Silsoe; afraid you come across as so far up your backside that even a nightsun couldn't enlighten you!

MightGem appears to have kindly clarified the situation.

And just in case you are still hiding in that dark hole;

What is a Police Community Support Officer?

Thank you Mr.B, however you still haven't answered the question of what the role of the PCSO on this flight was. I have read your link telling us what a PCSO is, but that answers nothing and confirms that they are employees of a police force and would therefore need to be on the aircraft 'in the course of their duty', in order to be CAA agreed. I'm only asking what that might be.

As you seem to be on the other side of the fence, why do we need to have a specific chapter on what defines a CAA Agreed Passenger anyway? What real difference does it make?

Please enlighten me :sad:


Perhaps you could also clear up a concern from one of the locals...

Silsoe - no fence where I'm standing.

Perhaps your queries are best pointed at your friendly Line Training Captain and if it's safety related your FSO? Hopefully no-one will think you're going mad.

Cabby - sitting watching a video will take a comparable amount of time - if the aircraft is going anyway surely there are benefits to being onboard? Better all round view, introduction to air ops, names, faces, places, understanding?

I would think it highly unlikely the aircraft flew all the way to the Scilly Isles just to take a PCSO on a 'jolly'! Maybe the PCSO was there to provide local knowledge?

Mr.B, plenty of insults, but no answers. :=
By that we can only take it that you do not know. As you are taking a stance on something you are lost on, let me enlighten you.

The sentence (in 612) is quite clear,

CAA-Agreed Passenger
Operations to the full extent of PAOC flexibility are restricted to those occasions wherein any passenger has been drawn from one of the following categories (referred to in the ANO as 'permitted passengers'). Such passengers shall be known as 'CAA-agreed passengers':
a) Police Officer;
b) employee of a police authority in the course of his duty;
c) medical attendant;
d) holder of a current pilot's licence who intends to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a PAOC and who is being carried for the purpose of training and familiarisation;
e) CAA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI);
f) HomeOfficePoliceAviationAdviser;
g) employee of a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 in the course of his duty;
h) officer of revenue and customs on a joint Police/Customs operation;
i) employee of the Ministry of Defence in the course of his duty; or
j) such other person being carried for purposes connected with police operations as may be permitted in writing by the CAA.

There's no problem taking the PCSO for the trip you describe, (which in my opinion is not in the course of their duties), or any member of the general public as it happens, as long as management are happy. I asked you to enlighten us as to what restrictions that would impose, So please do so without resorting to the insults.

As far as the fence reference is concerned, I do wish you would read the relevant post and not just see a word and assume the rest of the sentence :ugh:

Basics!
 

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, yet also a reminder for those pre-planned trips;

In light of recent events, overnight bags will soon be issued to units

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ps6110c9bd.jpg

:ok:

SS

What's your address ? I have just packed my Kevlar infantry issue helmet and FedEx are awaiting to ship it up to you !!!

H500, normally found digging a hole not too far from here :suspect:

The postie knows where to leave the package :ok:

Is anyone still in the employ of a police authority? I thought it was the Police and Crime Commissioner that ran the show now.

H500

That rules out female PCSO's completely then :E

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1.../Coconutty.jpg

:rolleyes:

SS
I am impressed as I was on my mountain bike cycling past laughter tor yesterday !!! :)

SS - 'enlighten up'

The links to the documents were posted by others so why enlighten you by cutting and pasting? CAP612 is easily read on the CAA website.

Perhaps the PCSO was bringing local knowledge to the reconnaissance flight? Would that be in the course of their duty?

Please share when you have flown Police Employees (other than Police Officers) and under what circumstances?

Fence suggest boundaries. I thought NPAS reduced the fences? Not long now until the West Midlands fence falls eh?

Cabby - I never realised extra passengers reduced fuel endurance - thanks for that. I now understand why that Bell 47 I fly really doesn't get very far with 15 on board.

Perhaps an EC145 driver can enlighten us as to what effect that 4th passenger will actually have on the fuel endurance of a Police Role equipped EC145?!? Lets assume they weigh 200lbs eh? Afterall there is plenty of assuming going on here!

As for Jolly - heaven forbid people actually enjoying their work eh? Crumbs! Stop all the smiles - lets make it illegal to smile. Let's also ban laughter and Lough-Tor - but not before I fly there please - I'd like to make at least one more enjoyable flight!

Mr.B, you seem to have lost the plot :hmm:

No one has posted the piece I was referring to from the 612, the part just before 'a)', that why I posted it :rolleyes:

So the PCSO was there to give local knowledge! That contradicts your earlier post where you suggested they were receiving local knowledge :confused:

Plenty of times, but not to the full extent of the PAOC flexibility :p

The fence reference is nothing more than to indicate that you were looking at this from one point of view, I, another. (As in, you're on one side of a fence and I'm on the other) :ugh:

West Mids, I believe, have flown beyond fences for some time now as has the rest of the 'Central Region Air Support Units". Little change come October :ok:

Mr.B, further plot loss;

Why don't you google 145 fuel burn rate and apply it to 200lbs :ugh:

If they are doing 'their work', they wouldn't be on a jolly :ugh:

SS - :ugh:

Fuel only becomes an issue IF that 4th passenger takes the weight over that required for take-off which is going to be either MAUW or a possibly a lesser value if that particular airframe so dictates in order to achieve required performance for the flight to safely occur.

As I do not fly the EC145 nor can find any role equipped APS figures I am happy to ask the question on here: Unlike you who seems to ask questions on things you ALREADY clearly know!

As this is an EC145 perhaps a 4th passenger can be happily flown WITHOUT affecting endurance which means the PCSO being on board the aircraft had no NEGATIVE affect? Adding 1 passenger doesn't always reduce the fuel you can carry.

Knowledge is a two way thing. It is actually possible to be in a situation where by your offering your knowledge and gaining some at the same time...

If there is little change to come to you in October then you clearly have nothing to worry about then! Perhaps you might even consider being more supportive of future colleagues instead of looking for reasons to slate them?

Totally agree mr b

Take a chill pill SS

whats wrong with bringing a bit of fun to ones work , so what if it was a bit of a jolly . Have you never taken anyone for a ride before ?

Anyway at least she knows what the helicopter is doing up there and how it works in conjunction with ground forces and she will get a birds eye view of her patch all of that is a bonus


Sounds like your more upset with your feelings of possible impending doom later this year ,What will happen will happen,i dont think you will have any choice Live with it

Mr.B,

Now, I'm not to sure whether it's these onions I'm chopping or what you just said that's making me cry, but once I recover I'll get back to the rest of your post :)

We used to reduce fuel for an extra pax on the 135. What's the point of launching with spare payload, getting a task and wishing you had fuel. If I had a 145 nothing would change, a pax would be reducing flying endurance every time. If you are launching with payload available, have a word with yourself!

Aaaah, that's better :)

Right then, who started this fuel issue thing and why?
I'm no 145 driver either, however what I would do is Click here

Look at the PDF file second on the list and go to page 52 and the 'Performance on 2 Engines' chart. Now, as I understand, consumption is based on ac weight (or whichever other term you may wish to use for the ac loaded up) and not any particular role fit. So take your pax weight, look at the chart and hey presto you can see how much flying time your 200lb person takes up. (You wil notice that additional weight does in fact affect the flight time, endurance, but in this case it would be negligible)

I think what you were trying to say was that if the ac fuel load was at a level at which the addition of a pax didn't take it over the MAUW, then there is no problem with the fuel loading. Well done on stating the obvious :rolleyes:

But as this part of the total thread isn't about fuel, whatever....


As far as October is concerned, I have no probs at all. In fact I'm looking forward to it as I always have done. For some if us it is really going to widen our horizons. You forget that this is a long time coming and some of us have waited a long time for it to finally happen. It makes total sense if you knew what was happening here before.

You seem to have missed the point (again) that there is nothing wrong with taking the PCSO up, as previously mentioned and the only slating anyone is getting here is the old overnight kit basic schoolboy error :ok: