Sid, I'm not following you; why do you think a reduction in air support coverage in remote areas would not lead to an increase in criminality? Do you not believe that what you do is effective?

Max, I am saying that I don't believe, as Shy seems to, that remote area crime will neccesarily increase just because of air cover reductions. If remote area crime does increase, it will be because of many factors and imho air coverage reduction would be placed fairly low on the list.

Of course I believe we are effective, which is why it is so frustrating to hear the increase in remote area crime when the weather is bad!

So, you believe air support is effective in reducing crime in remote areas. You have evidence to suggest crime in remote areas rises when you are unable to fly due to weather. You do not think that crime will rise in remote areas due to reduction in aerial cover.

Okay, just wanted to be straight on that.

Nice try Max :rolleyes:
If you read my post, you will read that I don't believe that any remote area crime will increase purely due to this perceived new lack of air cover.

If you are up to date with things you will realise that NPAS is and will be providing air cover 24/7 for the remote areas that rural forces themselves didn't provide before NPAS. Now why was that? The lack of air cover that Shy mentions simply doesn't exist, as the fact is that remote areas are now covered more than they ever were before NPAS.

You asked if I thought that what we did was effective, of course I think we are effective, and you may be surprised to learn that we don't just cover remote areas. If you continue to read my post, you will understand that the weather may well be a greater factor as to why crime may increase on a particular night at a particular location rather than any air availability, because we are so effective.

No, Sid, you said that when there's no cover in remote areas crime increases and that a reduction in cover won't lead to an increase in crime. Now you seem to be saying that even though crime would not increase due to reduced cover that cover will now be increased.

All I have been trying to do is follow your, for want of a better word, logic. It has now become clear that I will be unable to do that.

No I haven't Max.

I have said that air cover for rural areas has in fact increased and crime in those areas is more likely to increase due to other factors, rather than this perceived reduction of air support.

Ask yourself this; Why in the past was there a distinct lack of 24 hour rural units?

Sid. I, too, often used to get confused about communication, thinking that what I intended to say was more important than what people actually took from what I said. It's easy to do.

There was previously little air cover between approximately 0300 and 0900, when it wasn't required. There was, however, adequate cover between 0900 and 0300, when it was more often required.

There is now (or soon will be), arguably, better cover between 0300 and 0900 when it's not needed and worse cover between 0900 and 0300, when it is most often required.

That is not a gain.

The above was my question. I asked it because the map to which I made reference noted that some areas were beyond the range of the helicopter units that will remain. Sid got so carried away trying to cause an argument that he glossed over the question, as he then said, because he can't answer it. Most folk just say nothing when they can't provide an answer.

Once the criminal fraternity realise that certain areas don't get timely air support, watch what happens next. I am very much in favour of more police helicopter units being left in place and not replaced by fixed wing, or not at all. Again, that is why I asked my question. But maybe some police pilots would prefer a redundancy package instead of a job.

I can't understand Sid's logic either. He says one thing in one sentence then contradicts himself in the next!

So , disregarding Sid's ramblings, can anyone provide an answer to my qustion?

http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Ac...er%202014a.pdf

Page 6 :-

Not quite sure how they will assess the capability of operating safely down to 500ft......

This suggests it the Vulcanair:-

http://www.handbook.aero/hb_news_sto...?release=24143

Pitts, your link says:

I don't know if the bit that I put into italics might be important.

Max - yeah no doubt the bit would be important.... although that link is to something dated Nov 2013... the words in the quote box are from Dec 2014.

My personal view is that if its been on trail for over a lengthy period it has more than a foot in the door... there is a timely need.... I guess it becomes more a reason for them to find not to buy them.

But just my view.

If that guy Dismore is still around then it would have to be a huge lemon to backtrack from this gush....

Pittsextra, thanks for that information. Very interesting. I'm quite surprised that NPAS are willing to be one of the lead customers for what appears to be a new type.

Let me get this right.
Someone posts a statement, a question and a paragraph ending in a question mark that isn't actually a question. I make comment on the statement and don't answer the question because I have no knowledge of what the answer might be and leave the question marked paragraph alone.

I then get hammered for not answering the question and accused of trying to make an argument out of it all despite making it clear things are my opinion. (imho = in my humble opinion)

Sorry, who is it that has the fuzzy logic?

NP. I don't know much about the alternative light twin aeroplane choices tbh that fit the retractable gear, high wing etc.

Its one engine capability demo'd here..

Vulcanair P68R: safety first - FT Wealth - personal finance Video - FT.com

Some detail on the other operators of similar type here page 10 here:-

http://www.vulcanair.com/files/files...s_25-03-14.pdf

My earlier post;

"Max, I am saying that I don't believe, as Shy seems to, that remote area crime will neccesarily increase just because of air cover reductions. If remote area crime does increase, it will be because of many factors and imho air coverage reduction would be placed fairly low on the list."

My last post;

"I have said that air cover for rural areas has in fact increased and crime in those areas is more likely to increase due to other factors, rather than this perceived reduction of air support."


Contradiction :confused:

Thanks, Pitts. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

Sid, I think your transmit switch is stuck on.

Not allowed to defend myself from your bullying now!!!
9,590 posts, methinks we have another Clarkson here :=


Any particular reason as to why the fixed wing has to be a twin piston with retractable undercarriage?

I seem to remember a briefing in the dim and distant past explaining the selection process 'they' were using in order to replace the Lynx. All the criteria happened to exactly match the then present Lynx, putting the Blackhawk et al firmly out of the game, leaving the selected product to be ... a Lynx :suspect:

No idea on the requirements spec but sadly it would rule out the home grown Britten Norman Defender.

I don't know whats wrong with this country not supporting its own more. Poor show really.

But you must be closer to the people making the decisions than most? Is it not possible to simply ask the question?? Surely the door is ajar more than tightly shut!?!?!

As I have written already, I simply want no part in any argument with you but you seem unable to grasp that fact. However, if you really believe that you are being bullied, then kindly report the offending posts to the moderators by clicking on the appropriate button, as is your right. Let them asses the situation and take any appropriate action. Thank you.

Pittsextra, thanks again, I can now consider a written response to the PCC's leaflet just delivered with my council tax bill. This claims an enhanced police service by removing our local air support whilst at the same time demanding a higher percentage of our council tax contributions.

Sadly, that doesn't apply to me, if it's me you meant.

In the words of Basil Fawlty, "You started it".