Civilians as Police air observers
As an outsider, I've been reading this with interest. I made statements earlier, which various people have disagreed with, fine, your experience is greater than mine.
When I few as a civilian flight test observer in military aircraft, what qualified me to do that (apart from necessary aircrew training) was long experience as an aeronautical engineer. This qualified me for the task better than, say, an RAF Navigator who could do the flying job much better but didn't understand the technology which was the purpose of the sortie.
It appears that the same is true with a Police Observer, he or she obviously needs a deep understanding of Police work. The argument seems to be that it's far more efficient to take a good policeman and train them to be an observer, than to take somebody with good aircrew credentials and train them in the necessary police work skills. An ex-policeman who happens now to be a civilian is really in the same category.
I suspect this is probably the opposite of the pilot, who needs to be a very capable aviator, but nonetheless will need some training in police operations. The principle is the same, the emphasis is different.
Does this basically sum it up?
G
When I few as a civilian flight test observer in military aircraft, what qualified me to do that (apart from necessary aircrew training) was long experience as an aeronautical engineer. This qualified me for the task better than, say, an RAF Navigator who could do the flying job much better but didn't understand the technology which was the purpose of the sortie.
It appears that the same is true with a Police Observer, he or she obviously needs a deep understanding of Police work. The argument seems to be that it's far more efficient to take a good policeman and train them to be an observer, than to take somebody with good aircrew credentials and train them in the necessary police work skills. An ex-policeman who happens now to be a civilian is really in the same category.
I suspect this is probably the opposite of the pilot, who needs to be a very capable aviator, but nonetheless will need some training in police operations. The principle is the same, the emphasis is different.
Does this basically sum it up?
G
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: err not tellin anymore
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonah and Semi-rigid,
this is going slightly off topic but I want to address youre points about civvy controllers.
(Firstly) I'm not a comms controller I carry out a different civvy job which requires limited police knowledge that was taught in a week and as such freed up a valuable resource by allowing an officer back on the street, but I digress...
Sorry to hear of you're experience of civvy comms controllers. I can assure you that I have never heard a single officer say anything bad about the service they are provided by the Civvies in my divisional control room. In fact the force as a whole looks upon civvy control room staff as such a valuable commodity that they are amalgamating all the divisional control rooms into one central Force Control Centre, and are also talking about replacing some of the sergeants with Senior Comms Controllers, thereby freeing more officers for front line duties. This could be where the problem will come as the controllers are removed from the teams and locations they are 'controlling' but time will tell.
If your comms controllers are capable of little more than reading command and control then maybe your force has some training issues to address.
I can't believe my force is the only one where Civvy staff could be almost as good as the Police equivalent (obviously I would never dare suggest a civvy could do a job as well as his/her Police Officer colleague).
p.s. on the note of experience, how does that work with the two or three comms controllers in my division who have more service than any other officer in the division? remember us poor civvies dont get to retire after 25-30 years service, we have to battle on into senility <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
pps I'm not trying to bait you, I genuinly do feel that Civvies can enhance the service provided to the public when used intelligently.
this is going slightly off topic but I want to address youre points about civvy controllers.
(Firstly) I'm not a comms controller I carry out a different civvy job which requires limited police knowledge that was taught in a week and as such freed up a valuable resource by allowing an officer back on the street, but I digress...
Sorry to hear of you're experience of civvy comms controllers. I can assure you that I have never heard a single officer say anything bad about the service they are provided by the Civvies in my divisional control room. In fact the force as a whole looks upon civvy control room staff as such a valuable commodity that they are amalgamating all the divisional control rooms into one central Force Control Centre, and are also talking about replacing some of the sergeants with Senior Comms Controllers, thereby freeing more officers for front line duties. This could be where the problem will come as the controllers are removed from the teams and locations they are 'controlling' but time will tell.
If your comms controllers are capable of little more than reading command and control then maybe your force has some training issues to address.
I can't believe my force is the only one where Civvy staff could be almost as good as the Police equivalent (obviously I would never dare suggest a civvy could do a job as well as his/her Police Officer colleague).
p.s. on the note of experience, how does that work with the two or three comms controllers in my division who have more service than any other officer in the division? remember us poor civvies dont get to retire after 25-30 years service, we have to battle on into senility <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
pps I'm not trying to bait you, I genuinly do feel that Civvies can enhance the service provided to the public when used intelligently.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Zorab UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a standpoint of some experience, I'm of the opinion that Nitesun has the edge - you need competent airborne systems operators who also understand the science of searching; capable communicators (both in brevity & clarity) and people who ask the right, relevant, questions of the front line police on the ground. You do not necessarily need dyed-in-the-wool police who often have neither the interest, inclination, nor (sometimes) intellect, to understand their kit to the best of its, and their, ability. . .The argument that only experienced police (although 5year bobbies have often proved more capable as air observers, after just a few months, than some of the regular team) will do as air observers has to be tempered with the qualities of other experiences - 12-16+ years of military aviating is likely to be a little more relevant, especially with the newer generation aircraft & equipment, than a similar time pounding the beat. Use both experiences to the maximum by combining for enhancement, rather than creating an unbridgeable divide?
You still can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
You still can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that i should make it clear that I am not seeking employment in police avaiation, this thread is generally heading in the direction I originally hoped. I had expected to stir up a healthy debate with my comments as the original thread had died. Many police units are looking at civilianisation, and police observers are quite rightly seeking to justify their roles. The arguments made by the pro police lobby hold water only to those who are willing to be swayed in that direction, to those in the seats of power holding the purse strings those arguments will fall on deaf ears because they can only see ways of reducing the budgets, that will, mean that civvies will gradually take those police roles, despite all the good work that the police observers do. You can argue the case til the cows come home, in the end it comes down to economics, and the decisions will be made by someone who is ill informed, and has no regard for the work done by the police observer.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Retirement home..
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitesun,
There are quite a few of those ill-informed people on this thread, by the looks of it.
I agree that those holding the purse strings continually make poor decisions. Quality is judged to matter for little these days, in many areas, until it becomes a crisis management situation.
Unfortunately, there are some with both power and ignorance ready to stop police aviation altogether. Once the quality of the result reduces, their case is reinforced. However, some ASUs have already learned a salutory lesson by opting for the cheapest option.
This case is still well worth fighting for.
There are quite a few of those ill-informed people on this thread, by the looks of it.
I agree that those holding the purse strings continually make poor decisions. Quality is judged to matter for little these days, in many areas, until it becomes a crisis management situation.
Unfortunately, there are some with both power and ignorance ready to stop police aviation altogether. Once the quality of the result reduces, their case is reinforced. However, some ASUs have already learned a salutory lesson by opting for the cheapest option.
This case is still well worth fighting for.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a little change in this thread, but RAF Cranwell do aptitude testing for police air observers.
has anyone done this and what might it entail, and also anything to practise before hand?
has anyone done this and what might it entail, and also anything to practise before hand?
