Just the one right enough. Prior to April it was Strathclyde Police who operated it - though it could be used by other forces using the "mutual aid" system.
Contrary to TV programmes, they tend to be used more in searches for missing persons or criminals, rather than the "hot pursuit" scenario
That's been mentioned in the media quite a few times so it does look like there was only one.
I am pretty sure both Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police had their own helicopter prior to them being incorporated into Police Scotland, maybe they cut it down to just one due to budgeting cuts.
EDIT: Just seen Ducky's post, so looks like it was just one prior to Police Scotland being created too.
That's been mentioned in the media quite a few times so it does look like there was only one.
I am pretty sure both Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police had their own helicopter prior to them being incorporated into Police Scotland, maybe they cut it down to just one due to budgeting cuts.
EDIT: Just seen Ducky's post, so looks like it was just one prior to Police Scotland being created too.
They did trial one in Tayside some years back, but couldn't justify the costs, considering the use it would get.
So you suggest it was flying in conditions it shouldn't have been.
How on earth would you know what was happening at a particular time?
I'd always check the local papers the following week. There were never any crimes it seemed important for, it also would search and search for far longer than it'd need if it knew where it was going.
Furthermore just because the helicopter is over an area doesn't mean that's where it is working.
So you suggest it hangs around over populated areas unnecessarily.
(This is very near the main Glasgow airport flight path, by the way.)
Very often it's used for surveillance operations and will stand off from the target, using it's optics to "zoom in"...............that way the bad guys don't hear it.
It was very obvious, so obvious that I used to joke it was searching for what was causing all the noise complaints it was causing.
Most major cities do have them. I have little doubt folks have reacted strangely to your comments................if they are as poorly thought out as this one.
Your "well thought-out" reply to support the use of police helicopters just suggested both dangerous and unnecessary flying over populated areas...
Don't bother trying to argue, all I want is for people to stop and ask if police helicopters are worth the risk, as you've seen what that risk is now to the police, the public and even the rescuers.
I. Most Police authorites do have an assigned helicopter which generally serve their whole area if not specifically a city. Helicopters are assigned to areas when needed, and generally, because of population density, there is probably more need for a helicopter in a dense urban area than in a rural area.
2. Crime happens in all areas, good and bad. For all any of us know, they may be travelling over a low crime area to get to a high crime area.
3. Unless a detailed daily account is made available to the public, most of us have little or no knowledge of why a helicopter is over their area. The copter may not necessarily be responding to a crime, but may be providing surveillance or may be using heat-seeking equipment to identify 'drug factories, or may be responding to a major accident. They are not just used to follow joyriders (although if joyriders are not stopped , they can cause fatalities!)
4. Do you think air ambulances should not be allowed in urban areas as well?
5. Given the number of flying hours, police helicopter crashes are remarkably few, compared with fatal accidents involved with police cars responding to a crime. .
Living in a triangle between a motorway service area, a regional airport and a trauma hospital unit all within 2 miles I am concerned about the numbers of police, medical and routine aircraft .
We have low crime figures, yet the police chopper regularly hovers over the motorway service area. Flights in and out of the hospital are quite frequent. Quite a few each day. Many more than before they had a helipad built in the grounds. Every hospital down grade increases the number of flights. Every time a heart unit becomes a specilist centre, the flights go up.
The frequency of use in our area has increased significantly without necessarily weighing up and ballancing all the risk factors. ( and gains ) I am very aware of how busy my immediate airspace is.
So you suggest it was flying in conditions it shouldn't have been.
I'd always check the local papers the following week. There were never any crimes it seemed important for, it also would search and search for far longer than it'd need if it knew where it was going.
So you suggest it hangs around over populated areas unnecessarily.
(This is very near the main Glasgow airport flight path, by the way.)
It was very obvious, so obvious that I used to joke it was searching for what was causing all the noise complaints it was causing.
Your "well thought-out" reply to support the use of police helicopters just suggested both dangerous and unnecessary flying over populated areas...
Don't bother trying to argue, all I want is for people to stop and ask if police helicopters are worth the risk, as you've seen what that risk is now to the police, the public and even the rescuers.[/QUOTE]
.................................................................................................
Yes because the risk is extremely low., certainly lower than emergency vehicles travelling at high speed to get to the scene of an incident.
Rescuers are at risk in all major incidents...train crashes, collapsed buildings, terrorist attacks, gas explosions etc., etc.. Getting to casualties can be a nightmare and requires stringent procedures and, in some cases, specialist teams. Risk to the public and rescuers is not confined to the extremely infrequent helicopter crashes
edit...whoops ...messed up the quote as laptop on the blink!
Living in a triangle between a motorway service area, a regional airport and a trauma hospital unit all within 2 miles I am concerned about the numbers of police, medical and routine aircraft .
You live within two miles of a regional airport, and you're "concerned" about helicopters and other aircraft?
I. Most Police authorites do have an assigned helicopter which generally serve their whole area if not specifically a city. Helicopters are assigned to areas when needed, and generally, because of population density, there is probably more need for a helicopter in a dense urban area than in a rural area.
This is an urban area I'm describing. An issue I have is that the area it was covering was so massive that it'd surely be slow to get to a great many incidents. From the city center base, it'd take maybe 10 minutes to get here and a stolen car could get very far in 10 minutes.
2. Crime happens in all areas, good and bad. For all any of us know, they may be travelling over a low crime area to get to a high crime area.
This is true but it never seemed to have an A to B path or settling onto one after a search, it was more as if it was looking around, hoping to find something, much like a patrolling police car.
3. Unless a detailed daily account is made available to the public, most of us have little or no knowledge of why a helicopter is over their area. The copter may not necessarily be responding to a crime, but may be providing surveillance or may be using heat-seeking equipment to identify 'drug factories, or may be responding to a major accident. They are not just used to follow joyriders (although if joyriders are not stopped , they can cause fatalities!)
I love aircraft and was always very interested in what the police helicopter was doing, so I followed it up in the local papers. Local journalists surely noticed when it was around. And it always looked like it was searching but not finding much of anything. The ground was also always quiet.
4. Do you think air ambulances should not be allowed in urban areas as well?
I've never seen an air ambulance here. I've seen the police helicopter maybe 15 or 20 times in a very low crime area. I'd assume air ambulances don't hang around and are only used in life-threatening situations. They get in and get out.
I'd support the use of police helicopters for similarly focused, life-threatening incidents. But, knowing this area, I knew there weren't any. It was far less important things it was up to, whatever they were.
5. Given the number of flying hours, police helicopter crashes are remarkably few, compared with fatal accidents involved with police cars responding to a crime. .
Everything flying around here has astonishing safety records except the police helicopter and some military flights. And the military accidents were in unpopulated areas.
It's not just the risk to the public that concerns me, it's the risk to the police themselves as they might feel pressured into flying much more often for relatively unimportant incidents to justify the expense of having the helicopter.
Like I say, I want people to question the need of it. If it's only very occasionally really necessary and spends a lot of time sitting on the ground, then the police should be supported to do just that.
Yes because the risk is extremely low., certainly lower than emergency vehicles travelling at high speed to get to the scene of an incident.
Rescuers are at risk in all major incidents...train crashes, collapsed buildings, terrorist attacks, gas explosions etc., etc.. Getting to casualties can be a nightmare and requires stringent procedures and, in some cases, specialist teams. Risk to the public and rescuers is not confined to the extremely infrequent helicopter crashes
edit...whoops ...messed up the quote as laptop on the blink!
It's okay, don't edit it if it's going to tricky.
The risk does seem vanishingly low, I'd not argue that. And it should be that low.
But it's not proving to be that and you do have ask why.
Maybe they feel pressured to fly much more than they really need to because of the expense and it gets used for relatively trivial things and patrols of quiet areas, thus increasing the risk from the weather, wear and tear and other causes of possible incidents.
The risk does seem vanishingly low, I'd not argue that. And it should be that low.
But it's not proving to be that and you do have ask why.
Maybe they feel pressured to fly much more than they really need to because of the expense and it gets used to relatively trivial things and patrols of quiet areas.
>>>>>>
Although the risks involved flying helicopters is
regarded as relatively slight I personally would prefere fixed wing flying every time. In or about 1985 the Police were looking for an aircraft considered safer than
helicopters and were experimenting with a British built aircraft named the Optica that seemed ideal for road traffic control and observation duties due to its remarkable bulbous canopy and very slow flying speeds, However due to what may have been pilot error and also financial problems the aircraft company ceased production - although they could be working on an updated version today.
The risk does seem vanishingly low, I'd not argue that. And it should be that low.
But it's not proving to be that and you do have ask why.
Maybe they feel pressured to fly much more than they really need to because of the expense and it gets used for relatively trivial things and patrols of quiet areas, thus increasing the risk from the weather, wear and tear and other causes of possible incidents.
I honestly do not think they are used for the patrol of 'quiet areas' as that would be an expensive waste of resouces for very little outcome. However, even quiet areas can have problem areas contained within. It may be that they are being used for surveillance of a number of targets, and that will not be reported. Also, even a low flying helicopter is quite high up and it is quite difficult to really understand which area they are looking at from the ground.
A crash of police Optica G-KATY on 15 May 1985 killed two members of the Hampshire Constabulary [7] The cause was suspected to be a stall: insufficient airspeed during a turn causing instability. The reason for the low speed was never established.[8] This led to the bankruptcy of Edgley, with Optica Industries being formed in October 1985 to continue production and 25 were built before a fire caused by arson destroyed the factory and all but one flying Optica.
Although the risks involved flying helicopters is
regarded as relatively slight I personally would prefere fixed wing flying every time. In or about 1985 the Police were looking for an aircraft considered safer than
helicopters and were experimenting with a British built aircraft named the Optica that seemed ideal for road traffic control and observation duties due to its remarkable bulbous canopy and very slow flying speeds, However due to what may have been pilot error and also financial problems the aircraft company ceased production - although they could be working on an updated version today.
That's very interesting information, thank you. I remember that aircraft but didn't know it had been considered for that purpose.These days, it'd make sense to include a parachute for the aircraft itself like some other modern small aircraft have.
Of course, some might suggest "remotely-piloted police drones" but those words give many the heebie-jeebies.
This is an urban area I'm describing. An issue I have is that the area it was covering was so massive that it'd surely be slow to get to a great many incidents. From the city center base, it'd take maybe 10 minutes to get here and a stolen car could get very far in 10 minutes.
Seemingly when used in the Aberdeen area it was part of a specific project based on gathered intelligence. pretty sure it was around car theft.
I honestly do not think they are used for the patrol of 'quiet areas' as that would be an expensive waste of resouces for very little outcome. However, even quiet areas can have problem areas contained within. It may be that they are being used for surveillance of a number of targets, and that will not be reported. Also, even a low flying helicopter is quite high up and it is quite difficult to really understand which area they are looking at from the ground.
Of course, it may well have been here at much higher altitudes, unnoticed. But again, given the lack of anything interesting happened here, that'd make it ever stranger how often it was around.
I have read it suggested that the most successful drug lords live around here as it's a nice area, so maybe it was that if it was being stealthy.
But there has never been a major drugs bust, so...
When I saw it, it was always so loud and low that it mystified me what it could be doing as it was about as subtle as a police marching band.
I just found it very strange. When I've seen rescue helicopters fly past, it's always been easy to find the cause. The police, however, I could never find an important reason for.
You live within two miles of a regional airport, and you're "concerned" about helicopters and other aircraft?
The regional airport was a tiny private airport, Then BA moved in, evicted the private planes. The hospital was only recently upgraded to a trauma unit.
Seemingly when used in the Aberdeen area it was part of a specific project based on gathered intelligence. pretty sure it was around car theft.
Interesting, thank you.
But if it's in Aberdeen, then surely that's like they're admitting there's nothing more important than this happening or likely to happen in Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc. in the near future?
So again, I wonder how often this helicopter was really needed for something.
I'd always check the local papers the following week. There were never any crimes it seemed important for, it also would search and search for far longer than it'd need if it knew where it was going
Not all Police matters get reported in the papers - especially if it was on an intelligence gathering job.
Your "well thought-out" reply to support the use of police helicopters just suggested both dangerous and unnecessary flying over populated areas...
Don't bother trying to argue, all I want is for people to stop and ask if police helicopters are worth the risk, as you've seen what that risk is now to the police, the public and even the rescuers.
My well thought out reply suggested nothing of the sort and was based on 32 years Police experience.
The regional airport was a tiny private airport, Then BA moved in, evicted the private planes. The hospital was only recently upgraded to a trauma unit.
It's only to be expected that an airport might expand, and surely if the hospital is now a trauma unit, it's understandable that there are going to be more people transferred there for specialist treatment and care. An EC-135 can cruise at almost 160mph, pretty much in a straight line, without the problems of roadworks, traffic jams etc. etc. Isn't it important to get trauma victims to a specialist unit as quickly as possible? What would you have them do in order to address your "concerns" over helicopters?
But if it's in Aberdeen, then surely that's like they're admitting there's nothing more important than this happening or likely to happen in Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc. in the near future?
So again, I wonder how often this helicopter was really needed for something.
It was only in use for a day or so as part of a very specific operation.
One of the most valuable uses of police helicopters, and the cause of a huge number of their deployments and flying hours, is finding missing, vulnerable people. Children, suicide risks, and old folk. These deployments see the aircraft hovering in one location for lengthy periods.
They really, really don't deploy to make it 'worthwhile having one'. They have to justify their existence but its by saving money and being effective that they do that.
And you'll not find many 'doing surveillance' either. The nearest they get to that is when a high risk prisoner (or a VIP) is being escorted.
It was on task when the conditions deteriorated and trying to get back to base
Kind of, it was sent to look for snowstorms for traffic reasons then diverted to an armed robbery. It was daylight, they knew the conditions were bad but flew into them anyway, possibly due to a mistake in the belief of how much of that weather the helicopter could take.
Not all Police matters get reported in the papers - especially if it was on an intelligence gathering job.
True but the height and noise means it surely wasn't doing that every time I'd estimate, at minumum, 4000 people in my area at least heard it. And we heard enough that, despite my love of aircraft, I was getting irritated seeing it so often in a low crime area.
It'd better be important to make that much of a disturbance justifiably.
These things cost 4 figures per hour to operate - they don't do anything "unnecessarily"
Then my town must be a lot more exciting than anyone here realises.
What does the official police study say the population's #1 crime concern is? Cold callers.
Actually, if the police want to hunt them down, they have my blessing.
Then it would be safely under the control of Glasgow ATC.
I'd hope so but low crime area plus main flight path plus many smaller planes on other routes. It had better be important to be here...
My well thought out reply suggested nothing of the sort and was based on 32 years Police experience.
We'll, I'll leave this up to other readers to form their own opinions of what was-- and was not -- suggested.
Comments
Just the one right enough. Prior to April it was Strathclyde Police who operated it - though it could be used by other forces using the "mutual aid" system.
Contrary to TV programmes, they tend to be used more in searches for missing persons or criminals, rather than the "hot pursuit" scenario
That's been mentioned in the media quite a few times so it does look like there was only one.
I am pretty sure both Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police had their own helicopter prior to them being incorporated into Police Scotland, maybe they cut it down to just one due to budgeting cuts.
EDIT: Just seen Ducky's post, so looks like it was just one prior to Police Scotland being created too.
They did trial one in Tayside some years back, but couldn't justify the costs, considering the use it would get.
But in general I wonder how some helicopters (police or otherwise) can get away with such low flying over towns.
Generally it is only Police or Air Ambulance ones. If it's civilian, then usually they're going to or coming from a city Heliport.
So you suggest it was flying in conditions it shouldn't have been.
I'd always check the local papers the following week. There were never any crimes it seemed important for, it also would search and search for far longer than it'd need if it knew where it was going.
So you suggest it hangs around over populated areas unnecessarily.
(This is very near the main Glasgow airport flight path, by the way.)
It was very obvious, so obvious that I used to joke it was searching for what was causing all the noise complaints it was causing.
Your "well thought-out" reply to support the use of police helicopters just suggested both dangerous and unnecessary flying over populated areas...
Don't bother trying to argue, all I want is for people to stop and ask if police helicopters are worth the risk, as you've seen what that risk is now to the police, the public and even the rescuers.
Living in a triangle between a motorway service area, a regional airport and a trauma hospital unit all within 2 miles I am concerned about the numbers of police, medical and routine aircraft .
We have low crime figures, yet the police chopper regularly hovers over the motorway service area. Flights in and out of the hospital are quite frequent. Quite a few each day. Many more than before they had a helipad built in the grounds. Every hospital down grade increases the number of flights. Every time a heart unit becomes a specilist centre, the flights go up.
The frequency of use in our area has increased significantly without necessarily weighing up and ballancing all the risk factors. ( and gains ) I am very aware of how busy my immediate airspace is.
(Don't know the Scottish accident details.)
AFAIK. Very low flying rules are the same across the board.
You live within two miles of a regional airport, and you're "concerned" about helicopters and other aircraft?
This is an urban area I'm describing. An issue I have is that the area it was covering was so massive that it'd surely be slow to get to a great many incidents. From the city center base, it'd take maybe 10 minutes to get here and a stolen car could get very far in 10 minutes.
This is true but it never seemed to have an A to B path or settling onto one after a search, it was more as if it was looking around, hoping to find something, much like a patrolling police car.
I love aircraft and was always very interested in what the police helicopter was doing, so I followed it up in the local papers. Local journalists surely noticed when it was around. And it always looked like it was searching but not finding much of anything. The ground was also always quiet.
I've never seen an air ambulance here. I've seen the police helicopter maybe 15 or 20 times in a very low crime area. I'd assume air ambulances don't hang around and are only used in life-threatening situations. They get in and get out.
I'd support the use of police helicopters for similarly focused, life-threatening incidents. But, knowing this area, I knew there weren't any. It was far less important things it was up to, whatever they were.
Everything flying around here has astonishing safety records except the police helicopter and some military flights. And the military accidents were in unpopulated areas.
It's not just the risk to the public that concerns me, it's the risk to the police themselves as they might feel pressured into flying much more often for relatively unimportant incidents to justify the expense of having the helicopter.
Like I say, I want people to question the need of it. If it's only very occasionally really necessary and spends a lot of time sitting on the ground, then the police should be supported to do just that.
It's okay, don't edit it if it's going to tricky.
The risk does seem vanishingly low, I'd not argue that. And it should be that low.
But it's not proving to be that and you do have ask why.
Maybe they feel pressured to fly much more than they really need to because of the expense and it gets used for relatively trivial things and patrols of quiet areas, thus increasing the risk from the weather, wear and tear and other causes of possible incidents.
>>>>>>
Although the risks involved flying helicopters is
regarded as relatively slight I personally would prefere fixed wing flying every time. In or about 1985 the Police were looking for an aircraft considered safer than
helicopters and were experimenting with a British built aircraft named the Optica that seemed ideal for road traffic control and observation duties due to its remarkable bulbous canopy and very slow flying speeds, However due to what may have been pilot error and also financial problems the aircraft company ceased production - although they could be working on an updated version today.
I honestly do not think they are used for the patrol of 'quiet areas' as that would be an expensive waste of resouces for very little outcome. However, even quiet areas can have problem areas contained within. It may be that they are being used for surveillance of a number of targets, and that will not be reported. Also, even a low flying helicopter is quite high up and it is quite difficult to really understand which area they are looking at from the ground.
Edgley and theOptica project went belly-up after major concerns raised by an accident...! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica
That's very interesting information, thank you. I remember that aircraft but didn't know it had been considered for that purpose.These days, it'd make sense to include a parachute for the aircraft itself like some other modern small aircraft have.
Of course, some might suggest "remotely-piloted police drones" but those words give many the heebie-jeebies.
Seemingly when used in the Aberdeen area it was part of a specific project based on gathered intelligence. pretty sure it was around car theft.
Of course, it may well have been here at much higher altitudes, unnoticed. But again, given the lack of anything interesting happened here, that'd make it ever stranger how often it was around.
I have read it suggested that the most successful drug lords live around here as it's a nice area, so maybe it was that if it was being stealthy.
But there has never been a major drugs bust, so...
When I saw it, it was always so loud and low that it mystified me what it could be doing as it was about as subtle as a police marching band.
I just found it very strange. When I've seen rescue helicopters fly past, it's always been easy to find the cause. The police, however, I could never find an important reason for.
Interesting, thank you.
But if it's in Aberdeen, then surely that's like they're admitting there's nothing more important than this happening or likely to happen in Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc. in the near future?
So again, I wonder how often this helicopter was really needed for something.
It was on task when the conditions deteriorated and trying to get back to base
Not all Police matters get reported in the papers - especially if it was on an intelligence gathering job.
These things cost 4 figures per hour to operate - they don't do anything "unnecessarily"
Then it would be safely under the control of Glasgow ATC.
My well thought out reply suggested nothing of the sort and was based on 32 years Police experience.
It's only to be expected that an airport might expand, and surely if the hospital is now a trauma unit, it's understandable that there are going to be more people transferred there for specialist treatment and care. An EC-135 can cruise at almost 160mph, pretty much in a straight line, without the problems of roadworks, traffic jams etc. etc. Isn't it important to get trauma victims to a specialist unit as quickly as possible? What would you have them do in order to address your "concerns" over helicopters?
It was only in use for a day or so as part of a very specific operation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-24457672
Eight people have been taken into custody following a police operation recovered six cars stolen from Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
A police helicopter was used as part of the crackdown.
Glasgow has quite an organised crime scene so may have been intelligence gathering or just generally monitoring a friday night.
All speculation on my part.
They really, really don't deploy to make it 'worthwhile having one'. They have to justify their existence but its by saving money and being effective that they do that.
And you'll not find many 'doing surveillance' either. The nearest they get to that is when a high risk prisoner (or a VIP) is being escorted.
Kind of, it was sent to look for snowstorms for traffic reasons then diverted to an armed robbery. It was daylight, they knew the conditions were bad but flew into them anyway, possibly due to a mistake in the belief of how much of that weather the helicopter could take.
True but the height and noise means it surely wasn't doing that every time I'd estimate, at minumum, 4000 people in my area at least heard it. And we heard enough that, despite my love of aircraft, I was getting irritated seeing it so often in a low crime area.
It'd better be important to make that much of a disturbance justifiably.
Then my town must be a lot more exciting than anyone here realises.
What does the official police study say the population's #1 crime concern is? Cold callers.
Actually, if the police want to hunt them down, they have my blessing.
I'd hope so but low crime area plus main flight path plus many smaller planes on other routes. It had better be important to be here...
We'll, I'll leave this up to other readers to form their own opinions of what was-- and was not -- suggested.