I clicked on "reply" to concur with tigerfish and his valid comments, only to find that chopjock had replied in that milisecond . . . pause for 2 marching paces to read another load of guff, from someone who obviously needs to understand a little more about the difference in ability between the aircraft he proposes and those that currently do the job. Then we get called for a job & everybody else replies!!

If chopjock can seriously find a single turbine (for goodness sake keep away from the idea that a Robbo can do more than 10% of even the daytime job) that will stay in the air for 1hr30 plus at night, with pilot & two Observers, TI, camera, ANPR and multiple radios, the ability to provide casevac at all times, and get to a job in a reasonable time into a 50kt headwind, I'd eat my helmet - the one I normally put on my head, before you snigger!

With the way the bean counters seem to be thinking they can stretch the budgets by reducing numbers, what's going to happen to the 15 minute reactionary cover with a Robbo - it'll shrink from 35 nm to about 20 & you'll need loads of extra aircraft, not to mention more (secure) bases to fly from, dotted all over the country . . . and that's just to cover the metropolitan areas, which no sane Police pilot would go near in a single anyway. With the planning laws the way they are, it'd take an age to get permission, due to all the nimbys complaining!!:ugh:

Other countries invariably have nothing like the range of weather, jobs, equipment or tasking - seldom a comparable situation to such a densly populated country as the UK.

You only need to have shut down an engine once, over a built-up area, in your police career to realise that you'd probably have died in a single. Yes, single turbines are fantastically reliable, as are twins, but in this risk averse society, with potential for litigation overseeing everything public bodies do, you'd throw significantly more dosh down the pan paying out for one accident than you'd pay out for overlapping (twin heli) coverage of every square mile of the UK! :ok: Correct about South Wales: skilled piloting with a large splash of luck but ultimately caused by maintenance error. You can't cut out risk completely but you can mitigate by having redundant engines and modern aircraft which are professionally maintained & operated.

chopjock - please do us all a favour & follow the advice already proffered of reading the PAOM and learning a little more about the differing capabilities of singles vs twins in the Police role.

AW119 :ok:

Sikorsky S62.

http://www.vectorsite.net/Yas62_1m.jpg

Do you want brown or red sauce with the bone dome ;)

Morris1
Good point
Ooooh thats okay then, we're in safe hands.
They made such a good job of AIRWAVE..!! (around 3 billion spent)
Tetrapol covers's France at aprox 50% of the cost I was told, but it is a French design
link is worth a read.

Tetrapol and TETRA: a briefing from the national research-based TETRA Airwave
safety campaign

Tetrapol networks: Some European profiles from the national research-based TETRA Airwave safety campaign

Funny how the British government can pump billions and billions of pounds into the banking system to prop it up, but can't find the money to at least sustain the present level of police air support. :=

Not trying to defend chopjock but those who fly police machines you may have to live in the real world. If your budget is going to be cut in half lets say, what are you going to do fly a single or nothing ?
Why do you need Hsi's coupled to glide slopes etc etc. If you cant see to fly vfr then you cant really observe anything on the ground can you ? Yes I know the argument for being caught out, but do you have IFR fuel reserve ?
I think where chop jock is coming from is we have a Rolls Royce system that perhaps a broken economy cant afford, so savings either have to be made or we lose the asset completely.

Chopjock,Heli & Hughes 500 You're missing the point!
 

UK Police Aviation has been doing a great job over the past 25 years and as I said earlier by 2004 pretty well led the world. Many are now following us.

Yes I do accept that in the states and in some other countries with better weather than we have, - some small Police units use R44's but the bigger and busier units use turbines, - agreed some are singles.

But chopjock, I challenge you to come up with anywhere that puts in the hours that we do, in the weather that we have, 24 hours a day, have the effect on vehicle crime and street crime that we have had, - and yet can count the number of real accidents that we have had in the low single numbers.

In any event, Its no good going on saying that we should change to singles we simply cannot. In the UK aviation is Governed by the Air Navigation Order which is effected under the auspices of the CAA. We are regulated by CAP 612 which dictates Twin Engined operations only.

Now whatever you think of that regulation is of very little consequence, but despite the fact that in an earlier post I raised the question of very limited rural only surveillance using singles, I still maintain that the combination of the ANO, the CAA and our adherence to the PAOC has kept us safe for 25 years, and has forged an effective weapon against crime.

I am seriously starting to think that Chopjock might just be a journo, - he or she appears to have ready access to media records.

Chopjock, Do you really want crime to return to the levels of the 80's & 90's? What has been built up over the years might be relatively easy to dismantle, but once you realise the awful mistake that you and the bean counters have made, it will take decades to get back to the level of 2004.

I have been involved in Police Aviation since 1984. There is only one way of doing it and that is the right way. You simply cannot cut costs on maintenance, Pilot expertise, aircraft or operational proffesionalism. Down that road comes disaster we are talking of lives here.

Yes you can save money by Regionalisation, and infrastructure costs. But not on the aircraft, training or Pilot experience.

Tigerfish

What we have is not a “Rolls Royce system” – if we did, there would have been a National Police Air Support Unit founded many years ago. It would have a fleet of a common aircraft type, fully role equipped – including NVG compatibility, including spare airframes that could be deployed either as maintenance reserves or where extra cover was required 24/7/365. There would have been a national training centre for pilots and observers, a national pool of pilots and observers and a National Police Aviation Maintenance Centre. This would have benefited from economy of scale, a single PAOC, less management, more flexibility, commonality, greater coverage and capability and been far more cost effective than the piecemeal system that has grown up in the last 20 years.
(And then I woke up).

What we actually have now is probably the cheapest possible solution that remains legal in accordance with current CAA requirements for both operations and maintenance - and that, in the “real world” means Public Transport, Performance Category A, Twin Engine etc, etc. There are savings to be made in becoming a National Police Air Support Unit but not by reducing the number of aircraft or by moving to bases that do not yet exist. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, you can’t generate more electricity by knocking down power stations.

If our “broken economy” cannot afford what it has and the regulators will not change the requirements then our “broken economy” will soon find out the value of what it had as opposed to the cost of it.

So to save money, we buy a whole new fleet? Where would this money come from? Who would buy the redundant airframes, in this economic climate?

Again, as I already pointed out and others have re-iterated, in UK, singles are not allowed to be used for night public transport. That was stoppped twenty years or so ago, after accidents involving night flights in inadequately equipped singles. A lesson still not learned over the Atlantic, judging by the poor safety record for night operations.

heli - let's get real & ignore antique aircaft, however well they've served in the past, so I'm rejecting your offer of sauce.

chockjock, on the other hand, has me nibbling on my visor with a splash of Lea & Perrins, while I check the AW119 figures! Possibly your first valid point to date?

Hughes500 - whilst we'd all like a Rolls Royce service, it isn't, as has been pointed out eloquently by 40odd2. If you looked closer, I think you'd find that most ASUs are quite efficient, effective and not bad value for money, as has already been mentioned, and certainly if they're tasked properly.

It's interesting that the Armed Forces, well certainly the Navy & Air Force (who'd ever have thought that I'd put those two in a sentence of agreement?), wear a uniform uniform, whichever of Her Majesty's Ships or Squadrons they serve in; pilots of all forces wear the same flying overalls - well, certainly the ones flying operational aircraft! There are massive cost savings in that one small area alone for the Police, should they go down that route, which they should, IMHO, and many other areas where joint working, (leading to a national force?) would reduce expenditure and increase efficiency.

At the moment, however, we have a system of Air Support that does exactly that, supports the Police on the Ground to help them do their job more efficiently & effectively, and controlled by Laws. Without changing the Laws, the ONLY way to maintain service and reduce aircraft would be to increase speed - your 15 minutes covers a bigger area but your Tilt Rotor or ABC machine (that isn't available yet) will cost even more millions! ;)

tigerfish,

Include me out: I'm on the side of the Good Guys, but how could I resist the offer of watching zorab64 eat his helmet? ;)

zorab64,

If you want antique aircraft, I could have included the venerable HAS3: complete with 600lb Bomb to sort out the scrotes with a bucket of instant sunshine :p

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/w...sex-edited.jpg

Or a similar vintage to the A119: the B407 should tick all your boxes?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/HP650.jpg

Another bottle of Lee & Perrins, Guv? :p

Z64

If everyone is so efficient please tell me why
1.My local police have 2 engineers soley looking after 1 helicopter ?
2.The helicopter is based at one extreme end of the police area, takes more than an hour to reach one part of the county and 15 to 20 mins flying time to the areas biggest city ?
3.has been used as a taxi on occassions
4.Spent a fortune going solely down NVG route.

What I am getting at is in hard times hard decisions have to be made. It is up to each ASU to shout their case and make their operation as efficient as possible. Dont get me wrong I think the heli's are great, but someone has to pay for it, perhaps you want to look at it as the law of diminishing returns. Yes it is great to have every piece of kit on a machine that does this that and the other but and it is a big but what would you prefer to have the all seeing dancing machine and fewer of them or maybe less sophisticated machines and more of them. There is an adage " quantity has a quality all of its own"
I would dearly love to see the machines under one umbrella so you get the economies of scale on purchase, maintenance and crewing. However I think each chief constable would not wish to loose part of his train set. Perhaps the Govt would be better off having it almost as a para military asset, I am sure that would probably save the money thay are looking for

If we go the way of the white paper, Seven current aircraft and how many crews will go? If anyone on here is one of the ones to go, would you then wish we had cheaper aircraft and could have kept your job?
I still can't get my head around ASU's being classed as public transport. Just who are the fare paying pax?:ugh: If they could change that bit a whole new rule book could be written and cheaper, wider coverage would be the result, in my opinion. :)

Chopjock,
you also can't get your head around the fact that if 7 aircraft go, the level of service will fall, the effectiveness will be lessened and the cost of the whole exercise will eat up all the proposed "savings". The document the White Paper is based upon also requires for the building of 3 new bases with associated infrastructure - fuel, comms, security, etc - if planning permission for these new 24 hour bases can be got in the first place - would you want one on your doorstep? Drawing convenient circles on a map may theoretically improve your coverage but in reality, if your aircraft are not based close to where the centres of need are then efficiency and effectiveness goes out of the window. There are clusters of aircraft around the North West, the Midlands and London because that's where the crime is.
To answer your question, would I want to be in a cheaper, less well equipped and capable, single engined aircraft? On a dark winters night in the Peak District - no thank you.

So you would rather not fly a lesser equipped aircraft with reduced limitations then? All or nothing huh?

Seems you are being spoiled with the best now and nothing less will do.:rolleyes: The tax payer may think differently though and you could end up with nothing.

Thankfully, in the service of the public there is the expectation that you will be equipped to a standard that gives you a good expectation of completing the job required at a minimum level of risk to yourself.

Yes, you could have a simple single-engined aircraft, which might do the job fine 99% of the time....but if you use that argument, you could use a Daewoo Matiz patrol car on the motorway, and you could use cardboard body armour in Afghanistan, and you could buy 1000 Cessna 150s instead of a squadron of Eurofighters.

The thing is, if you want to employ people with the expectation that they will be flexible enough to take on difficult and highly unpredictable tasks, the public has to make their part of the bargain - that they will give the public servants whether that be police, military, medical staff or whoever the right tools for the job.

In the past I've spent lots of time in the hover at night over (Hostile) built up areas in a single-engined aircraft. I knew then that if something went wrong it was a 90% probability that I would be toast. I wouldnt do it again, 'cos its not big or clever!

Chopjock,

For the third time:

In the UK, Public Transport by night or under IFR is not allowed in single engined helicopters.

Your beligerence is now starting to have the look of the green eyed monster about it.

Well I am aware of that, However would you care to explain the definition of Public Transport? My point is I can not see where the fare paying pax are?

Police ops are public transport.

Looks like I might need to find that job as a fluffer after all!!:E