SS. The answers are:

dont know
the other end of the uplink
my views on police being doctors are well known
yes
no
yes
fire and ambulance can do it

My point, being a little more serious, was that there is a need to consider the proper spending of taxpayers' money. Nobody is suggesting a drone could do all tasks but if they could do a significant proportion that would still save money, stop Jay winging because more helicopter missions would be worthwhile, and stop that pestering noise over my bedroom hour after hour!!

H,
More than happy for you to give input, but, if the sole driver is money, then ground rotary now, save yourself a bundle. But I will expect that same approach to every aspect of public spending. I am struggling to see why police aviation should be e whipping boy. I will take your answers as tongue in cheek, as m sssuming that's how it was meant.
To reiterate, ground them now, if it's about money. And not the service.

We have that service in the UK now. Paramedics.

111 for medical non urgent medical issue.
NHS 111 - NHS emergency and urgent care services - NHS Choices

The reason being lots of wasted time on non emergency calls in the past.

No drones but an unqualified call handler assesses if you are about to die.

Central London has a huge noise issue with constant police helicopter ops.

It is also probably the biggest user of ground based surveillance cameras.

I doubt a hovering helicopter could add little to the thousands of street cameras moniterd by a dedicated team 24/7.

If a hovercam is needed a drone will get lower and closer than a twin turbine with three expensive people on board.

Really? Is noise the real basis of your apparent total dislike of the service?

In any case, you missed the fact that I wasn't actually being serious. How do you expect a drone to get to an incident in a city when line of sight to the operator is a legal requirement?

I take it you have never worked in the capital?

Helicopter noise certainly is a big issue in central London and I wonder how often the airborne ops add anything to what the ground camera operators can see.

The UK has more cctv than just about any nation on the planet.

Facial recognition technology also allows very close up monitoring of criminals.

A turbine helicopter at 1500 ft can never achieve the high definition pictures that ground based cameras can.

Protest marches are a typical example of noisy NPAS deployment that achieves nothing.

My point is that a lot of the NPAS ops can be reduced by using the latest technology.

More expensive time wasting here.
NPAS London‏ @NPASLondon
#boatrace2017 A few pics from #NPAS63
https://s29.postimg.org/h4bz99ejr/IMG_3401.jpg

Please explain how that sortie helped solve ground crimes?

Maybe is it is time for the new Met boss to reign in these joy rides?

now you really are talking horse. You have never used things like MX15 clearly.

no, it is a high profile public event - possibly a terror target - and you have an immediate response with a helo in the overhead to direct resources with a perfect overall view.

Jay Sata - you talk bollocks my friend. MX15 went out with the arc, the stuff used now can read newspaper headlines from far higher than that milad :E

So please explain how drones can not achieve the same result at a fraction of the cost?

People travelling on the Tube or public transport in major cities offer the same target to terrorists every day. Witness the St Petersburg metro attack yesterday.

Much as I like flying helicopters they have their limitations and the USP was the ability to hover.

Drones can now achieve better results for a fraction of the hourly cost.

NPAS closed the bases for cost reasons. They worked out a lot of very expensive hours were wasted on the trivial events we now read on the twitter feeds.

More here..

Jay, why the need to continually push against an open door? That is one place where drones could have a place in the stack, but, I'm struggling to see this army of robots doing all the jobs at the same time. I hope you are as vociferous on the doctors forums, arrse and the fire brigades forums. I'm sure you'd be as welcome.

Well for starters drone operators must have line of site currently. What if the drone operator is told to go take a look behind a building which would result in the drone going out of view?
What is the endurance of this drone?
What if an SME needs to go take a look for him/herself in the helicopter?
What if the Silver Commander wants a deterrent in the skies above the threat? Will a drone presence be big enough?
What if the scene commander wants a shooter up there?
What if the commander wants close up photography from 1500' ?

What if the terrorist can jam your signal?

Sorry for droning on - but you did ask..........

I suggest you do a bit of research TC..drone operators fly the things using the onboard camera. They can fly into the most amazing places and film shots that just a few years ago were impossible with helicopters.

This technology takes the expense away from most missing persons ops.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRc4FItCnY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E6lEY0MilnA

Take a look at this showreel.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rdEELOCw4YM

Jay, I'll remind you again to do some basic research before you embarrass yourself further.

It doesn't matter that drones can take remarkable shots, etc, when (as you have been reminded) they cannot operate out of line of sight of the operator. That's the law.

This is the third or fourth thread about NPAS, but you may have failed to research the others. Please remind us about what savings have been achieved (financially will do) by NPAS and your much vaunted closing of bases?

Jay Sata, I have sat quietly letting others spar with you but now I feel I have to join in. You seem totally determined to trash Police air support and I am not convinced that you speak with experience of the role. Yes it costs a lot of money to keep a police aviation unit going but the benefits are not always easily measured. It is not always about what you find but what you don't find. A negative search of an area for a vulnerable missing person can be as much use as a positive one. The area is cleared so we can move on to the next area. It is also cleared much quicker than by ground based officers, assuming you could find enough to do it properly. The Met do not just fly over the boat race for a jolly, we live in difficult times and bad men want to do bad things to nice people the presence of a helicopter can deter it or at least make sure a response is swift. We chase after car thief's and drunk drivers to stop innocent people suffering and to manage difficult and dangerous tasks as safely as possible. If we did it your way then lets all pack up go home barricade ourselves in because we will return to worse times. You are entitled to your views but please think a little wider not just about money. I hope you never have a relative with dementia that wanders off, or a child hit by a drunk driver that was not perused by the Police. If you did you might just change your views and speak some sense.

Pan Euro I think we are wasting our breath with this guy. He could probably get a civil service job closing hospitals, schools and fire stations too.

The pilots and crews who operate Police Aviation know well the advantages and limitations of the helicopter. Everyone else just has an opinion. Those opinions change the moment they themselves need police assistance in a crisis where an ASU could make a significant difference.

Most likely Jay had his ring piece searched by the boys in blue and didn't really enjoy it. Apologies for the colloquialism but spent some time at the NEASU where Ring Pieces are often searched by the "Bizzies" anyone out there remember the good old days at NEASU with PASF. Evening entertainment over Pennywell. Great days and the Xmas parties were Ace! Chasing Scrotes through the night. CRM developing the hard way when the pilots wants to left and the Bobby wants to go right! Great bunch of lads and lasses and a huge privelidge to have been a small part of it.

I had grown bored with your inane rants but, as you ask the question, I thought I might give you some clues.

The kind of cameras used on helicopters are what we call very, very big. The kind of drones that the police might deploy are what we call very, very small. Getting it now?

Also, please look up the legal requirements for line of sight before embarrassing yourself further.

You are quite correct, not all of the jobs a police helicopter deploys on warrant their attendance but they often have to make a quick decision based on very limited information and don't have the benefit of hindsight. Sometimes they'll get it wrong, sometimes they'll make decisions that you wouldn't have made but sometimes they'll save a life and how often do you do that?

To answer the other poster who asked about if helicopters are responsible for arrests or for saving lives that would not have happened otherwise, well, I don't know current figures but 10 years ago the numbers nationally were in the hundreds and the thousands, respectively per annum.

As 'the other poster' I had just watched from the sidelines as the slanging match continued. In fact I believe the military do operate the odd drone out of sight of the operator, and those my age will remember that the police were given exemptions under their AOCs to do things we mere mortals cant. Perhaps police drones too might operate under different rules.

But leave the drones to one side. The question I posed was simple - where is the independent audit? Yes I hear the cabs have 'shooters' and dogs but a layman might assume these are loaded for specific tasks (which we are told we citizens have no right to know about) so I am happy for these to continue. I am merely asking how often such secret or dangerous missions occur as opposed to the ones Jay Sata is trotting out. It isnt good enough to say it is classified or it is 'thousands' we need some hard data. I cant treat my patients with taxpayers money without hard evidence (and increasingly I cant treat my patients with hard data). I am merely asking for police aviation to live up to the same standards

So, according to that logic, taxypayer's money shouldn't be spent on SAR unless they rescue enough people every year????

If you decide you need an aviation capability, it take planning and investment - if it doesn't get used every day for worst case scenarios, you can't just get rid of it and then stand it up at short notice when something bad happens.

In fact, I'm off to my local fire station right now to see how many fires they've been to, if they haven't, I want my money back.
Then down to A&E to see how busy they are. If there are any doctors milling about I want to know why they're not mopping the floor.

Duncan Sandys lives again!

Come on guys, read my posts and calm down. The common thread between PAS, SAR, fire and the NHS is they are paid by the taxpayer. I have never suggested we close down any of them Crab. What I am saying is that there should be independent audit to ensure that taxpayers money - and we are all taxpayers - is spent wisely.

Of course we need SAR but go to the Ireland thread and you will see discussion about medical tasking. We need PAS but the question is really is it being overused?

In fact I am probably on your side more than Jay Sata's, as my industry - the NHS - is ignoring independant audit and research. The Government does its own 'audit', and sets up its own lapdogs such as NICE who cut costs and restrict treatment that should be allowed. The risk is that PAS may, or perhaps is, going down the same road. An independant audit might reduce PAS flights or might not, but it would demonstrate the need for the missions you keep listing and help ensure the funding is ringfenced. I am just asking the question. If you just produce knee jerk responses on this thread it matters not a jot. If you do it for real then dont be surprised if politicians and been counters go for greater cuts.

Audit equals numbers equals stats.
So how do you quantify negative searches, or reassurance patrols, or deterrent.
How about a little bit of TRUST. We are a minuscule organisation compared to that of the NHS. My rather poor attempt at sarcasm was to highlight that it's an utter waste of time to try.
Once again, drones have their place, but do not wonder on to a forum espousing "knowledge" and not expect to be asked to show your working.

Homonculus

I'm absolutely in agreement with you that there should be an independent audit into what NPAS is actually achieving.

I can't offer you figures because I haven't been involved in police aviation for some years. I merely wanted to assure you that they save lives and are responsible for arrests at a higher rate than you may have imagined. Or, at least, they were; I'm not in a position to know if they still are.

Thanks MaxR

Rotate too late: there are a number of organisations who offer independant audit of all sorts of industries. In addition university departments produce independant research on a daily basis of similar issues. No I am not willing to just trust you. Size is irrelevant. You are spending money in competition to other publicly funded bodies and like them must be open to audit. Thalidomide occurred due to a belief in trust rather than audit.....

I am not pretending to have any knowledge at all of PAS save my interaction via air ambulance work. I merely asked about drones based on a lecture at the RAeS. I have made my point and this thread is becoming repetitive so I will withdraw.

Hospital A and E is another area where public money is wasted.

Over 75% are actually non emergencies and at weekends the result of over indulgunce in drink.

For real serious police work NPAS are a vital tool.

However they appear from their twitter posts to be at the trivial but very expensive end of crime fighting.

Some more tweets here from NPAS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/npaslondon?lang=en

So how was a helicopter crew going to help that case? Locals saw him,reported it and ground officers talked him down.

Here is a typical London police helicopter operation.

[quote]NPAS London‏ @NPASLondon
Over Central London for a number of demonstrations. We are providing downlink imagery. Are we being watched?�� [QUOTE]
https://s24.postimg.org/tfumge7ed/IMG_3404.jpg

This was a London demonstration by the right wing English Defence League. I take it that was the most exciting picture the NPAS crew obtained. On a par with a normal day in Trafalgar Square.

The truth is it was.

source https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-london-march
The route is listed below but all covered by hundreds of ground based CCTV monitored by the Metropolitan Police.
https://s30.postimg.org/goqgt28gx/IMG_3405.jpg

The helicopter used for the above demonstration was superfluous to the CCTV and officers on the ground unless the protest march got out of hand? A couple of
freelance drone operators would have saved thousands of pounds of taxpayers money.

Why not wait to launch the helicopter if it was needed?

However the Met Police like to pull out all the toys in the box for high profile events while ignoring drug dealing street criminals,organised knife gangs and over 94% of burglaries they fail to solve.

If police aviation really did solve more than petty crime then the various Police Camera Action tv shows producers would have focussed on that. The reality is most NPAS operations are routine,boring and very expensive.

homunculus, I don't think you need to withdraw, as a taxpayer you have every right to expect the police to use their funds wisely.

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, the trouble is that whether air support is cost effective, (however it is delivered, helicopter, fixed wing, hover bike or 'drone') is rather subjective. One thing you can be sure of though is that police air support is subject to more financial scrutiny now, than it ever was before.
I'm sure that once all the interested parties (PCC's CC's and the Home Office to name but a few), agree on what (if anything) they would like air support to deliver, then they can work out the targets/standards/metrics against which a practical audit could be carried out. Until that is done, it's a bit like trying to determine whether the nuclear deterrent is cost effective!

Some of the points made by you and Jay (on his very successful fishing trip), are not just issues for police air support but issues for the police in general. I suspect most members of the general public have very little idea how much time the police devote to searching for vulnerable missing people.

The 'discussions' about whether searching for or pursuing, stolen cars is a sensible use of police resources is aways both interesting and entertaining. There are very few forces out there that wouldn't rather drop the whole dangerous game but for the fact that an awful lot of crime involves cars, if only as a mode of transport to and from the scene of the offence! Some considerations regarding crime and vehicles are listed below.

When a police officer becomes aware of a vehicle of interest it may be because the number plate of the car has markers on to suggest all manner of reasons that the car and driver should be stopped (being stolen is only one of them). It may be that a member of the public has reported a similar car to the police and all police officers on duty are notified to be on the lookout for such a car over the modern equivalent of the wireless radio.

Other than that, a police officer may notice a car because of the manner of driving. This generally takes three forms:-

1. The driver is obeying the street rule 'drive it like you stole it'. This often takes the form of driving in a highly dangerous manner putting other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc at great risk.

2. The driver is driving in a highly suspicious manner (this is frequently determined using the highly successful but now much discredited 'coppers intuition or hunch'). When members of the public driving in this way are requested to stop by the police, then, should they adopt the driving manner described in point 1 above, that is normally regarded as corroboration that the police officers 'hunch' was correct.

3. The driver and/or his (or her) passengers are recognised as being miscreants or ne'er-do-wells or known criminals or are wearing stripey pullovers and are observed carrying bags with the word 'swag' written on them. (in my part of the country an oversized flat cap would also be cause for suspicion).

It always strikes me as amusing that a number of members of the public would fully expect the police to attempt to apprehend a person who has just carried out a raid on say, a jewellers shop and run off with 30 grands worth of Ratners finest bling, yet feel that devoting the same effort to stop someone who purloins 30 grands worth of fine Bavarian engineering is wrong!

For Jay in particular, if he has such strong views (and wind up or not, his views are perfectly valid), about the sort of tasks he believes the police should prioritise, he really ought to consider putting himself up for office when the next set of Police and Crime Commissioner elections take place. Then he could determine whether his views strike a chord with the huge numbers of voters that take part in those elections (unless he lives in London of course, where he will have to try for the Mayors job)!

Many thanks for that considered reply Handysnaks.

My input here is not a fishing trip. The EDL April 1st debacle above is a fine example of how police
money was wasted on a non event. The tabloids could have had a great time on that particular expensive taxpayer funded episode but they missed it.

Why was a helicopter called in to hover over an event when there were only a few hundred protesters?

What did the operation cost?

At what level was it sanctioned?

Is the noise profile of Met helicopter ops monitered?

Perhaps questions best put to Cressida Dick.

My main question is why are mispers and car crime prioritised?

Report a burglary with thousands of pounds worth of stuff stolen from a shed and you get a crime number. Imagine having a couple of expensive motorbikes plus perhaps a ride on mower and a caravan taken from the drive! I can guarantee that will not get a NPAS launch or appearance on tv.

Phone up and suggest your uncle is missing and he drinks a lot,has suicidal episodes plus you have not heard from him for three days and the police control room goes in to overdrive to launch the helicopter.

He usually turns up the next day with a hangover at a friends house.

Surely the best helicopter to look for "vulnerable" persons is the Air Ambulance?

Drones to replace the constant throb of Met launched air support and helicopters doing the serious genuine criminal stuff out in the countryside?

Jay, it may not be an intentional fishing trip, but it is a successful inadvertant one (and by my own informal rules, as I am responding, then you have another bite to add to the list, well done). Mispers are prioritised if there is perceived to be a threat to their (the missing persons), life. The first duty of the police officer is 'to save life'. I don't believe that 'car crime' is prioritised, but to use your own example, when some one 'does your garden shed over', they are likely to put the booty in a vehicle! At that point a car becomes involved, so would you classify that as car crime?
Regarding whether or not a helicopter would respond to a break in to a garden shed, all I can say (from my limited experience), is that if called by the force whilst the job is 'live', yes, there is a very good chance a helicopter would respond (depending of course on a number of variables). However, if you arrive home after work, to find that your shed was broken into some time in the previous eight hours, and the offenders are long gone, then I'm pretty sure that unless the offenders made off with a precious, life sized day-glo dinosaur, no.

JS, more than once you have written things that seem to indicate that you prioritise the value of property over the value of human life. Hence the rebuttals.

"Surely the best helicopter to look for "vulnerable" persons is the Air Ambulance?"

DUH........Exactly how many Air ambulances are fitted with cameras?

If you did fit them with cameras, what would you remove to maintain payload, ...the oxygen bottles? Maybe the paramedic?

Exactly how many air ambulances are publicly-owned, and therefore potentially taskable?

What will the air ambulance do when it finds someone who might or might not be the missing person walking on a remote beach at 2 am?
Maybe we need to fit the air ambulance with police radios as well as a camera?
Come to think of it, we could paint the air ambulance blue & yellow, and write "police" on the side whilst we are at it.

Strangely enough, before there were air ambulances, police helicopters were often used for that purpose.

Jay - perhaps you haven't noticed but the security level in UK is SEVERE - that means a terrorist attack could occur at any time. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the Capital is a prime target - hence the police helicopter will be used for pretty much any event as both a deterrent and and immediate reaction platform for observation/communications.

You seem to be happy with having a police presence in London but just don't like the noise (frankly it is insignificant compared to the traffic noise) - perhaps you should understand it is about keeping you and yours safe and that it is actually a very good way to spend taxpayer's money.

Jay - I have come to the conclusion that you are either unable or unwilling to understand and, therefore, I shall leave the field of play and allow you to carry on typing drivel.

Please feel free to PM me with your name and address and those of your relatives and I will pass them on to the appropriate forces so that if ever you are the victim of crime or a vulnerable family member goes missing they will know that you object to the use of the helicopter and do not wish it to be deployed.

Jay, it's almost not worth bothering to post replies to you because you come across in this thread as a bitter mental Pygmy (no offence intended to pygmies).

However, the reason why the helicopter is airborne DURING a targeted event is for DETERRANT. now I know you will not accept this point because it's juxtaposition to your case. You do not understand INTELLIGENCE either. And I mean the "Gathering, assessing and processing of information"

Handysnacks - loved the Dayglo dinasoar analogy. And with I believe over 20 years flying with the Boys in Blue you are more...than little experienced.

Jay. Just say one nice thing about the Police Helicopter! For balance so you stop sounding "Unbalanced"

I understand this thread is mostly about police aircrew ,both pilots and observers, with a vested interest in keeping their jobs.

What I find hard to take on board is the fact that air ambulances are funded from charity donations. These helicopters save lives every day.

Missing person operations are really closer to air ambulance work than the police.However the police air ops justify a substantial chunk of police budgets and taxpayers money via their mispers.

If missing persons,stolen cars and petty crime were removed from police air operations the numbers would suggest more budget cuts.

Perhaps the way forward is a combined police and air ambulance with the latter having priority.

On a final note the suggestion that a security high alert re terrorists somehow justifies huge sums spent on the helicopter operations over London every day is bunkum.

The incident in Westminster a few weeks ago and todays Sweden attacks demonstrate that
the money needs to be spent on the ground and not in the air.

In closing let me direct you to this BBC story that really sums up my point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...g-into-trouble

I like this paragraph.

https://s3.postimg.org/qpwvstbsz/IMG_3408.jpg

JS, you seem to be stuck on transmit.

I too was supportive of your views on the TCT thread, but not here; you are falling wide of the mark because of what appears to be a personal bias.

By your measure, we should also get rid of our military in peacetime and our air ambulances on a quiet day.

P.S. I'm not trying to save my job. I fly corporate because the police can't, or won't pay decent salary for the quality of the people they need.

I think you and others are missing my point.

The problems with NPAS and deployment has nothing to do with the crews.

The EDL protest did not warrant getting a helicopter airborne for 300 protesters.

If we have reached a point in society that the police have to have an expensive piece of kit
constantly flying over central London every day then it is time for me to leave.

Every single square metre of central London has cctv surveillance.

I do not have a personal bias but just wonder if some of the wasted high tech helicopter budget would be better deployed at a basic street level?

What was the justification in filming Michael McIntyre?
Here is an example of street crime where police really need to focus on the major issues.
https://s18.postimg.org/r812juu49/IMG_3410.jpg
A bit of low cost policing might be better than helicopters chasing car theft and petty crime in Manchester.

"Perhaps the way forward is a combined police and air ambulance with the latter having priority."
Nope - thats the way back - Pretty sure that is what I was doing in 2003!

Jay, I can accept the fact that you don't want there to be as many/ any, police helicopters.

The air ambulances are funded by charity (in England and Wales),because people are willing to put their hand in their pockets to do so. You seem very keen on the state running a tight ship and not wasting money, so surely this method of fundng is agreeable to you?

You may (or may not), be aware that air ambulance and HEMs work is regarded under ICAO rules, as a commercial operation. So police aviation beng a state run operation is not permitted to get too involved in it, we can carry out life saving CASEVAC flights, but that is about it.

With regard to the involvement of air ambulance aircraft in searching for missing persons, I think the limitations of air ambulances for that sort of work have been more than adequately explained, I would just add that the charitable organisations that run air ambulance operations very successfully are alway open to new ideas. I'm sure yours would be well received.

However, your point about other agencies assisting in searching for 'mispers' is actually a very good one. For example I have long thought that it might be a suitable area for the Fire Service to get involved in, i see more and more of their vehicles displaying a 'Fire and Recue' logo so it might be right up their street!

For what it's worth, quite a few years ago the police authority for which I worked, did give consideration to whether our air operations unit should evolve into an emergency services unit, with an ability to provide cover to all three of the inland emergency services, but the fact that we could not really participate in air ambulance work put paid to the idea before it was worth committing anything to paper!

I would just finish with a request. You have stated that you are not against police aviation, just the number of aircraft and some of the work we do. I would be interested to know what role you think police aviation should carry out (bearing in mind the point about us not competing in the air ambulance/HEMS market)?

Thanks for your considered reply Handysnacks.

My thoughts are that a joined up and coordinated service is the way forward.

I am not anti police ops just anti waste of money.

I thought the original police model where they leased time on basic 206's 20 years ago was cost effective.

The trouble is once you start to take operations in house the costs go through the roof.

Twin turbine helicopters plus support are very expensive.

How would you allocate the money.

Well, 20 years ago (in the UK at least), there were no Police 206,'s
Assuming that we have some helicopters, then they need to be twin engined (for night operations).
I take it you are not really clear on what you would like a Jay run Police air operation to do?