NPAS News 2024
 

The Police Aviation Scene it the UK has been dead recently... not even a dickie bird regarding the next leaders of NPAS!

Which I may add is due for deciding soon, (like June 2024 soon!)

If a new Lead Force cannot be established and West Yorks backs out from June onwards, who is responsible? Would NPAS be able to become a specialist separate force: e.g. like Civil Nuclear Constabulary?

I have also noticed that their maintenance contract with Airbus Helicopters is also due to expire towards the end of this year, with no set fleet replacement plan in place ready for when the ultimate deadline with AH ends, (whenever that will be!!)

There have been no meeting minutes from the last half of last year uploaded to the NPAS website.

Not to mention that there is currently a very capable POLU ready for active service again, just sitting and looking pretty. Meanwhile, two bases are offline because EMID and TVHB are being utilised elsewhere. I thought the whole purpose of getting POLU back online was to support the very tired fleet of aircraft!

I won't even get started with the machines that have wings also collecting dust at EMA!

What is going off?! :ugh:

PANews Cabby MightyGem ShyTorque tigerfish SilsoeSid

What are your thoughts on these issues that I have raised in my previous post?

"the machines that have wings also collecting dust at EMA!"

Well, something was going to give sooner or later. If you take an aircraft that wasn't fit for the task in the first place and then load it up with role equipment so that it's always taking off/landing at the "Higher end" of its MAUW then at some point the landing gear will register a protest.
Papering (Welding) over the cracks will not save the structure.
It always was the wrong aircraft.
Buy cheap, buy twice.

I'd read somewhere that they'd brought POLU back into service for the training of TFOs only, While not likely to be true it made me physically cringe reading it considering the state of the rest of the fleet. It has flown only three times since the new year all on what look like test flights out of Oxford, after a stint in a hangar at North Weald just before Christmas

The fixed-wing unit which was based at DSA, then briefly between BOU and LBA has now settled at EMA at a purpose-built facility but they also seem to only fly sporadically, I'm not ITK so I'm not savvy as to why that is.

I do wonder what all the TFOs and pilots do when there is no serviceable aircraft at their base, and I also wonder what impact that has on policing, how many times are NPAS being requested and that request having to be declined due to no available aircraft.

It wouldn't surprise me if the fleet "renewal" is just lower-hour used 135 frames, provided they can be sourced from somewhere. I'm sure the RAF had 5 brand-new ones literally sat in boxes that were surplus to requirements but I think they've been moved on now...

Yes the 5 new H135 that were purchased to replace the Gazelle's in Northern Ireland, are no longer required due to the security situation improving.

So they were left mothballed at AH Oxford. But they have now been leased to the Royal Australian Air Force to support their existing fleet of EC135s., according to sources:

The ADF will lease five Airbus Helicopters H135 T3 light helicopters, locally known as Juno HT.1s, from the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) for a period of five years.

The aircraft are of similar configuration to Australia’s existing H135 T2+ helicopters, which are flown by No. 723 Sqn Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in support of the ADF Joint Helicopter School based at HMAS Albatross.

Unlike those 15 aircraft, however, the leased H135T3s will be based at Oakey Army Aviation Centre and operate primarily in support of Army aviation aircrew training, with a secondary role providing light transport capabilities to the ADF. This appears to indicate a return to at least some level of separate initial helicopter training for the Army and Navy, which unified their efforts with the introduction of the H135 T2+ based Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) in 2018.

HATS and the Joint Helicopter School were not the first time that the Army and Navy unified their respective training pipelines. In the 1990s, pilots from both services completed initial helicopter flight training at the Australian Defence Force Helicopter School, based at Defence Establishment Fairbairn in Canberra. However, following a review in 1998, the Australian Defence Force Helicopter School was dissolved and replaced by service-specific training organisations.

Defence has not disclosed the cost of the five-year lease. However, since November last year, Army Aviation has awarded the British MoD at least three contracts worth $6.32 million each for unspecified “rotary wing” aircraft according to AusTender documents reviewed by ADM.

While Defence did not respond to or acknowledge repeated requests for comment from ADM about the contracts, in a statement, the Department noted that the cost of the lease will be met from within the existing budget. In all likelihood, this means that some of the funding originally allocated to MRH 90 Taipan sustainment has been redirected to help pay for the lease.

The British MoD ordered 29 H135T3 helicopters in 2016 to modernise the UK’s Military Flight Training System (MFTS). In 2022 the MoD ordered five more helicopters from Airbus to replace British Army Aerospatiale Gazelle light helicopters deployed in Northern Ireland. However, in February 2023, it was reported that the aircraft had been mothballed before entering service due to the security situation in Northern Ireland improving.

It is likely therefore that these five helicopters, which are almost-brand-new, will enter service with the Australian Army as part of the lease. According to Defence, the new helicopters will commence operations at Oakey by “mid-year”.

Source - Army to lease surplus British helicopters - Australian Defence Magazine

As you will know I have another Internet based location where I can pontificate and let my personal opinions be known, month in month out. But Rotorheads is somewhere special of course!

It just feels at times I rattle on about NPAS far too much (some/many will agree), after all its just one operation across a pretty big world market - and many other operations have their faults that can be highlighted. I hope some of that appears at times too! Its easy to play the grumpy old git at times.

The management of NPAS - and that includes the NPCC (police chiefs council) who seem to be more the problem rather than the answer - just come across as clueless.

Old airframes are not news, there are plenty out there, it is what expected of them that is the problem. You can mitigate the problem by not expecting each airframe to fly as many hours as they used to (1,000 pa) and by having a PBH arrangement in place to mitigate the worn out equipment but NPAS management "saved money" by getting rid of PBH. Well of course they didn't they just made the fleet hangar queens waiting at Oxford for spares while at the back of the urgency queue. POLU was never going to be brought back [it was just too different from the rest of the fleet by the time the Norwegians finished with it] but needs must. It must be like a colander with all those drill holes. The same applies to EMID which is also different but not quite as different (a combination of a Macpod, PWC engines and different equipment fit). So they sit in as training ships to reduce the pressure on the operational fleet. Should we ignore the fact that the pre-NPAS fleet has been decimated numerically?

The big disappointment is the fixed wing. Put simply it was a nice little training aircraft that was expected to act up in a role that was a step too far for it. Nothing new there. You will recall that UK police started off with little helicopters that outgrew their role equipment. The Squirrel's [AS350/355] did the job admirably but the role fit got heavier and heavier until their sortie times were down to 20 minutes and they needed to move up to the EC135 to get a reasonable endurance. Both the 355 and 135 have space and seats to spare but its the kit that is the leveller. The P68 suffers from the same problems. Spare seats but they dare not fill them. A lack of f/w pilots just makes the situation worse.

At the moment there are projects out there to get new airframes into the fleet, nothing special just some 'same again' H135s (or perhaps the Bell 429) hopefully with the PBH back in place! But, this process has now been limping along for three years without any outcome. The last purchase of multiple airframes (the Met EC145s) took just two years to get them selected and in service.

I have no doubt that the front line crews and pilots will make NPAS work after a fashion but there is an awful lot of drag built into the system - mainly caused by people in charge that do not know the subject.

And now we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer foretelling the arrival of automatic drones... Five years he says. We have been saying ten years for the past 20 years... and that maybe way too soon to pension off all you helicopter pilots. Maybe not in my lifetime is more accurate.;)

My apologies for the same sort of rant - albeit on a different venue!

Having been part of a police aviation service that worked well, it has since been devastated to the point of total inadequacy by very poor management by those who thought they knew better, but in reality knew very little. In my opinion it’s a national scandal - more public money being wasted.

It is such a shame that Police Aviation in the UK has turned into such a shambles... once best in the world.

Now NPAS has a lot fewer bases nationally...

Wouldn't it be a better idea for NPAS to choose faster aircraft such as the AW109 or AW169, now that there are skidded variants of those types. The Bell 429 would also be a great contender.

It would be more beneficial even though they are 'louder' aircraft. The H135 or H145 are quieter than the forementioned types. But whatever type they choose, people are going to complain about the presence ahead.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....eed61643dc.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5f1e03add8.jpg

They should just hand the whole of the UK police aviation over to the UK military.

The RAF used to train police (and fire service) observers.

Long time reader......but very few posts chap here.......couldnt agree more !!

No it absolutely is not. It's a 3500 kg aircraft which is restricted to 3175 kg by regulation so payload and endurance are poor. It's cockpit/AFCS is grossly inferior (interface/functionality) to the Helionix suite (in particular for NPAS it doesn't have hover hold). It's much louder from the ground than fenestron machines meaning you can hear it coming from a lot further away and it is at the end of very long parts supply chain from the USA.

Just for the payload issue its a non starter.

Alrighttttttttt, it was just a potential suggestion! Don't jump down my throat!

Yes I recognise that the types I mentioned would be 'louder'. As I stated, 'It would be more beneficial even though they are 'louder' aircraft. The H135 or H145 are quieter than the forementioned types. But whatever type they choose, people are going to complain about the presence ahead.'! :*

My sincerest apologies. I am just terrified someone will actually walk blindly into buying such a flawed machine.

It's okay, I understand. I do like the H135 and H145s they are awesome aircraft by all means! They just seem really slow aircraft compared to AW109s and AW169s.

I thought the Bell 429s were good due to lots of Law Enforcement's globally utilising them for their operations. Also, WAA also seem to love G-WLTS.

I thought the reason why NPAS and other operators were restricted to choosing Bell 429s was due to a lack of type approved engineers and service centres.

Apologies that I may have perceived that response as negative. I am just really passionate about Police Aviation in the UK and enjoy chatting with people of experience in this forum. :)

Type approved engineers and service centres can be grown of course. The mass limit is set in stone and just kills the machine dead once you do the sums (unless you're in Canada who allow max weight). It also is worth noting that French Air Ambulance operators sold off some of their Bell 429 recently (F-HBEL and F-HBEK) and are not buying ones to replace them. The Swiss ones (extra one bought recently) are a special case due to the operating environment at high altitude (the power/payload scales get tipped a little differently when you operate at height). Also worth noting the lack of uptake of the machine for Air Ambulance in the UK except by Wilts. I'd say the H145 is the sweet spot, particularly given the imminent introduction of a UK simulator for the type.

https://aviationweek.com/sites/defau...?itok=gjyem2_D

It is a gorgeous aircraft! It would be fabulous to see a fleet of these serving for NPAS! :D

I'd avoid anything with the stress of a mast moment to worry about every time you plonk it down in a cold dark space.

Tigerfish a voice lost
 

Slightly off focus but just to note that Tigerfish, one of the more voluble critics of NPAS, and one of the victims in terms of being thrown out of his industry job thanks to actions by a senior police officer (I am sure they would take many others out if they could!) has now moved on into silence.

There will be an obituary in his real name appearing in the usual publication 1/4. His funeral is 10/4 near Bristol

The sad loss of a good person with more integrity than many around him.

Rest in Peace Tigerfish, it was a pleasure to have known you and your passion in Police Aviation before things took a turn.

Slightly disagree with this one line Gipsy "Type approved engineers and service centres can be grown of course.:" the complexity and training burdens not to mention cost means those engineers we all love and rely on and getting quiet rare. Sadly in a way the good days of extra work and things people do to keep the whole operation running has become the normal because good people with a work ethic subject to none, has become so expected by the employer. Things people used to do so much which is not written in to their contract be that in hours, effort or just they want to make it work and are committed to make this machine work. I am not saying for one second that the new engineers/pilots/ops people are any different to any of us older types, and are committed as we are, and I enjoy working with them ( plus there all over this computer stuff which I am not) But I do think employers need to give their head a wobble if they think these guys/girls are daft enough not to think "I worked 13 hrs yesterday freezing my body parts off , and now Ive got HR calling me at 0900 to tell me my need to do my mandatory training, and finance has said my claim for lunch cant not be read as its too faint.............


That is very sad news indeed. RIP Brian. I’ll have fond memories of our many conversations.

Awwwwww omg, this is so saddening to hear.

I will really miss his expertise and opinions about Police Aviation, he contributed so much to Police Aviation over the years and will be sadly missed by us all!

RIP Brian :uhoh:

Those more well informed could you see something like this happening? Though my opinion may not be as well informed as those in the know, aerial policing is forever changing with the introduction of better and more reliable drones where previously only NPAS could fulfil the role, which must be eating into how often they are required (Think policing football matches, firearms ops containment, that sort of thing where an eye in the sky is great but fairly static) Any police force admittedly would be daft requesting NPAS for any job that a drone is capable of fulfilling at a much much lower cost

Would the H145 be a strong option for the NPAS fleet renewal? The H145 has a greater payload capacity which suits the requirement for all the role kit NPAS machines require and as far as I'm aware better endurance. Though unit cost would be higher, NPAS could widen their coverage/reach from specific bases (Due to the increased endurance) and then close some of the "quieter" bases down that exist solely to ensure that the 'National' in NPAS is fulfilled. NPAS are no strangers to closing bases, as they were formed they were ruthless. They could operate far more efficiently in tandem with the fixed wing, where missions that would normally see two helicopters alternating based on crew rest and the requirement to refuel, the fixed wing unit could deploy and when arriving on scene could stand down the rotary unit which deployed initially to get on scene quickly, rotary units being used for fast response times and then fixed wing for persistence (For Missing person searches/large search areas). This would mean the rotary fleet could reduce in size leaving the potential for NPAS to offset some of the cost of fewer new units by selling off some of the 135 frames and not replacing them, and also reduce the maintenance requirements across the fleet, with newer reliable airframes reducing maintenance/tech fault downtime for the fewer remaining operating bases

I know this, in theory, is a very perfect world argument, and we all know from how NPAS is ran it is by no means a perfect world, but surely in a world where drones constantly raise the question "Are the benefits of having NPAS and its capabilities overhead during an incident worth the associated costs", surely NPAS needs to ensure it is operating at peak efficiency to keep those costs down and maintain its value to the different police forces across the country, As drones continue to improve and assume more and more of the taskings previously fulfilled by NPAS will the justification to spend public money on police aviation come under more scrutiny?

It is all debatable. The H145 cost significantly more than the 135 but gives only a little bit more in lifting ability which then has to be set against the maintenance..... the 135 is new but the 145 is old school, its still certified as a BK117 and requires BK maintenance [BCARS]. Where a (good new) 135 can still be expected to sail through a maintenance in 5 days (if you have PBH intact) the 145 (and several of its competitors) is going to take 2 weeks or more even when new. That messes with the sums when there are few spare airframes around.

I still see the whole drone thing as pie in the sky. Yes a quad copter in the back of a patrol car is a 'good' thing but they are now playing magic tricks and conjuring up a device that is wholly automonous before they invent and test and try such a device. They have not decided whether it should have one or two engines when operating in an urban environment..... let along created a reliable twin engine drone legally able to fly over cities. The whole reason that UK police aviation is expensive was a decision over 40 years ago that police aircraft must have two engines when over urban environments. If that is being rescinded we may as well get rid of all the 135s and go back to the H125 which works perfectly well in the rest of the world - and is cheaper of course. A single engine drone with a dead engine is going to hurt someone. They are doing it quite regularly already. Its OK if it zaps into a a mud hut in Africa (several instances) but when it crashes into a conservatory in Surrey there will be hell to pay. I have yet to be introduced to a twin engine drone that fits on a lamp post - let alone seen one in action. So we wait with bated breath for Norfolk Police to show us their bit of kit.

On another matter raised earlier, high transit speeds of various types, there is not that great a difference between the fast and the slow. Unless the responding unit has to transit for more than 20 minutes (by which time we are told even continuing is pointless) the difference between a H145 and a AW109 is going to be a matter of a minute or so, certainly nothing to get too worried about. The NPAS fixed wing were faster than the helicopters they were supporting but that difference got lost in the taxi run along the runway (and that sort of got hampered when the undercarriage broke on every single airframe).

I'll add that through referring to Drones I had only visualised the quadcopters in use today which are plucking away at some of the jobs that used to be NPAS' bread and butter, though as discussed the prospect of fully autonomous drones with the real flight endurance and controllable range to completely replace helicopters in this space does seem a world away but I'd imagine there are plenty of companies working away at it. There is a drone project not too far from me that is trialling rapidly delivering urgent medication to two hospitals in the UK.

Like you say PANews, these are technologies that need to mature and prove their reliability and they aren't going to be instantaneously deployed over densely populated areas, the project I refer to above currently follows an exact routing for every flight that avoids any sort of housing at all let alone anything that resembles a town or city.

The difference in maintenance requirements you mention between the 135 and 145 leaves me even more bewildered as to why NPAS weren't at least tapping the RAF up about those 5 surplus Junos they had, seems like that could've been an easy win.

Would one of these been a better choice for Fixed Wing aircraft?

https://media.abpic.co.uk/pictures/f...5947-large.jpg
or
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...65d355d7_b.jpg

Talking of Police FW aircraft! It seems like the EMA crew are busy near me.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f9398673d2.png

While I'm sure that none of us in Air Support around 2005-2010(when the idea of a National setup was bring planned) could have nailed down the specifics of the current problems with NPAS, we were all pretty sure that it wouldn't work. This was reinforced when we were part of the NWAOG(North West Air Operations Group, the initial NPAS implementation) which included North Wales, Cheshire, Merseyside, GMP and Lancs. At the time, their Air Support budgets were around 0.5% of their total Force budget, which seemed pretty good value for what we used to achieve.

Much better.

I have to say that having seen a few programmes on the TV, I'm impressed with their camera performance, especially the thermal, which seems to work immediately when ours used to take 5 minutes or so to cool down.

It was always obvious to those of us actively involved in police aviation that long term searches (such as some, but not all, ”MISPERS” etc, or pre planned crowd monitoring such as post football matches) were largely a waste of helicopter hours (the latter being my least favourite task of anything we were tasked with) and these days can be far better achieved by a far less expensive drone.

But the best machine for reactive tasks is still, in most cases, a locally based helicopter.

There is nothing more frustrating as an ex police helicopter pilot than to watch these police documentaries where a dangerous pursuit fails and knowing that a helicopter on scene would have made it safer and successful.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c39c288848.png
Such an able aircraft, ready to cover...

...yet the poor Mersey gal sits and collects dust at AH.

Why is NPAS like this?... :ugh:

0.5% Sounds like fantastic value for the advantages of an expertly trained aircrew overhead.

Though not involved in the policing side of aviation, I take great interest in it. I also watch different tv series' in which a crew follows a police ground unit and see the same in that a helicopter above enables the pursuing cars to drop off and the criminals take far less risk when given a little breathing room, and the helicopter is even better at tracking them went they inevitably bin/ditch it and scarper into different fields.

The consensus I gather from anyone in the know is that NPAS was flawed from the word go and it doesn't show many signs of getting any better.

To both ShyTorque and MightyGem I can imagine you've both got incredible stories to tell of both how you've flown your aircraft and what happened during the incidents you were responding to during your time in Police Aviation, I could listen for days. Respect to you both.

The concept of a national police air service is sound, or should be. By the use of a common aircraft type, the initial fleet purchase, maintenance, availability of spare airframes, crew training etc should become more cost effective.

Unfortunately it was introduced at a time of increasing financial constraints and those put in charge seem to have soon lost the plot, despite being given very sound professional advice. Even worse, those trying to give sound advice were seen as troublemakers and removed from post. The result was that not much (if any) money was actually saved, but operational efficiency was devastated. The whole concept of trying to replace a number of helicopters with a fewer number of unsuitable fixed wing was never going to work for no notice tasking such as vehicle pursuits. What service the taxpayer now receives seems to have plateaued, unfortunately that plateau is at rock bottom.

def stolen those words ! Agree 100%

So this week, Doncaster Council have had a 125 year lease signed with Peel to reopen DSA.

NPAS still has their Rubb hangar assembled there, will the fixed wing aircraft and maintenance of the aircraft go back to normal?

Or do we think that they will stay at EMA? or potentially split the FW fleet up to operate from both DSA and EMA?

Who knows, but I'm just curious as to what good an oversized and vacant Hangar is going to achieve for NPAS?

I know since NPAS' departure from DSA, Humberside and Lincolnshire haven't been happy customers as response times and tasks accepted by HQ have plummeted.

This obviously isn't the first time an oversized empty hangar has emerged within NPAS...

…cough cough North Weald and Lippitts Hill shenanigans!!

Things may have changed since I was CP at a police air support unit but I’m fairly sure that they are still classed as public transport so will require a licensed airfield. I’m not sure how DSA could be used again without at least some basic relevant facilities for fixed wing aircraft, eg runway lighting for night ops. Presumably they would need a formal IMC letdown - the previous facilities and letdowns have been decommissioned.

Further to the above, I wonder about the legal position of the NPAS hangar at DSA. A lot of publicity was given to its construction (at public expense) although it was not used for quite some time after completion. It can hardly be considered to have been given much return on the outlay.

Hi Shy
From the licence point view, this is not required for aeroplanes under 5700kg or helicopters under 3175kg (except scheduled flights) or for aircraft flying under a police air operator’s certificate.
It’s been a while since I had to have my head buried in the books too, so apologies if I haven’t got that quite right.
Cheers
TeeS

I expect that 2Excel will return eventually, they retained their occupancy of the hangar they acquired in 2017 mainly because it would take their 727 aircraft. I believe that they also have an interest in the hangar next door [the one previously occupied by Cessna/Textron]. There is a solid need there - even if it it just those superb hangars.

So they have a reason to return even if their tenure at Humberside might have got cosy over the years. And they will not move anytime soon of course, a lease is one thing but the council still need the operator and then that operator needs to reattach all those wires Peel undid. I doubt very much that 2Excel have any enthusiasm for being a Operator.

As for NPAS, they have gone. The building was their only connection with the airfield and they now have moved to another at East Midlands, a location that was strangely a location they dreamed of in 2012 when they started...... In view of the very tenuous links they have with their fixed wing (shall we keep it, shall we not) and the lacklustre performance in terms of hours flown I doubt they will even have a fixed wing by the time DSA reopens for business in a few years time.. Meanwhile they have another empty 'Sports Hall' at North Weald and that does do flying.