Police ASU powers
 

An acquaintance of mine was recently forced out of the air by a Police ASU helicopter in the UK. The police mistakenly believed that he was flying inside a TRA. It then emerged, during a 20 minute ground conversation with the police, that the police pilot had not plotted the co-ordinates of the TRA and that there was no one onboard the Police helicopter with a marked map. The TRA had been published nearly 48 hours earlier, based on police information, but nobody at the ASU had checked it. The police crew had assumed they knew where the TRA lay - and they were wrong by nearly half a mile.
Through the nature of this forum, I am keen to know what powers the Police believe they have in any airspace. Are they allowed to force down an aircraft which is flying legally in uncontrolled airspace ? And what exempts a police pilot from required (ANO) pre-flight planning ?
My acquaintance has been "encouraged" to file an Occurrence report with the CAA, but is loathe to do so because he doesn't want to cause any aggravation for the ASU or pilot involved.
He has since had a meeting with the ASU at which they admitted they were wrong, but refused to apologise.

heads
i am realy supprised they tried to force down the helicopter considering the paint job on that helicopter [assuming i have the correct helicopter]


steve

I didn't bother about the police pilot's feelings when it happened to me at Hungerford - I just filed an airmiss on the b*gger. It was a grossly stupid and unsafe act to fly at other aircraft, when there was a radio frequency to speak on. In any case the only person on board that helicopter with any power is the police observer, unless the pilot has been made a special constable.

As I understand it, if a temporary area is set up, then the police may charge you if you enter it, but the place for doing that is in court afterwards - if I remember rightly, under the Chicago Convention, while airborne, your word is law until overturned within 3 months by a person with a judicial interest. The argument that they are only trying to protect you from any danger doesn't wash when they are the ones trying to kill you. But of course, you also have the problem of finding out about the danger area in the first place - what if it is set up after you take off, even though you checked? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that would still be a good defence.

And they have to do preflight planning the same as anyone else.

Phil

Funny that, the Police over here have no rights in the air at all. The only thing they can do is close up and note or pass on your registration to the relevant FIS or tower.
As far as I know ( correct me if I'm wrong) only the military are allowed to force an aircraft to land.

I can just picture the blue flashing light and the little sign saying "STOP POLICE", I wonder if they can shout at you aswell in flight? :E

Headset hair you don't say how the aircraft was forced out of the air - did they land in response to a radio request? A colleague of mine was once told, over the radio (in uncontrolled airspace) to change course. He replied, "please confirm that I am now flying under your control". The instruction was not repeated.

Headset

Hearsay isn't admissable as evidence of course - but do tell us more. Where and when?

Earpiece

"Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see - you will be nearer the truth"

Get your matey to go ahead and file an occurence report - it may flag up the fact that the PASU were acting irresponsibly, if not illegally. If he hasn't done anything wrong, he should have nothing to fear. What if your chum had crashed and been killed, even though he may have been flying within a TRA, being 'forced out' by the rozzers is grossly irresponsible, and shows a complete disregard for the law. :rolleyes:

As always, without the full facts, its impossible to give a proper opinion..and you have to ask yourself whether Pprune is a suitable forum for this, and not your local aviation lawyer.

It would be interesting to hear from Flying Lawyer or another expert on the subject of police powers in the air.

I have recently heard a police pilot declaring an area of class G airspace a 'no fly zone' (not the words used but this was the effect).

I'm also seeing an increase in police low flying in transit from A to B over built up areas.

Are they exempt Rule 5?


:confused:

They won't be completely exempt, and they would still have to fly responsibly

Phil

A UK Police ASU helicopter is governed by CAP 612 (download from CAA site) - this is the Police Air Operator's Manual Part One. Their low flying rules are derived from Rule 5 and they must still be able to alight clear, but they are allowed to go as low as operations require - subject to various parameters in CAP 612.

This is not the issue here - I am simply answering a question posted.

The incident I refer to was first a physical blocking manoeuvre on take-off, then a physical intercept to prevent an aircraft turning, followed by a "sort of" ICAO intercept.

Only then did the ASU machine attempt any contact via radio (through a nearby controller - although the incident was outside any controlled airspace).

Even the presence of a TRA is not really relevant to this action. My understanding is that the police cannot use their helicopters to barge other air traffic out of the air. The PAOM does allow them to fly in formation with another aircraft without the other pilot's permission - but even that does not apply in this case.

And "Earpiece" - you must be joking. Why would I want to tell you where, when, whom ??

Might I offer an apology on behalf of any wrong doing by one of my comrades? I can assure you, this is not the normal way of doing business. Any helicopter pilot should have a 'rapport' with another be it on the ground or in the air [FW is different:E]

Theoretically the police officers we transport around the bazaars are afforded disciplinary powers under the auspices " agent of the authority" in the ANO. They could for instance:
breathalise another pilot, without warning if they had reason to suspect drink or drugs.
They could take the reg No of the a/c and follow it up when pursuing a criminal offence.
They could report the a/c for dangerous flying, etc etc.

What actually happens in practice though, is that none (or very little) of this goes on. It is often not possible.

Physically barracking someone either inside or outside a TRA is both irresponsible and totally unnecessary, I would suggest.
The alternative options are both practical and simple to exercise.
(radio call to a/c or ATC to identify a/c. Phone calls etc etc).

We as police helicopter pilots have absolutely NO police powers to exercise because of the badge we wear!! Rule 5 and formation exemptions (et al) are aviation benefits.

We can fly over built up areas down to 300' above the ground, provided we are on police business. It is recommended that a return trip from a police job should be carried out at normal ANO heights (1500' etc). However, we for example often recce main arterial routes on return to base, for various reasons so can be considered on a police task back to base too.

I don't want to second guess you headsethair, but it would come as a surprise to me if you were genuinely 'forced' down and then subsequently not offered an apology for the navigation error. We have our 'unprofessionals' too you know, just like the rest of the helo industry - we are certainly not whiter than white (we just try harder:ok: ).

Try listening out on guard and checking notams before you fly - then you at least stand half a chance of knowing a TRA or TDA has been established. As a matter of course, SAR aircraft get a TDA established around an overland SAROP, primarily to protect us from low flying jet traffic.

NOTAMS were checked, co-ords plotted - by my pal, but not by the ASU crew. (The NOTAM had been published for nearly 48 hours). If you read my original post, you'll see the problems.

Just to be clear - this has nothing to do with flying inside or outside a TRA. It has everything to do with an ASU pilot flying outside the regulations.

If a PPL or any other pilot did what these guys did, there'd be a swift and expensive court case and possibly a jail sentence to face. Certainly a large fine and a loss of licence. In law, ASU pilots are purely civilian pilots.

TC: believe me, it was a forcing down. And no apology has been forthcoming. (And you seem to think it was me in this incident - it wasn't).

tc
you sound on this almost human
whats wrong
regards steve

Crab,

A lot of civilian aircraft only have a single VHF radio or do not have a radio at all, and only a handfull have a UHF radio. Thus listening out on Guard is going to be difficult. It is my experience that the NOTAM system is not foolproof either.

Anyhoo, here is a good exercise for us all,

1. Take out the SAS/AP/AFCS/Stab on your aircraft
2. Maintain VFR and lookout
3. Without assistance and whilst flying the aircraft, plot a Lat/Long on your chart and draw a circle of 5 nautical mile radius around it.

Best of luck!

Concur with TC, specifically on the associated apologies front - the Police pilots I know make every effort to steer as clear as possible from those who are not as lucky to have up to four pairs of eyes looking out to "see & avoid".

As for a deliberate intercept, it would have to be a foolish fellow who wished to put themself in the path of another machine without potentially suicidal reason, surely. Not clever, or professional, when the machines flown have more than enough evidence-gathering kit onboard - camera & moving map (both recordable) ... Oh, and skyshout, of course - yes, they could shout :yuk: at the "offender" but as it's often difficult enough for people on the ground to make out what's said, it would be quite amusing air to air!!

And don't joke about blue flashing lights - it's been suggested!!!!

headsethair

There are two ways of dealing with this - we either end up with a thread that gets longer by the day whilst everyone vents their spleen or your mate does what he should have done in the first place - formally reports the incident. The fact that he doesn't want to report the matter for the reasons mentioned causes me nearly as much concern as the incident itself.

(In hindsight, as a 'grunt', it actually bothers me even more that something like this has taken place and yet professionals are trying to keep it in house so as not to cause problems for their peers - how bad does the incident have to be before it is brought to attention other than through a forum like this ?)

As a UEO of a police unit I need to know what my crews are getting up to and I wouldn't be using PPrune as my first port of call for that information.

At the very least the ASU pilot should document the incident as a Voyage Report and if it was my Unit I would expect an MOR to have been completed (proximity of aircraft etc. etc. etc.).

Anything less demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the rules and responsibility of a pilot operating in a police unit (and also brings into question the understanding of police observers as to their responsibilites) .

Police Observers are simply 'passengers' and, as documented in many threads in this Forum, have no control over what the pilot does or does not do - CAP 612 makes it quite clear as to who the 'Commander' of the aircraft is and what s/he can do (or not).

Police powers are an irrelevance in this situation - we don't have any!!

If your mate was genuinely 'forced ' out of the air then the pilot involved should be 'spoken to' (endangering an aircraft springs to mind) and the Unit involved identified - how else does police aviation go forward? Hiding these incidents under the guise of PPrune is not the answer.

And here's me as a grunt trying to encourage police officers to understand that police pilots are professionals and that we should respect that fact whilst developing a 'no blame culture'.

Have I been wasting my time?


McT

(Apologies for spelling / grammar but three bottles of Shiraz dulls the senses)

Many thanks for the replies. Have to say I agree that a report should be filed. Also agree that this is not the place to have the hearing!
Some very interesting replies from police pilots.
You learn - and you hope to live.

In reply to the post about us putting airspace 'out of bounds'. I have done this before inside a zone. I have no divine right to do it, but have you thought WHY it might be done. Stop thinking that we are flexing egos and think for a moment, there might be a reason. You know..... like safety for instance? Without going into too much detail, two instances. A bloke went mad with a knife, every time he saw us, or any other aircraft he started going off his head and threatening his partner. Second, a person went overboard from a boat at night in poor weather just on a SVFR route out of the zone. We were working hard to locate him. In both cases I 'requested' aircraft be kept away. That is not unreasonable in my books, I can't demand, but ATC obliged anyway.
On the force down issue, absolutely right, we are civilian pilots operating for a business. We have no rights to do that. Incidentally, why was the TRA set up? Was there a threat to life if the ac continued?

Forcing down
 

Guys,

I always belived it was always terminal when the picture looked like this:-

http://www.heliteam.no/bilder/koptermjager.jpg

Until then i belive an ASU has no right to force a helo down.

I may be wrong and i am sure i will hear about it soon enough.

MD :ouch:

Jayteeto: a bit over the top for a TRA eh? I bet commercial traffic loved you:eek:

MD900: ?

I didn't make it a TRA in the real sense and it was the GA traffic that had to route around me (one mile). It was only for half an hour each time. My point was that it can make life easier and safer for some people, just by a piece of common sense.

What did you ask ATC for then? Was it some kind of compulsory avoid area that I've not heard of?

No??? I asked in plain language. Something like 'we have an incident going on in this area that would benefit from being air traffic free for a short while... please'. Liverpool ATC were extremely helpful. I guess that if I had tried to do this on the approach/departure path, i would have been told to $$$$ off!! If you are nice to them and not demanding they will bend over backwards to help. As always, common sense helps. Remember, if you have a serious enough situation, you can follow the PAOM and suffix your callsign etc etc

Concur with jayteeto - with a busy zone in the locality, an explanatory request invariably keeps the callsign un-suffixed, even when sitting in a dark 700' hover, 3 miles down the climbout. If you tell them what you're doing (and why, if it's likely to be a bit close for some people's comfort), do it, & illuminate yourself accordingly, life can remain relatively calm - even with 737s climbing out above. I've not yet managed to find out how much flex the commercial planks have when they're informed, visual, happy with the separation, but their TCAS gets excited - we've not caused a go-around yet!

In any case, it's never been a problem here because ATC tend to believe us when we do what we say we're going to do - i.e. professionally, which is what the thread of this post's all about, I think :cool:

Liverpool ATC actually offered a TRA to me on one job. This caused a slight pause in the cockpit as I contemplated this power that was being thrust upon me! As it was, I decided that the small amount of GA traffic around at the time didn't warrant it, so declined the offer.

WL

I think Crab was just demonstrating his superior aviation skills and civilian know-how once again for the benefit of us all!

Oh to be so good....

The Directorate of Airspace Policy have a very good read called:

"Instructions for Establishing Emergency Flying Restrictions within the United Kingdom Flight Information Regions" DAP/AUS/202/Legal

It does exactly what it says on the tin!

FNW

So, if I had been in the vicinity of this incident, or possibly on-board, I could tell you the ASU's explanation of the TRA. It was, they said, a noise issue, to prevent disturbance to those working within the TRA. Strange then that the only heli operating within the TRA was the ASU's noisy machine, flying considerably lower than any other aircraft, and directly over what would have been the centre of the TRA if the coordinates had been correctly published.

They also burnt up a good chunk of tax-payers money whilst sitting rotors running on the ground for nearly 25 minutes.

Rattle : lets make some assumptions:
1) Aircraft will be at ground idle
2) Approx fuel usage 110 kg per hour

At the approximate current costs for fuel ( as the aircraft is not airbourne and not clocking up flying and thus maintenance) I make the cost to the besiged British tax payer just under £15 + VAT.

Wow:E

I am sorry to hear about the noise, however in my opinion the crew of the aircraft will be carrying out detailed necessary filming for the subsequent inquiry.

Rattle,
IF you had been in the area or, IF you had been in the aircraft, then you would have been fully aware of what the TRA had been established to “protect”. It would seem then, that you, or perhaps someone else on board the aircraft, decided, possibly for commercial reasons, correctly plotted or not, it did not apply to you. IMHO, it smacks a bit of bl00dy mindedness. :suspect:
As I understand it, there was another aircraft, possibly a Gazelle, even lower than the Police aircraft that day who over flew the site, not once but three times who, apparently, didn’t know it was there at all.

1. Perhaps this was to minimise the noise to those working on the ground, while keeping the aircraft close at hand ready to respond to short-notice tasking?

2. Perhaps sitting on the ground ready to go, but only burning fuel at ground-idle burn-rates, is cheaper to the taxpayer than having the aircraft flying orbits on station?

I don't know the answers, 'cos I'm nothing to do with the task - but these seem reasonable. What was the task?

A turbine engine cycle due to a shutdown and restart can be far more expensive than the fuel used at ground idle.

Fortyodd: you're mixing up the days. And you would appear not have the facts at your fingertips. Please don't forget that even Police ASU aircraft operate for commercial reasons.......

Fortyodd

Do you recommend using the coordinates published in a NOTAM, or basing a TRA on where you think it should be? Could be tricky to defend yourself if you make up your own centre.

Seem to remember that the coordinates were changed soon after this incident. Maybe they were wrong but nobody wanted to admit it?

Please don't forget that even Police ASU aircraft operate for commercial reasons.......

When do UK Police Air Ops Units operate for commercial reasons? Can I get a rebate on my Council Tax if they're getting funds from elsewhere? :D

Erm - well I think you'll find that people like Sterling appreciate it if their aircraft actually fly and make a profit for them. Unless, of course, they just do it for the good of the community.
Point is - throwing a commercial distraction into this argument is pointless. The ASU helicopter did everything wrong and very little right. And it's just ever so slightly worrying that a police pilot thinks he has the right to force other aircraft out of the sky. Let alone the fact that he doesn't check a TRA or plot it on a chart - doesn't the ANO require ALL pilots to preflight plan ??
And before anyone chimes in with "emergency" or "saving lives" this incident occurred nearly 48 hours after an event.

Ah, that's because we can. :E

Rattle,

."Do you recommend using the coordinates published in a NOTAM, or basing a TRA on where you think is should be? Could be tricky to defend yourself if you make up your own centre".

If presented with the same scenario I would recommend getting in touch with the controlling authority and asking first - something along the lines of "I've been tasked by XYZ TV company to get some footage of the incident at blah, do you mind if I...... etc, etc, and does your ASU have a freq I can talk to them on to avoid getting in anyone's way".

Saves a lot of :{ all round.

Ah. Has anybody mentioned that the phone number on the NOTAM was also incorrect? Good day all round for the pen pushers.