Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning
Reload this Page >

Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?

Wikiposts
Search
Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Police Aviation...............safety problem or not ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th Nov 2005, 11:14
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Oh please........
It is called getting the crew involved. If I ask you to look for a mast and you are too busy or it is silent, then we go home?? I don't think so. Is it unsafe if you are heads in?? I don't think so. It is just sensible to use everything available to help.
Please dont get me wrong, I am NOT a prima donna who ignores the crew, ask any of my flight, but I fly to my abilities as if I was the only person in the aircraft. If I get some ASSISTANCE, then fantastic. If not, I NEVER push the limits in order to put my crew or machine at risk.
Your comment on the pilot making a spot first works against you by the way. If he is busy flying the aircraft and cant look for the bad guy, does that mean you cant do your job and should go home? Of course not, it means when he can help, he does, when he can't, he doesnt. Just like the observers with the pilot.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2005, 14:34
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JT

you say they are freight now you are saying they are crew. The observers according to the CAA are not crew. And come the day there is a major accident the lawers will have a field day. Who was naving the aircraft? Why are Pax naving the aircraft? etc etc

As has been said, pilots have their bad days (and nights), dont you? And if you are having a bad day and so is your Nav assist (who you will become very reliant on) then its all going to become pearshaped.

As Morris1 says

I agree with jaytee... im simply freight..!! get me to the job and i'll point it out on the ground and do the stuff as far the police work is involved. Put me in with a floating pilot who doesnt know the area, and i'll do the same.. we will still get around the county (safely) My skills or otherwise at reading air charts, GPS readouts, TCAS indications, approach plates, Ts and Ps etc etc are of no consequence if it all went tits.. the Pilot would be held blameworthy.
JT the 'floating pilot wont have the local SA to know about 'steering around the 3 mile avoid'. I agree with you it is about Captaincy, but the current situation is a cop out (edited because there really was no pun intended) , and questionable in a legal sense as well.

JT and Morris
We are missing the point here. It doesnt matter who is blameworthy if 3 of you are dead. With a fully qualified licensed crew the Captain is always held responsible under law anyway. The guys should be licensed. For those observers that dont want to be licensed because of rostering or pay benifits etc, then get out of aviation. Professionals involved in aviation are ALL licensed.

If No2 failed, then he should fail, end of story. You can teach anyone to pass any course, but you are looking for people that can grip a standard in a certain amount of time.

Standing by
Tigs2 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2005, 21:27
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The thread inflates slowly..............

Well,

My initial crack was........................


"Is this a safety issue"


It still to me looks as if it is, 3 pairs of eyes out are better than only 1 pair or 2.................


If student No2 is up to their ears doing A-Z stuff and never has time to look out the window, then maybe they are maxxed out and have no additional capacity.

Me personally Im no top professional multi tasker, I get by and manage. But surely there has to be a bit of space left in the grey blob when flying to cram a bit more operational use into.


If the driver bollicks it up then its the biggest bang & last in your life, if the observer does with an A-Z we will go home that night. However if that observer misses the safety calls, be them totally trivial and often repeated, then a pilot on nights who hasnt slept well may avoid flying into the mast and the big bang.


Decisions have to be made whether its "Best Value" (Police terminology for cheaper) to continue training the student.

Bring it on......................





Waldo
Waldo_Plopper is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2005, 14:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Selection makes a difference

We had the problem, some years ago, when we ran a course for potential Obs - some from other Forces, who had been "selected", and some from our own who had just had an interview & "flight test". It was patently obvious, after one or two training flights (to anyone who had ever been in a military training environment), that some would have little problem, some would require a deal of work to get them up to speed and some would never pass as long as their a**e pointed downwards.

Result was we lost one one the course, one went after a lot more time & money had been spent & the other transferred to a neighbouring force, though no loss IHMO. No real surprise that the "selected" ones still operate very effectively (if my spies are to be believed) - just a shame they're not working for us!

The consequence of all this? The policy which didn't allow selection, for all the namby-pamby reasons previously mentioned, has now been changed - potential Obs now sit a very thorough set of selection papers ("borrowed" from the force that sent us an Obs to train who didn't really need training) prior to the flight test. Whilst some can pass the selection tests (which actually relate to the sort of skills that are most sought in a Police Obs), some still sweat buckets on the flight test & it's just as obvious that these people are going to struggle - what's the point of wasting oodles of tax-payer's money on training anyone but those who have an aptitude. It's no criticism of the individual, it's just a completely alien environment to many people whose brains live on Terra Firma and are only ever going to be able to find their way around in two dimensions. As others have said, if they're maxed out on the basic Nav, how can they expect to do the more challenging, multi-tasking, jobs when on scene - unless they're being "carried" by the other members of the team, which normally includes the pilot.

As Rowan Atkinson said in Belfast " If you don't know where you are, how do you know you're there when you get there?"
zorab64 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2005, 10:04
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
I have tried to be diplomatic and have failed... Ok, here we go, apologies for my tone.
Tigs, you twist my words when you say crew. On an airliner, the cabin crew are crew!! But they don't navigate the aircraft, so if you want to pull my use of english apart, thats up to you. I stand by what I said.
Ask me another question, do I think the observers should be crew?? Yes I do actually. Then things will be different and if they end up with more navigational responsibility, the training standards should, and WILL, change. At the moment, in my opinion, things are ok.
You state, what if things go pearshape when they are navigating (+ being reliant)?? LISTEN!!!!!! They don't navigate here!!!! Which bit do you not understand?? They assist in lookout, but I would ask my grannie to do that if she was flying with me.
The floating pilot would not have the SA to navigate around avoids?? How dare you!! If he can't navigate, then its time to stop flying and buy flightsim.
The bit about all being dead.... If you fly outside your limits and push your luck, you are a penis. Recent accidents have been caused by other problems.
I am glad you were not my instructor at RAF Cranwell and Shawbury. I needed a bit extra training, got it, and passed. All through the system, I was never the brightest one and I needed every bit of training going, including my flex. But I did it in the end. I think you did the course with us at Shawbury CFS?? All students different? Remember?
I have chopped many people over the years, but they always got a fair chance, the first question we always asked was: Could this be our fault, not theirs?
The fundemental question is: Is there a safety problem or not? The answer is NO there is not. Things could be run differently, but safety is just fine.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2005, 15:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JT
Tsk Tsk! we are getting touchy. Now whos twisting words. You were describing a situation where you are flying, the ob was naving (i.e map in hand) and mentioned an avoid. You with your local area knowledge say 'steering around the avoid'! the floating pilot may not have your local SA and will therefore (without the map) be unaware of the avoid and those landmarks that would guarantee deconfliction!! Dont start the how dare you bit! No i did not go to CFS with you. Get off your high horse and try to discuss things on an adult basis. I imagine there are some lovely CRM situations could arise in your cockpit.

I did not twist your words or tear apart your english, reading your last response i doubt you have read my previous reply and comprehended it correctly at all.
you have just said

You state, what if things go pearshape when they are navigating (+ being reliant)?? LISTEN!!!!!! They don't navigate here!!!! Which bit do you not understand?? They assist in lookout
you said previously that they navigate, now you are shouting Listen they assist in lookout only, no wonder i dont understand!You are twisting your own words.

The bit about all being dead.... If you fly outside your limits and push your luck, you are a penis. Recent accidents have been caused by other problems.
But the fact still remains JT you could be a dead P***s. You keep repeating this as if you never make mistakes, it does not have any relevance who is to blame, if a team cant get it together on the flight deck the consequences can be fatal. What are 'the other problems' that have caused recent accidents?


I am glad you were not my instructor at RAF Cranwell and Shawbury.
No need to get personal now. Please re-read my post and explain on what your basis is for that comment. I discuss CRM issues only. If it is because i state

If No2 failed, then he should fail, end of story. You can teach anyone to pass any course, but you are looking for people that can grip a standard in a certain amount of time.
Why on earth can that statement upset you? You can teach EVERY single adult in the uk to fly an aircraft, just give them enough hours ( several thousand may be needed in some cases!).

This is a safety issue JT, and as such deserves to be discussed as one would hope you do in the cockpit, calmly, maturely and non-egotistically.

I am glad we agree on one thing, that the observers should be crew.
Tigs2 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2005, 16:20
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Jarrow
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jayteeto, i've never met you or been to your area of operations but i wonder what your definition of navigating is? do you get them to the nearest town or village or the exact street using your A to Z.

Because our pilots can be over rural areas, anywhere in an area of over 3500 square miles, they dont know where everything is, nor do we for that matter.

Where I work we have to navigate, its as simple as that, and if the weather isnt the best we all step up a gear, follow things on the map and leave the pilot to fly, maintain visual references, talk to air traffic/radar/military ranges and monitor all the systems. If the pilot knows we're going near an avoid he will say so "wheres the prison from here?" etc. If he is unfamiliar we will tell him. When this happens its almost constant conversation in the cockpit about direction/hazards/what the next town is at one o'clock etc

If the pilot doesn't know where somewhere is we will check the map on the way out or give him the nearest big town as a starter. But that town can be at the bottom of a ten mile valley, with the target at the top.

We can take off on a sortie and have to travel 80 miles or more before we get there. Then the pilot has to start working his a*se off trying to position the aircraft where we need him with a tailwind, heavy rain etc etc.


I cant talk our pilots up enough - they're the dogs danglers..

Sorry I simply cant believe you do all the nav...

On our unit - somone who cant nav is a liabilty we cant afford
bandeeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 02:01
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bandeedto

Do you think that the obs should be invested in, in terms of more costed , dedicated training hours because of the role they are needed to perform (note needed not expected)? Do you think you (Obs) should be recognised crew members by the CAA or doesnt it matter( cant see how as in comments from others this would effect overtime, but dont know your pay system)? By the way i am not a sado with the time of posting, i'm in the Far East at the moment.

Tigs
Tigs2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 07:18
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Ok, maybe I was being touchy and I apologise and will keep this short.
As the rules stand NOW, the pilot is responsible for navigation. In my earlier post, I was not saying the observer was navigating the ac. He had a map and was telling me where he WANTED to go, but the pilot gets him there. Yes they do the A-Z bit, but when you are down to individual street level, avoids have already been avoided generally. You are down to tactical nav then. Our crews/passengers then ask to pilot to follow the car to xyz, but they concentrate on the job in hand. The pilot does piloty things like avoids. I repeat my earlier statement, if your crews are doing PRIMARY navigation, then you are doing it wrong. AS THE RULES STAND NOW, if your pilot can't cope, then get another pilot. Don't use the passengers for primary nav.
I admit it, I sometimes call it if I become unsure of position for a few seconds and have been helped, but if there is danger/avoid nearby, I am extra extra careful and would drop a target vehicle to head in my PREPLANNED safe direction, rather than 'bong'.
No high horse here, I have no problems with CRM, my how dare you was justified in this situation. I agree there are BETTER ways to do things, I agree the pax should be crew, I strongly DISAGREE that there is a safety issue here. If there was the CAA would be down on us like a ton of bricks, they aren't.
Bandeedo, although I am a pilot I am a mere mortal, but yes, I do the aircraft nav and the observers tell me where the job is (extremely accurately), including distance and heading. I avoid things.
PS, some people take more time to learn and become good observers. If they don't show potential, agreed, chop them. But give a chance first.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 08:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Just driven to work and we are u/s, so we had a crew chat (or should I say pilot/passenger chat). The bobbies agree with me. They hold a map and tell me where they want to go. They expect ME to do avoids. So, maybe we do it different to others, I will accept that.
So where does this leave us? A lot of you seem to allow observers to carry out primary navigation, which I believe is incorrect, my opinion of course. Tigs, you seem to think someone might die if this carries on. I have the solution

http://www.caa.co.uk/homepage.aspx

This is the CAA website. If you truly believe what you have said so far, as an aviation professional, you are duty bound to report this to the authorities. It really is a case of put up or shut up, because if this IS a safety issue, it needs to be sorted.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 08:32
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As an ex Puma crewman, now J model Herc loadie, I have been reading this thread with a wry smile on my face. The evil thought runnning through my mind, not a long journey I know, was why not just employ ex SH crewman in the Ob's role cos that would sort the whole issue out quite nicely

Then it all got a bit heated, Tigs and co I may have met but JT I have flown with on numerous occasions and a more professional, safety conscious and CRM advocate I have seldom met, despite the fact he is a geordie git

Reading his posts I picked up on what I thought were some sound and salient points

The buck stops with the A/C captain....despite some pay issues

The captain is responsible for the Nav FULL STOP!

CRM is vital, however the above points take precedence

Ob's, rightly or wrongly, he idicates wrongly, are not crew.

Any help the Ob's gives is a bonus but reliance on it by any captain is bad juju!

All seems pretty clear to me and I just serve pies and make tea

Sounds like Ob's training is a bit of a fudge and not robust enough, I think back to my Puma/Wessex days of "nav" from the centre seat or bubble window at night, low level and on gog's and can't imagine how you develop competant Ob's in just three weeks.

JT do you think it's time to send for SH

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 08:43
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Thanks Joe, I haven't changed, I still do the CRM bit and I am still a geordie git!!
Our course is only two weeks, it is an introduction to navigation, as you know, it takes a lot longer to 'crack it'.
Ex SH loadmasters might be the answer you know, you can navigate and operate aircraft systems. Only the camera to learn really, all taught formally in the past so the training burden would be nil.
One thing though, you could never ever ever ever ever join the police, you have to pass phsycological tests.............
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 08:50
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JT

Thanks for your candid reply (for what its worth, respect +200 points). I was not saying someone might die if this carries on, i am locking on to the fact that quite a few people have been implying on this thread that its ok for the OB to Nav or operate but if they screw up then the Capt is still responsible. Re-read the thread. As i said the Capt is always responsible, however if we are expecting him to be informed of potentially critical information by a non-licensed person then if anything happened(god forbid) the s**t would hit the fan. I know many Obs who would love to go through the Licensing process(and some who wouldn't!), the problem is that the CAA bow to organisational pressure(i'll go to hell for that one).

All broken

you're right give me an SH crewman any day. By the way we have flown together many times, now i have thought about your handle which i have thought about for years it all makes sense. We used to teach the crewmen and Nav to fly in case we took a bullet in the chest( no costed hours, we just did it). Cant be there in London tonight(18th) stuck in bloody KL.

JT
not having a go at all, just want some mates who want CAA status to have it. Would trust all ex -RAF pilots with my life (and have done and will continue to do so for many years)

Tigs
Tigs2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 09:00
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Great we agree, I want them to be recognised as well
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 10:49
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Jarrow
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Tigs2, do i think obs should be crew?

No, i dont think they need to be. For one thing my life policies have a question in about aircraft crew!!

I agree with everyone that the buck stops with the pilot. All the pilots are experts with lots of hours and more than capable of doing all the Nav. Ours do A to Z finds on their line checks too.

The good thing about helicopters is if the pilot isn't happy where he is then he can stop, get the maps out and check, and put us all in our place.

I'm not a fan of these forums cos as we all know from our CRM training 80% of communication is Non Verbal and there is no tone inflexion hre etc etc..but here goes..

If we go back to the original scenario with candidate 2 not being any good at nav....If we all subscribe to the CRM theory, then if the CRM is out of balance, it must be a flight safety issue.

Anyone with knowledge of Police aviation knows that when everything is going off outside the cockpit on the ground...we all need to be calm and in control in the cockpit. If someone is being carried then its just not a good situation.

If you start a sortie knowing that one of the passengers isnt up to it, CRM must be affected.

Any thoughts...just to turn it round...is CRM a flight safety issue?

Teamwork works..if your a team
bandeeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 12:15
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Ah, now we are getting there!! Yes I agree, if you are carrying someone because they are weak, then CRM for the police job can break down and the job doesn't get done, the criminal can get away.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2005, 18:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Police should remain as passengers. No Chief constable will want to lose conrol of their officers for a start. If you wanted "crew" in the aircraft then the Police should bite the bullet and have two pilots up front, with properly equipt aircraft.

As usual its down to cost isnt it?

Hnh
huntnhound is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2005, 10:40
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm glad tempers have cooled off a bit here.

It all boils down to both control and CRM. The pilot must be in command and in control at all times. However, he cannot be a one-man band and it makes sense, particularly when things are tricky, as they so often are in this line of work, to make use of all resources available.

Yes, an Ob holds the ground map and says "I want to go here", but it is down to the pilot to put him there in the right place and, in doing so, to navigate, to avoid obstacles, terrain and other aircraft. One of the hardest things he will have to do is to say "Sorry, we need to pull off this job/target/whatever as I'm not happy about the weather/safety/visibility/whatever", particularly if it's an important job. But it needs the pilot to remain objective, even under pressure from a target-orientated Ob.

And finally, I cannot foresee any circumstances in which and Chief Constable is ever going to agree to police Obs' being subject to an FTL scheme. Consequently, in the view of the CAA/JAA, they will always be passengers, not crew.
Captain Stable is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.