Police Helicoptors-automatic right of way?
 

Yesturday I was flying an aerial photography aircraft. The site was close to, but not in, the ATZ of a regional airport. I was recieving a FIS from them. Approaching the site, having passed the relevent details to the controller, I was told "G-**, there is a police helicoptor operating over the city, low level, you will not be allowed to interfere with their operation."
I just replied, "G-**, Roger."
The photgrapher, (who is my boss, and also a experienced private pilot, said,"Well what else can you say to that?"
Now, obviously, apart from collision aviodence, if something had been said along the lines of "We are on a job, we need to continue on this heading, can you vacate the area for a while.." etc I would have complied, out of airmanship and courtesy. The question I have is, do they have any legal right (I did not see any relevent notams during the flight planning, although that had been 4 hours previously) to the airspace? Or do I technically have the same right to be there as the police helicoptor, again assuming that there isn't any TRA in force?

I too would be keen to know about that issue.

I used to fly from Wolverhampton (formerly Halfpenny Green), and recall, on numerous occassions, being advised to go-around live-side due to the police helicopter operations there. Whether it was just bad luck on my part for being in the wrong place at the wrong time I don't know. But my knowlege of Air Law would suggest that I would have had right of way as an aircraft making approach to land (one particular go-around I made from being in ground-effect!). As my experience of the circuit grew and ear became better accustomed to the radio a learned to anticipate the situation and would be prepared. I really didn't mind as they seemed a friendly bunch and i'm sure were on important calls.

But yes, good question.

df1-
I too, wouldn't have minded. I'm sure they are a friendly bunch who are just trying to do their job, and I'm not anti-police either. But ATC (they too are friendlyand helpfull at the airport in question) put strong enthasis on the not in phrase "You will not be allowed to interfere..." It just felt a little high handed and smacked of some police commisioner sending a notice to ATC to pass that message on to pilots who might get in the way...
Whether they have the legal right to or not is irrelevent of course, I wouldn't have aurgued about it, but being virtually ordered to keep out of the way in open FIR did slightly rankle.

Generally speaking UK ATC will apply the same priority to police helicopters as to all other traffic, unless the police helicopter has indicated that his flight has priority. This is usuallly done with the use of a slightly different callsign; commonly "Police 51" will indicate a non-priority flight where "Blue 51" has priority.

Hope this helps....

First of all the controller sounded a little brisk and short with you - and I am not sure why.

All he had to say was that there is priority traffic approaching.

1261 - I think the whole of the UK has changed from using the Blue c/signs. Certainly in the South East it has.

In the LCTR/LCity zone we have two Police Helicopters operating - "Police 251" and "Police 252". They are the Met ASU aircraft and are always Category B. The new rules are that they must say their flight priority with the callsign. (See the UK AIP for a list of the priorities.) However, it has been agreed that the Met Police are always Cat B so they drop the bravo bit. If they are positioning home and low priority they are "P251Zulu" (the lowest Cat) or they can upgrade themselves to "P251Alpha". This means they have absolute priority - even over scheduled IFR traffic. The other two helicopters at Luton and Benson working for the Thames ASU are Police 381 and 382 and they also use a one letter suffix to denote their flight priority. The crews are given the authority to use Cat Alpha as necessary.

Other users of this system are Helimed. We have Helimed 27 based in the London Hospital and Helimed 24 at White Waltham. They use excatly the same flight priority system. They can be Cat Alpha even when positioning sometimes - if they have to pick up a specialist medical team before going to an incident.

So - to finally answer your question, the CAA have invested the police pilots the authority to fly at Category Alpha, and even set up TRA's (Temporary Restricted Areas). Must be something in the ANO I guess.

The police/helimed that we deal with are excellent operators. They appreciate the job we do and try not to mess us around.......too much!:rolleyes:

Jump Complete,

Yes, it does seem unusual to be told "not" to do something! I myself have never experienced that. Its not like the usual "remain clear of......", or "negative, maintain......".

A question would be "what constitutes interference; do normal rules of separation and avoidance apply?".

My reply to ATC would have been the same as yours, although I know some that would have questioned the order, asking for clarification as to how to avoid "interference".

Jump Complete, did you have to alter your flight path at all?

Although I wasn't there, it sounds a bit like the controller got a bit excited!

Depends on the task of the police heli - he may want a sterile area - or be on a "fluid" operation - i.e. a stolen car which will move quickly, and erratically and the pilot may not have time to keep informing ATC.

The police helicopters have a job to do, but as an ATCO I always ask if they can accept other traffic nearby. i.e. During the Mayday protests in London 4 helicopters were all wanting to be on site within 0.5 miles of the rally. (3 news heli's!!) The police who happy to let 2 others be there at the same time. They are always flexible and help us out - but still fulfill their task. They tend not to be bothered about transits.

Where did this happen then!!?!?! You say you were outside the ATZ - but were you in a Control Zone/CAS?

:eek: :sad:

Hmm this might be co-incidence, but yesterday I was VFR near a big regional airport talking their radar when I got a call addressed direct to me from an unrecognised callsign which I foolishly answered with 'go ahead'.

There followed a long dictation about 'attending an incident' most of which was unintelligible through being stepped on by other traffic. Even more foolishly, I asked him to repeat. At this point radar told me to shut up which I did.

After a few moments I realised that this must have been low level helicopter traffic and that he wanted me to relay to radar for him. I also realised that I should have referred the call immediately to radar instead of answering him directly, which I did because a) was unprepared and b) thought it was some kind of emergency.

A few minutes later he contacted radar directly and dictated what sounded like the same message involving a priority routing or something of the sort.

So I ended up feeling a right clot and radar, if you're reading this, I'm sorry.

Some interesting replies there, nice to know I'm not alone in feeling that it was a odd way of doing things. To clarify, when I was told this, I hadn't arrived yet on site, and had simply passed my details in the standard way plus brief details on my mission.
I generally find ATC to be helpful and relaxed there.
df1 My 'flight path' were the obits over the site, with the photography giving me left/right straight on instructions for his shots. In the event whilst we were operating the police helicoptor was about five miles away so there was no confliction.
The airport was a regional in class G airspace but I was operating about a mile away from the ATZ, close to the extended centre-line. (We has just finshed when the controller started to ask if I was staying any longer as he had an airliner joining-fair enough!)

Of course I appreciate that in an event like tracking a stolen car etc they'll need to do whatever they need to do, but it seemed like a heavy way of telling me I may be required to let him through! (after all I wasn't actually stopped from being there!)

From my experience of flying from Luton where the Chiltern (may be wrong name), helicopter operates from, I can honestly say that for he most part, both police helicopter & ATC are very reasonable and the police have happily waited for me to land or taxi etc. On occasion, they have, or it seemed to me, been granted priority when taking off and required at some scene with urgency.

I must admit " you will not be allowed to interfere with their operation." sounds a bit 'abrupt' and maybe there was something going down that warrented such a response - these days, who knows.

PRIORITY STATUS
 

I think this would be a suitable topic for GASIL.

Perhaps those who were affected might like to send their thoughts to the Editor, GASIL at CAA Gatwick.

That way, an official view is obtained, and the topic is brought into a much wider domain.

In the meantime, apply good airmanship to any [potential] incident which might occur.

Keep ATC informed of your intentions. They are their to help YOU.
If in any doubt, don't be afraid to ask.

THINK AIRMANSHIP

It is a myth that the pilot of the police helicopter is a police officer. To my knowledge they never have been and never will be. Police forces contract out the job of pilot to private firms. Not only does this make life cheap for the police force in question, it gives the job of flying the machine to somebody who is not interested in the police activity on the ground. This is the job of the observer, who is a police officer and operates the equipment.

Many a police recruit have left Hendon and commented, "I want to go and fly the helicopter, its why I joined" Yeah right.....not before me !!!

I think you will find that about 20 years ago Police Officers did in fact operate as pilots. I can recall that an Optica crashed [spun in?] in the Bournemouth area killing both crew. I don't know whether the aircraft commander was a PPL or CPL holder.

All this was before Police AOCs etc.

TurboJ, while you are fundamentally correct, in some forces it is arranged that the commander of a police aircraft (who may be the pilot or the observer as the operational commander) have powers of arrest whilst in the air.

Pilots of some forces, whilst still civilians, have powers of arrest.

Seems odd, I know, but it is theoretically possible for them to arrest you over the R/T. You need, of course, to be committing an arrestable offence, but you may find that, whilst you are technically obeying the law of the air, obstructing a policeman in the commission of his duty is an offence. If they then decide to go all the way and arrest you, they can order you to land at a mutually satisfactory airfield and to present yourself at such-and-such a place for further "debriefing".

Don't have my law book to hand .. useful as a door stop usually ;) All opinions are mine and should not be taken as legal fact. Where is Flying Lawyer when you need him ??

But there is if I recall no general exemption for police aircraft from the Rules of the Air in the ANO (save the generic dispensation for the saving of life which applies to all aircraft anyway and low flying exemptions, etc).

Within Controlled Airspace and ATZs, then the rules applicable to ATC would come in to play. In these cases ATC can instruct you to remain clear, avoid certain areas, etc. However these would not apply outside Controlled Airspace and ATZs.

If not under the jurisdiction of an ATC unit, then the Rules of the Air are arguably those which both you AND the police aircraft must comply with. Airmanship and common sense also have a part to play of course and if you are aware of a police activity it is probably good manners and citizenship to do what you can to assist by remaining clear. But you cannot legally be told to keep clear unless there is a Restriction of Flying area established.

Indeed if you are in a balloon, glider, or airship, you could perhaps claim a counter charge against the police aircraft if he doesn't give way to YOU ;)

Captain Stable,

Getting arrested over the R/T Sounds like something that would only happen to me!!:* Only joking!

How would that conversation go? "G-****, you are under ARREST. You do not have to say anything! Anthing you do say will be taken down [presumably on CVR!?] and may be used against you. " / I say: " Sorry, station calling - READABILTY ZILCH" and promptly set 7600 on the txdr!

Do you think it would work ;)

Or can an EC-135 out run a PA28 at full chat?

As a fellow aerial photographer, this thread is proving most interesting. Although I have operated within about 1nm of the North East ASU helicopter over Newcastle, ATC did nothing more than advise us as to the presence of the helicopter and to maintain a good lookout. Should we have been instructed/advised to reposition to make way for the police, I would have happily done so - anything which assists in putting more scum behind bars the better - but it would appear that ATC were unnecessarily dramatic about it all in this instance. Sometimes I think ATC treat everybody in a light single as some drooling simpleton who clearly cannot exercise good judgement and airmanship.

I've been flying for Merseyside for six years now and can't ever recall ATC telling someone that they can't come near us.

Captain Stable:
The only powers we have as civvy drivers, is citizen's rights. This means practicing these rights only when an arrestable offence takes place.
Interfering with a police helicopter in the course of its duties is not necessarily an arrestable offence, unless a breach of the peace occurs, I believe. Even Police officers can't arrest for this obstruction, agan unless a breach of the peace occurs.
They can invite the other pilot to land somewhere and 'warn him' of his actions, but that is it.

There is probably an air and maritime law that protects this particular area.

We rely on common sense to get our job done. If we were prosecuting a job, OUTCAS, for instance, and a puddle jumper ignored or refused to move away from our intended route, then we would have to back off due to flight safety! The job may be lost as a result.
I would attempt to chase that pilot up to determine what happened, after I landed, just to clear up the situation.

However, if I invoked my priority call sign, (c/s, ******alpha)
(a) it would have to be justifiable, and
(b) it would require that other pilot to back off, INCAS only.


We are not special, we simply practice something which is not fully understood by some.

PS: Not all police pilots are contract pilots, the lucky ones amongst us actually work full time for the police authority.:D

ANO Rule 17 (1)

(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.

(g) Sub-paragraph (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator's certificate.

So we all have to give right-of-way to the Police.

The PAOC also exempts Police aircraft from most of Rule 5 (Low Flying).

I also think the comments from ATC in this case were a bit alarmist but I think he/she was only trying to be helpful (as ATC invariably are).:ok: