Two of anything has got to be better/safer than only the one - common sense.
If an ECU is going to fail on any set day/night in the future, then it is more likely to result in serious damage/death over a built up area, in a single than if it happened on a twin.
During my time with police ops I lost an engine on two occasions - one during the day where a compressor blade went walkabout and the other engine failure was a surge at night. Both of these incidents were over built up towns/cities. Both resulted in a fairly undramatic landing around the outskirts to resolve the problem. A single would have put a whole new perspective on matters!!!:rolleyes:

PS: How on earth can one compare Police Helo Ops with " Nuclear Security" whatever that is???
Sasless has me on Peanut Gallery alert so can someone else ask him what a typical task is during a Nuclear Security job?????

The circular discussions of twin vs singles has been moved to Where does the UK/JAR "twin only" mentality come from?

Let's keep this thread on topic, please!

Tandem,

That will be a very short conversation you will have about CAA and FAA regulated Police Operations as the FAA considers Police Ops to be "Public Use" and they have next to nothing to do with overseeing such operations. I reckon that would be an Apples and Oranges comparison and of not much use in wasting time on.

Would not a better question be one that argues about why you contract helicopter services and not have the Police operate the aircraft themselves?

New York City clear across to Los Angeles my country is populated with dozens and dozens of Police Helicopter Operations and almost all use Single Engined Helicopters exclusively for Day and Night flying.

I guess we hear all about how perfect the English system is compared to the Yanks but y'all go ahead on and try to convince us of that.

Boudreaux, I don't think any Brit would claim our system of police aviation is perfect. Have you not read the NPAS thread?

UKs police helicopters now operate under a national system, which was claimed to be more efficient and save money. One of those claims might be true, possibly not in the long run, but having fewer assets more widely spaced won't fool many that it can be more efficient.

BB

SASless said:
So might that be why:
So the vast majority of UK Police pilots will likely be more experienced than many US police pilots, and also likely to have significant twin experience on military operations?

Is that a fair summary?

Despite experience being no guarantee of competence, the Fixed Wing world in the US has specific, and considerable, requirements for it does it not? Why doesn't the Rotary Wing industry demand similar?

Economics and Experience
 

The reason so many US Police Ops use Bell singles is that they are usually sourced at deep discounts from the US Military, which also provides a large pool of type-experienced Pilots with many hours of similar tactical-type flying. Most also use surplus FLIR and spotlights too when so equipped. It's a good system for anywhere and the specific experience equals safer ops than one might normally expect. Bigger departments with larger budgets (and perhaps other requirements to consider) have other choices but for most it's either the Bells or perhaps a Robbie, and none of us want to see that :ugh:

My local PD has 2 Bells and watching our main Pilot fly is like watching a Bolshoi ballet. He's flown this type since the 60's in Viet Nam. I'd fly into hell armed only with darts to take on the devil with him at the controls :ok:

I have raised this question before and was immediately rebuffed by SaSless as knowing nothing about it. But I will again ask what is for me, the big black elephant in the room on this accident.

If we are to believe all that we have said on the subject, this aircraft took off on a job some considerable distance from its base and was airborne for probably well over 2 hours and at the time of the accident was nearing its base short of fuel. Yet appears for some reason to have diverted shortly before the crash.

Yet in all this time there appears to have been no recorded conversations or comments from the Police crew to their control room despite the fact that fuel was critical and warning lights illuminated.

No relavent conversation? No conversation at all? Frankly Gentlemen, I don't believe it! I have flown many many tasks in the roll of Police Air Observer and I know that I kept my control room aware of our position and status at all times. AND so did that crew! I will bet my life on it!

I appreciate that we cannot expect to be told everything but the powers that be will know what that crew were saying and as a result will have a pretty good steer on what went wrong.

Was it anything to do with the extended coverage that that machine was expected to serve since the amalgamation of forces? Is the same Elephant stalking UK operations with the depleted fleet? Was the Control; room over controling and demanding too much from that aircraft so short of fuel? The answers will be in those control room tapes! Bet your bottom dollar on it!

TF

tigerfish:
This is precisely why in the UK we have a professional pilot on board, who is not a police officer, rather than a seconded police officer who does the driving! The police may 'believe' they have overwhelming priorities. Even though frequently as keen as most Observers, the pilot always remains the final 'detached' arbiter of what is possible.

But I agree, NPAS is a p1ss poor service in comparison with the amazing service that was initially built from scratch!

Remember of course that this had nothing to do with NPAS, it was originally the Strathclyde Police unit, then merged into Police Scotland....with a much larger area to cover.

Quite true, but let's also not forget that Edinburgh is closer to the base at Glasgow than some of the old Strathclyde Police territories.
Police Scotland and 'larger area to cover' doesn't apply in this case.

With respect for all of your experience doing, the most vital job in the chain of responsibilities that delivers air support.

You are stlll all skating around my question. What do those bl**** control room tapes reveal? And why are they cloaked in silence? I suspect that they do reveal or give a good indication, as to what really happened to that aircraft, and that someone for some reason does not want us to know.

I pray that that is not the case, because if it is. Someone is betraying the rights of those who died that night both in the air and on the ground. let us not forget that.
TF

Aaah, the good old conspiracy theorist :ugh:

Answer me this tigerfish, what is your 6 letter word beginning with 'bl'?
Are you hiding something from us? Is there some kind of code in that 6 letter word? What do you know that you're not telling us?
:suspect::suspect::suspect:

You accuse us of avoiding your question, do you really think we 'line minions' have been told that information :rolleyes:
Like us, wait for the report!

A good lawyer or investigative journo should be onto it…
Freedom of information to gain logs from the 999 call centre?
Ditto logs from the control room?

Sure sensitive law enforcement information can be redacted, but very hard to justify redaction of the number and times of the communications.



Mickjoebill

SS No Conspiricy theory just frustration. There is nothing hidden about my use of the word Bl****. Its just that I dont like to swear especially in print so I'm sure that you can work it out, - (mild swear word!)

Seriously, & Ive said it before, that as a Senior Investigating Officer , on internal investigations, the first thing that I would do on dealing with such matters would be to seize those tapes and go through them very carefully.

Now like everyone else I fully understand the need for care in handling such matters. But what would be wrong with a statement like " Careful examination of all recorded communication between the accident aircraft and the respective control rooms have allowed investigators to form a likely understanding what happened in the last few minutes before the accident occurred". "Nothing more will be added until the full accident report is submitted in due course."

The Policy of saying absolutely nothing merely fosters the absolute rubbish that many of the contributors to this thread have contributed. The subject has just been going round and round, fueled I think by the belief that the whole thing remains a complete mystery. Maybe it is, but if it is not then a brief note to that effect might help.

TF

Tigerfish has a very good point.

As I remember the Shetlands Interim Reports, there was ample mention of CVR Callouts.

So why not any mention whatsoever of the content of Police Radio content?

The absolute lack of any mention does make you wonder why!

Perhaps it makes conspiracy theorists wonder, but for those of us with some understanding of how the AAIB is going about its business it just means that they haven't found anything in any police radio logs that they think is relevant to the accident. To date they've only been publishing factual interim reports, not the analysis that'll be in the final report. They're not obliged to play whack-a-mole with every bit of speculation that pops up on t'internet.

Surprised no comment on early reports that double engine failure was the problem?

Babcock International announces imminent plans to purchase Avincis
 

Babcock International announces imminent plans to purchase Avincis | Business | The Guardian

Babcock will be picking up the potential damages claims as part of the acquisition of Avincis

Just read the AAIB report on G-LBAL, the thing that's made that report possible in such a short time that's missing here is the CVR. Perhaps it's now time to make sure all PT aircraft have them fitted.

SPAO incident on 29 Nov, 4 page special bulletin issued 9 December, 10 days later.
LBAL incident on 13 March, 3 page special bulletin issued 3 April, 21 days later.
:confused: