|
Not sure NPAS is an employer, still waiting to see if West Yorks take it (us) on, then they can make some redundancies.
|
Kent`s bid for "Dispatch and Flight Following"
Apparently they are in competition with West Yorkshire for the job! It is believed that the only competitor Kent Police has in relation to the provision of this function is West Yorkshire who are submitting a bid of their own. |
Two things to question with the Kent proposal....
1. The staff costs to NPAS are in the region of £890,000 per annum for the supervisors and controllers just to 'dispatch and flight follow the aircraft'? 2. If the Kent FCC are just dispatching the nearest aircraft, who's making the decision about the viability of the job in the first place? Do we assume the controller will not be vetting the jobs but just passing them on. If thats the case why not just have force control rooms offer the job up on the regional air to ground channel so the the nearest aircraft responds (works fine at the moment) and dispense with this additional expensive labour force? Thought this was about saving money:confused: |
Waste
Art of flight, if your figures are correct it is frightening what the eventual staffing cost are ping to be,just to slow deployment down,. I find it astonishing that Alex Marshall (ACPO) in charge cannot see what a monster his project team have created. Art of flight does your figure take into account the NPAS HQ staff ie flight op's director salary in the region of £78k ?. I would not like to guess what the proposed salary will be for the head of NPAS.:ugh:
|
Alfie, there is no head of NPAS, perse. OD and his counterpart, the supt answer to the C.C of the parent police force when it is all agreed (from an AOC perspective and then NPAS as an entity will go. The 'system' also answers to a management group consisting of reps across the board including a rep from the 'old police authority system'.
Has the parent police force been selected and established yet - anyone? |
Thomas, That is not how I read some documents, I was led to believe (happy to be corrected) that the current project lead will take the top roll , but will have to re apply for the job after 6 months, once up and running.
The parent force roll has been accepted by West York's and Kent and West York's are bidding for the dispatch roll. I say dispatch roll as if you read the Kent proposal staff will be rotated on a regular basis therefore reducing their knowledge to filter out non air support job's:D |
ALFIE
My figure was only for the Kent proposed 36 controllers (£22,000 pa) and 5 desk supervisors (£25,000 pa). Salaries are a little lower than that when Winsor very soon takes away the Weekend and shift working enhancements from the civilian staff, but include emloyers 'on-costs' such as training, uniform, pension contribution of 13% etc.... That figure does not include salaries for FOD, Finance director, procurement chief, Head of training, 6 regional managers etc... say another £500,000 and all the extra aircraft hours being used on flying large (ish) distances to provide a 24 hour regional service from 19 hour units. |
Lots of things in that doc to pick up on, but as the topic of the moment is the staffing of the control room;
FORCE CONTROL ROOM AIR OPERATIONS 24. Dedicated Control Room Dispatchers will be provided by Kent Police. They will receive initial training in air operations control and deployment and provide the Kent Air Ops capability at the FCR. 25. It is anticipated that providing the required level of cover for a country wide operation of this type will require 36 dispatchers and 5 supervisors. 26. These staff will be Kent Police employees who have attained Level 5 dispatcher capability within the FCR or in the case of supervisors are Team Leaders, (or police officer equivalents). 27. Staff will serve a 3 month tour of duty with Kent Air Ops before rotating back to their section. I would be surprised if there would be any recruitment going on in these times of cutbacks, just a whole lot of controller upgrading to Level 5. I take it that eventually every Kent controller will be level 5/air ops trained (LEVEL 5A) and become part of the 3 month rotation. I do notice reference to C2, (Command & Control), shouldn't that be C3, (C2 + Communication) :suspect: If there is some recruitment needed, how long before we hear cries of 'Jobs for the South' again, and do you think CAA Flt Ops might have issues with para's 30 & 31? |
My particular favourite part is;
23. The Kent ESRI mapping system shows the entire country down to a scale of 1:50,000 which is sufficiently detailed to identify the closest aircraft to an incident. There may be hills, active danger areas, NOTAMS and other beasties out there that I suspect the mapping system might not take into consideration. Hazards that a 'trained eye' with local weather updates looking at a marked map would. C4I (C3 + computers & intelligence) :ok: |
Kent??!!
Interesting isn't it, That the Force chosen so carry out this very important, some might say vital function, - is the only major force in the country that never took the trouble to provide itself with Air Support.
For ages it refused point blank to have anything to do with air support, and then to avoid any major expenditure paid for a service from Essex! Is it not surprising then, that one or two are a tad sceptical.:ugh: tigerfish see, - I'm still here! Watching and listening! |
What forces are the main police players from? Just a thought.
|
FFF,
The problem with answering that question is that Chief Officers (ACPO) cannot progress through the 3 stages in one force. i.e. ACC,DCC and CC. An ACC for example can do DCC in their force, but must then move to another force in order to get promoted to CC. Some, - called the "butterflies", move several times. So its not a simple question to answer. The problem with Kent, was that for years they had a long term CC who was diametrically averse to air support. Many of his staff learned their trade under that regime. That attitude stuck for years. It has changed in more recent times, but the force has no in depth experience of operating aircraft. At one time they were keen on drones. News tonight! At least one Chief Constable has got the B***s to stick to his guns and has resigned over the question of Police Commissioners. He was also known to be very concerned re the cuts to Police budgets! Well done him!:D tigerfish |
Who has advisedKent in this area? Where have they suddenly popped up from with all of this? As Tigerfish says: the buggers haven't the faintest idea about Air Ops and they think they can run the dispatch evolution without any previous experience. God help us all.
Flight following: pull the other one. Do they have a direct link via West Drayton or what? So they launch the Cheshire cab to a job the other side of the Snowdon National Park @ night in bad weather because N Wales is busy in Cumbria...and Kent keeps an eye on these guys throughout??? The inmates are running the assylum.:D |
Why have Kent suddenly piped up about air ops and gone for the flight following role?
Could this be the answer? No doubt what FFF alluded. |
FORCE CONTROL ROOM AIR OPERATIONS 24. Dedicated Control Room Dispatchers will be provided by Kent Police. They will receive initial training in air operations control and deployment and provide the Kent Air Ops capability at the FCR. 25. It is anticipated that providing the required level of cover for a country wide operation of this type will require 36 dispatchers and 5 supervisors. 26. These staff will be Kent Police employees who have attained Level 5 dispatcher capability within the FCR or in the case of supervisors are Team Leaders, (or police officer equivalents). 27. Staff will serve a 3 month tour of duty with Kent Air Ops before rotating back to their section. I assume part of the 3 monthly package would be to actually fly the Kent controllers & supervisors with the different units in the different environments! By the time that's all done, it will be time to leave. := Training new and replacing 41 'experienced' staff every 3 months, sounds an awful waste of time, money and knowledge, let alone all the C4I issues. What we learn from history, is that we don't learn from history! "This is yet another example of a Government IT project taking on a life of its own, absorbing ever-increasing resources without reaching its objectives. The rationale and benefits of a regional approach were unclear and badly communicated to locally accountable fire and rescue services who remained unconvinced. Essential checks and balances in the early stages of the project were ineffective. It was approved on the basis of unrealistic estimates of costs and under-appreciation of the complexity of the IT involved and the project was hurriedly implemented and poorly managed. Its legacy is the chain of expensive regional control centres whose future is uncertain." Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 1 July 2011 |
Kent currently host the means (FCC) by which the 2 aircraft that serve Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Cambs and Norfolk communicate and are tasked. It works very well..... (I wait to be shot down on that comment;))...so at a guess they think they just grow a regional plan into a national one.
|
Mmm, so the money to be saved on Air Support will now be spent on Support staff for a smaller actual service...sounds like great value:ugh::ugh:
|
Kent currently host the means (FCC) by which the 2 aircraft that serve Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Cambs and Norfolk communicate and are tasked. It works very well..... (I wait to be shot down on that comment;))...so at a guess they think they just grow a regional plan into a national one. Given a different time of day, West Mercia, Staffs, West Mids, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are served by one helicopter tasked by means of telephone/radio call to the duty crew. It works very well. Anyway, lets give it a whirl, it might just work; ;) |
What's that you say Sid? 2 regions already doing the same thing.....take it your region are managing to provide the c2 at little extra cost, perhaps one of those forces could take the national idea on at less cost than the Kent proposal? From what I hear most nights, 'London Info' could handle the flight following job for us at no extra cost:eek:
As for the missing 'C', not a hope:ugh::ugh: |
What's that you say Sid? 2 regions already doing the same thing..... On the other hand, the video highlights that if someone comes up with an idea that could be better for us, it shouldn't be dismissed without trying first. After all, to stop the wheel rolling over your foot, you subsequently invent the brake :ok: This is a wide fence here, join me ;) |
Silsoe, the problem (I suspect) is that NPAS will have to appease the CAA about flight following. You partly commented on the problem, in that the 'mids' forces didn't have a dedicated control room - so one could argue, who is the dedicated key holder for safety throughout the launch, transit, prosecution and recovery process, in that instance? There has to be continuity nationally for flight safety/following.
This could be the start of a "swiss cheese" scenario (SMS). It is all very well complying with "flight following" verbatim, so as to tick that AOC box, but in reality how does the AOC holder take responsibility for ensuring that the helicopter flying out of one airbase is fully serviceable in all respects, with that particular crew onboard fully trained and fully qualified to do the task in another region in unfamiliar terrain? NPAS owns the aircraft, another 'force' owns the dispatch authority and another 'force' owns the region where the tasking and communications take place. God forbid - if a cab stoofed, the CC of W Yorks would get it in the neck as he is the AOC holder, but who cocked up: NPAS as owners of the a/c. NPAS as owners for the training/equiping/legislators Kent as Dispatchers. CC of the requesting regional force conducting the tasking. Who actually ensures everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet: Maintenance/paperwork current for all the cabs nationwide. Aircrew medicals current/CRM/LPC's etc etc Training: sufficient night trng/mountains/IF etc Fatigue: shift patterns / Callout availability etc Who (in dispatch) assesses endurance/ right aircraft for the job/weather/diversions/future tasking/comms. Please, please will someone apply some common sense here and atleast offer sound technical advice for applicants to become a dispatching facility???? |
Chilterns I believe work the same way and the added bonus is you have TFOs looking at the jobs.....
|
Chiltern's have operated for years a successful semi regional system. Three forces, five counties, two bases, with four control rooms. TFO's allowed to be responsible for the deployment of the aircraft.
All control rooms have a dedicated scramble line (land telephone) and one hailing talkgroup for all three forces. Crews's would be aware which aircraft was nearest and most effective. This is local control with local knowledge making best use of the resource and deploying to incident where air support can enhance the situation using TFO;s experience. All this control room will be is a very expensive call forwarding/delaying room.:ugh: |
You partly commented on the problem, in that the 'mids' forces didn't have a dedicated control room - so one could argue, who is the dedicated key holder for safety throughout the launch, transit, prosecution and recovery process, in that instance? The NPASCR, as I understand, will be there to allocate aircraft to tasks in the most efficient way based on ac availability and positioning. Alfie15 sums up quite nicely a system already in place, similar to other parts of the country, that works very well. The mention of flight following in the Kent proposal seems to be put in there as a filler. 30. It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area. 31. For the purposes of NPAS this will require Kent Air Ops to take responsibility for flight following ALL aircraft, regardless of the force are in which they are operating. As far as flight following goes in the Mids region there are specific procedures in place to monitor the launch and recovery flight phases especially for those based 'in the sticks'. As for the other phases, in this region we have available; 24 hour ATCU's - Birmingham, East Midlands, Brize Norton, Luton, Robin Hood, Manchester, London Information/Military. Non 24 hour (stc) - Coventry, Wittering, Waddington, Cranwell, Scampton, Halfpenny Green, Husbands Bosworth, Shobdon, Wellsbourne, Gloucester, Oxford, Cosford, Shawbury, Nottingham, Leicester, Gamston etc, etc. Non ATC net - 'common/hailing' frequency, FCR requesting air support, Local controllers, operating unit. As we can see, there are plenty of 'flight followers' around to use and IMHO it would be safer, as in para 30, that the FCR requesting air support flight follow. For Kent to take on the potential flight following responsibility of all the nations air support at the same time raises one simple question.... on which radio will they flight follow each of NPAS's 24 aircraft ? |
more importantly..what will the "system" be for deployment..
As it stands, if the phone rings and the control room present us with a job that is clearly, inappropriate, inaccessible, poorly resourced, or zero potential of success, we simply say "no" and thank them for their call and provide some feedback as to why we're not coming.. What I wonder will the future hold... expecially when the phone rings with "weve pinged the mispers phone and he/she is definitely at (easting,northings) location".. Will we have the discretion to say NO... your job is pants, come back to us when you have done x,y,and z... |
Will we have the discretion to say NO... your job is pants, come back to us when you have done x,y,and z The only useful purpose that the control room serves is to make the various Force incident logs available(even if they are mostly illegible), apart from GMP's antiquated DOS type version. |
17. Kent Air Ops would only be responsible for deploying the aircraft and the flight following function for aircraft safety. 30. It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area. 'When possible, a pilot shall maintain communication with an ATSU and make it aware of routeing, operating area and future intentions, so that timely overdue action may be taken, if necessary. . Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room.' It does say in Sect 2 chap 4, para 2.2; 'the aircraft commander shall ensure... the FCR or other designated co-ordination agency is aware of the aircrafts whereabouts at all times', but nowhere can I find the part that the proposal tells us; "It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area". Perhaps whoever looked at this for the proposal found Chapt 2's sentence on flight following and ignored the whole Chapter on it. So IMHO, in reference to the responsibilities of the NPASCR (whoever or wherever that may be), that now only leaves the deployment issues, or have we already covered that one? |
Sid, you've really done it now, you and your facts!;)
|
If we are talking about genuine flight following, for aircraft safety reasons - not tactical/operational - then why can't something like Skytrac be used?
SkyTrac.ca - Markets |
Flight following is not the same as a (Basic) Service from London Info or an ATCU. A service from an ATCU is well and good in the West Midlands, or the like, but does not fit the bill for the rural areas like the East of England during late or night shifts when there is little if any ATCU cover. London Info will give a service but not the regular opps normal that is required to ensure a timely reaction to an aircraft being overdue. Therefore it is essential that lip service is not paid to this vital safety system.
|
If we are talking about genuine flight following, for aircraft safety reasons - not tactical/operational - then why can't something like Skytrac be used? Flight Following SkyTrac’s comprehensive flight following solutions comprise on-board and ground-based components. On board the aircraft, the DSAT or ISAT automatically obtain position data from the GPS constellation and automatically transmit this information to the ground using the Iridium constellation. Position reports are sent at intervals that can be configured by the operator. The transmission of these reports happens without the need for intervention by the crew. On the ground, position reports are sent from the Iridium gateway to the SkyTrac data centre from where they are forwarded to SkyTrac’s customers. To turn the raw data of position reports into useful information, SkyTrac provides its customers with powerful software tools for monitoring/tracking, mapping and reporting: IMHO safe flight following in this type of operation can only be obtained by means of 2 way radio communication, whether it is with an ATSU, control room or bobby on the beat. I don't think anyone is suggesting Satracs 2 way communication ISAT solution x24 ...are they ?£$? SkyTrac.ca - ISAT Besides, who do you think will have to pay for the certification for the 135, 902 or future types? SkyTrac.ca - Aircraft Types On a more technical note; SATCOM - More than the name implies | HeliMx Since helicopters do not normally fly global missions, you might wonder why a helicopter operator would want to invest in the cost of such a system when so many other types of communications are available. In this instance, there is more than just voice and text communications involved. There is also the ability to track the helicopter’s progress and pinpoint its location anywhere in the world. The following is a telephone interview with Shane Meluck of SkyTrac Systems in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. The most common symptom found in helicopter installations is the antenna cable is not connected tight enough, and due to the helicopter’s high vibration environment, the cable has worked itself loose. Like most systems that are transmitting and receiving RF energy, the local surroundings play a part in how well the system can transmit and receive. Mountains, deep valleys and proximity to metal structures such as a hangar all play a part in how well the system performs. App Store - SkyWeb Mobile |
If the crew have time, there is an emergency switch which alerts the ground station and increases the polling rate. If they land safely without having done so - or for other reasons - they can use the satphone function and, if neither apply, there need to be good overdue procedures in place. An example of poor flight following of a skytrac equipped aircraft is the 76 C++ accident in the GoM in 2009. I had to land 'in a hurry' a few years ago in a fairly remote area, and without the skytrac to a) communicate and b) give our position it would have taken a lot longer to retrieve us (thanks 7th Flight:ok:)
|
F4F
Flight following is not the same as a (Basic) Service from London Info or an ATCU. A service from an ATCU is well and good in the West Midlands, or the like, but does not fit the bill for the rural areas like the East of England during late or night shifts when there is little if any ATCU cover. London Info will give a service but not the regular opps normal that is required to ensure a timely reaction to an aircraft being overdue. Therefore it is essential that lip service is not paid to this vital safety system. I understand what you are saying, but is there a problem over there asking for a Traffic or Deconfliction service or simply saying you will call on the half hour? Besides, going back to what system we are all using now, who are you talking to when out on a task? If I may refer to the PAOM "Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room." |
If the crew have time, there is an emergency switch which alerts the ground station and increases the polling rate. If they land safely without having done so - or for other reasons - they can use the satphone function and, if neither apply, there need to be good overdue procedures in place. If the crew have time they can activate the already fitted ELB or call on 121.5Mhz (if you're operating in an area with no ATCU cover shouldn't it be dialled up?) If they land safely they can use an already carried mobile or handheld. (PAOM Pt 2) If neither apply the ATCU or FCR that they have been i contact with should activate SAR. (PAOM Pt 1) I appreciate different force areas at present operate differently, in different terrains, with different facilities available, but before spending millions and going down the `Fire Control route' why not give the present no cost system a trial and if it doesn't work gradually introduce an NPASCR? Still on the fence here trying to save money and maintain flight safety rather than spend money and reduce it :ok: |
Sid,
On our aircraft, the handheld cradle fit terminal for our radio system already sends our position to one of the forces command and control systems - showing exactly where we are every 15 seconds and we have already proved that in the event of a mishap, the last location that the set transmitted will continue to be displayed until it is either removed or updated by a new "ping". The problem we have found is that nobody actually bothers to look at at it and the force IT security officer won't allow the data to be shared with any other force on the grounds of "security" :ugh: The same problem that prevents either of our forces accessing the latest information on the job they want us to go to. The most effective and most cost effective system with the greatest amount of experience and training for co-ordinating police air support assets is already in place and has been for some time. As current and active practioners, both you and I know it, - but ACPO know nothing unless they've paid somebody else a small fortune to prove it. The last thing we need is yet another box of clever things adding more weight to the aircraft. |
Kent NPAS Control Room.
Why is it needed ? What benefit(s) will it bring for forces - such as those in the Central (Midlands) Region, ( and others ), where there is already an efficient Despatch system operating amongst the four separate ASU's, and covering 8 different Police forces, where the force in who's area the incident occurs takes on the Flight Following / Overdue Actions procedures ? How can one single Control Room, wherever it is geographically placed in the Country, possibly hope to be as efficient as exisiting procedures ? How can one single ADDITIONAL Control Room, with it's EXTRA STAFF, possibly hope to make cost savings when compared with exisiting procedures using exisitng staff ? Can anyone tell me what single benefit there would be in having a National Police Air Support Unit Control Room, other than possibly protecting the jobs of some existing Control Room staff, who might otherwise have been made redundant under the general Policing budget cuts ? While thinking about that one, and thinking about how those proposed cost savings might be achieved, I seem to recall someone saying that the "up to £15 million" anticipated savings, would not be made for about 5 years ( I stand to be corrected ). The cynic in me says that 5 years will be when the Police Officers seconded to NPAS, ( those that have chosen to stay in their role and accept the Thousands of Pounds pay cut for no longer being regarded as "Specialist" ), have their secondment terminated, and may find themselves with no Police job to return to ....... Et Voila - Instant savings - experienced Police Officer Air Observers made redundant, and replaced by Group 4 Security Observers reducing the previous wages bill. Ball park figures ( plucked mainly out of thin air purely to demonstrate the principle ) : 22 ASU's with 8 Police officers at £36,500 = £6,424,000 22 ASU's with eight G4S Observers at £20,000 = £3,520,000 = £2,904,000 savings per year, multiplied by 5 years = £14,520,000 - that's "up to £15 million" isn't it ? :ugh: http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1.../Coconutty.jpg |
If I may refer to the PAOM "Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room." Why ask for a different/greater service? It does not give 20 min opps normal calls that one receives now, and does the "contract" with London Info, in the rural east, allow one to ask for such add services? I stand by to be educated. I suppose that if it aint broke dont fix it is the mantra I am suggesting. |
Flight Following
Well I guess this is one tune on the hymn sheet that we all seem to be singing.
Just to emphasise, SkyTrac will have to be certified and fitted to the 27 UK Police Helicopters at what I imagine will be some considerable cost. It is not a bit of carry on kit as has been suggested somewhere out there ;) Of course it is already certified for the Dyfed Powys cab, but according to the plan, that is going :ugh: Just out of interest, with the earlier reference of the Flatlands to the East in mind, how do North Wales, Dyfed Powys and Scotland deal with flight following on lates/nights? |
The Chiltern system works exceptionally well (as a key user now, who used to be involved in the police aviation world). One a2g talk group across the three forces ( five counties) allows both aircraft to be hailed either in the air or on the ground, and also allows the Oscar ones to negotiate with each other in real time on those rare occasions where there is conflict (the crew have the final call). Also a scramble line to both bases and the three command and control systems in each base allow jobs to be flagged up for review in real time. No national control room required.
I'm not sure why Npas couldn't use a similar regional model, perhaps with six or seven county wide ( not force) hailing talk groups. The borders would need to overlap but the crews and Oscar 1s could manage conflicting taskings. This would take the central control room out of the picture saving both money and time.... |
Pitofrost,
I think you've just described what NPAS/KENT are planning. Each region would require a dedicated dispatcher/flight follower to cope with up to 4 aircraft being dispatched, taking off/landing and making flight following calls. 6 regions would require 6 controllers (plus VDU breaks!) and a supervisor per shift. 2 or 3 shifts, plus a shift off and holiday/course etc. Is it a feature that 'local' forces will be withdrawing their flight following and dispatch functions due to (a) CAA mandate via the PAOC, or (b) they're paying NPAS for a service so why continue to tie up an 'unpaid' (by NPAS) controller position when money saving is top of the list. Sid, have a look left and right along that fence and you'll see a lot of us looking back at you;) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.