-mil civvie (and happily so) pilot who flies for a Police Air outfit, I concur completely with Zorba in his points. For someone to say that civvies are unable to carry out the role of Air Observer, I would say they are mistaken in that it all depends on the individual operator.
Some coppers are good, some are not and struggle through. Same with civvies. The way I see it, it boils down to a few clear points:

• What is the cost/benefit of it? If it saves no money, then why worry about it.
• Can the Air Wing get recruits from the groundpounders. I know in some places there has been a freeze on Police due to funding, but this somehow does not include public servants, so you might be able to fill vacancies this way.
• If you need to have the powers of arrest, then case closed, police only. If the powers are needed rarely, then this might not be an issue.
• Training - a rigorous selection process will weed out poor recruits and if they don't make the training curve, get rid of them. Which is easier to get rid of? I'm not sure but in Oz, coppers can be removed tout suite from the unit to places like Warakirna (its not nowhere, but you can see it from there).

Most people could become a good Air Operators with the right training. My son would make a great sensor operator as his fingers whizz around the XBox console when I'm going ???????? does this button do.

I'm sure some uniformed members will disagree and guard their patch, but at least the potential for civvy AO's should be explored as an option for those who do not already have them.
:)

I would be the first to agree that anybody can be trained to work the cameras etc, its not hard. And as has just been mentioned most teenagers would probably be better at it than a crusty old police officer. However, at the risk of repeating myself, it is the experience that the observer brings along that counts. Lets face it, a 500 hr PPL could do a perfectly adequate job of flying the helicopter safely (ANO permitting). But an ATPL pilot with 1500hrs+ and possibly ex-mil can bring a lot more to the party, can't he?