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.