Small Sheriff's Departments Using Helicopters

Davdirect wrote:

Then why require the law enforcement training? Wouldn't it be wiser to have an
experienced pilot than to have an experienced cop who has minimal hours?

Yes that would be a good presumption.

However the politics of the situation come into play.

If you were a police officer in any city, what would your attitude be
if you knew that you could never be the chief of police, a dog handler,
a supervisor, a trainer, the head of the union, a dispatcher, or
even a helicopter pilot, in your own police department.

Some years ago in British Columbia ( Canada ) a fire department
hired a new chief from outside the department.

In this case I do believe he was the fire marshall for the Province
and his credentials were impeccible and beyod reproach.

But because he wasn't hired from within the department the
firemen and firewomen would not and did not support him
for many, many, many, many years.

Their attitude was.... why should we work our ass off for
ten fifteen years if - when - the job as chief comes up we
won't even be considered.

The chief got death threats, vandalism, his kids suffered, etc.

They made his life miserable.

Someone more familier with that situation can jump in at any time
and correct me on the details. I'm trying not to imbelish the story.

If you spent five years as a police officer for example and wanted to
be a dog handler and your police department would only hire people
who were interested IN BECOMING POLICE OFFICERS and who already
had extensive outside training and experience handling dogs, where
would that leave you.

Why you might have to quite the department, obtain extensive training
with dogs on your own, at your own expense, and then reapply and hoped
you got hired back in.

This actually happened with a police officer I knew some years ago.

He wanted to be a police helicopter pilot and with some years experience
as a police officer he had to quite the force, take his helicopter
training at his own expense, work in the industry for a couple of years
to get some hours under his belt and then reapply.

He was lucky..... They hired him back on as a helicopter pilot.

One side of the COIN wrote in message ...
Davdirect wrote:

Then why require the law enforcement training? Wouldn't it be wiser to have an
experienced pilot than to have an experienced cop who has minimal hours?

Yes that would be a good presumption.

However the politics of the situation come into play.

If you were a police officer in any city, what would your attitude be
if you knew that you could never be the chief of police, a dog handler,
a supervisor, a trainer, the head of the union, a dispatcher, or
even a helicopter pilot, in your own police department.

Some years ago in British Columbia ( Canada ) a fire department
hired a new chief from outside the department.

In this case I do believe he was the fire marshall for the Province
and his credentials were impeccible and beyod reproach.

But because he wasn't hired from within the department the
firemen and firewomen would not and did not support him
for many, many, many, many years.

Their attitude was.... why should we work our ass off for
ten fifteen years if - when - the job as chief comes up we
won't even be considered.

The chief got death threats, vandalism, his kids suffered, etc.

They made his life miserable.

Someone more familier with that situation can jump in at any time
and correct me on the details. I'm trying not to imbelish the story.

If you spent five years as a police officer for example and wanted to
be a dog handler and your police department would only hire people
who were interested IN BECOMING POLICE OFFICERS and who already
had extensive outside training and experience handling dogs, where
would that leave you.

Why you might have to quite the department, obtain extensive training
with dogs on your own, at your own expense, and then reapply and hoped
you got hired back in.

This actually happened with a police officer I knew some years ago.

He wanted to be a police helicopter pilot and with some years experience
as a police officer he had to quite the force, take his helicopter
training at his own expense, work in the industry for a couple of years
to get some hours under his belt and then reapply.

He was lucky..... They hired him back on as a helicopter pilot.

I was on a Sheriff's Department and no one gave a crap about what
experience you had as to flying helis. It was all politics. There
were heli-rated deputies that couldn't get the time of day from the
air unit. They'd take non-pilots that kissed enough ass or whose
buddies were already there and spend a fortune taking them from zero
time to pilot at monstrous expense, totally ignoring the guys that
already had heli ratings. One clown they pushed up the ladder was
found not to have sufficient training after he rolled a heli and
killed his partner. There were a few new openings in the air unit
after that one, especially for supervisors.

KJSDCAUSA

On 26 Aug 2003 22:56:39 -0700, (Ken Sandyeggo)
wrote:


I was on a Sheriff's Department and no one gave a crap about what
experience you had as to flying helis. It was all politics. There
were heli-rated deputies that couldn't get the time of day from the
air unit. They'd take non-pilots that kissed enough ass or whose
buddies were already there and spend a fortune taking them from zero
time to pilot at monstrous expense, totally ignoring the guys that
already had heli ratings. One clown they pushed up the ladder was
found not to have sufficient training after he rolled a heli and
killed his partner. There were a few new openings in the air unit
after that one, especially for supervisors.

KJSDCAUSA

Man, Ive seen that before. You hit the nail right on the head. When it
come to getting that police flying job, experience means zero. Butt
kissing is everything. There are some real qualified people running
police air units but there are some that have people with no aviation
background running things & they wonder why they have problems.

"One side of the COIN" wrote in message
...
Davdirect wrote:

Then why require the law enforcement training? Wouldn't it be wiser to
have an
experienced pilot than to have an experienced cop who has minimal hours?

Yes that would be a good presumption.

However the politics of the situation come into play.

If you were a police officer in any city, what would your attitude be
if you knew that you could never be the chief of police, a dog handler,
a supervisor, a trainer, the head of the union, a dispatcher, or
even a helicopter pilot, in your own police department.


Hiring experienced pilots off the street should not necessarily preclude
anyone from within the department from becoming pilots themselves and moving
into the aviation unit. Of those jobs listed (dog handler, dispatcher, etc),
how many require the level of training of a pilot? It's a bit of an apples
and oranges comparison.

On the issue of the responsibility of carrying a gun vs flying an aircraft:
I agree, both come with a lot of responsibility. However, the tone of some
of the posts here indicate that some consider it more important for a police
pilot to have experience carrying a gun than actually flying an aircraft. A
very myopic and dangerous view. I would ask the question, how many times do
the pilots in any given police air unit find themselves in need of their
weapon? For instance, I often see road signs stating "Speed Limit Enforced
By Aircraft", however, I have yet to see any police aircraft pull someone
over, land, shut down, police officer pilot get out, and write a ticket. I
can see possible scenarios where a pilot might land and let the observer get
out and make/assist with an arrest.

Flying with two pilots (vice a pilot and an observer) would allow for a less
experienced pilot to learn from those with more experience, and they may
find themselves in a situation where one might need a gun. However, for
those flying single pilot with an observer, a more experienced pilot is
going to make for a safer operation. Put yourself in an observer's shoes,
would you rather fly with pilot with maybe 250-300 hours who just got their
commerical rating, or a pilot with 2000 hours? Ask the taxpayers who they
want flying their aircraft.


"One side of the COIN" Later went on to say:

If you were a police department what would you rather have.......

An experienced police officer who knew the lay of the land, had worked
the streets, understood exactly what was going on, and had been
trained to fly a helicopter as a police officer pilot.

OR...... An experienced helicopter pilot who had never made an arrest,
worked the streets, or knew what the boys and girls actually went
through down there on the ground...... but was now a sworn in police
officer with a gun at his hip.

What experience is more important to the police department.


As has been stated in this thread, politics, more than anything, drives the
decision about who becomes a police pilot. Unfortunately, politics and
policies are often controlled by people with little to no knowledge of
aviation.

One law enforcement agency that hires people to be pilots is the US Customs
Service. Yes, you attend their academy (16 weeks, I think), become a sworn
officer, and carry a gun. Then you go straight to an aviation unit. There is
nothing that states that a Customs officer could not become a pilot, if they
meet the flight time minimums.

I think it could be argued effectively that an experienced pilot, especially
one with a military background (no slight intended toward civilian pilots),
could learn a patrolman's job faster than a patrolman could become a
pilot's. Some in this thread may disagree, but I'll stand by my statement.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:36 GMT, "Eric Scheie"
wrote:


"One side of the COIN" wrote in message
...
Davdirect wrote:

Then why require the law enforcement training? Wouldn't it be wiser to
have an
experienced pilot than to have an experienced cop who has minimal hours?

Yes that would be a good presumption.

However the politics of the situation come into play.

If you were a police officer in any city, what would your attitude be
if you knew that you could never be the chief of police, a dog handler,
a supervisor, a trainer, the head of the union, a dispatcher, or
even a helicopter pilot, in your own police department.


Hiring experienced pilots off the street should not necessarily preclude
anyone from within the department from becoming pilots themselves and moving
into the aviation unit. Of those jobs listed (dog handler, dispatcher, etc),
how many require the level of training of a pilot? It's a bit of an apples
and oranges comparison.

On the issue of the responsibility of carrying a gun vs flying an aircraft:
I agree, both come with a lot of responsibility. However, the tone of some
of the posts here indicate that some consider it more important for a police
pilot to have experience carrying a gun than actually flying an aircraft. A
very myopic and dangerous view. I would ask the question, how many times do
the pilots in any given police air unit find themselves in need of their
weapon? For instance, I often see road signs stating "Speed Limit Enforced
By Aircraft", however, I have yet to see any police aircraft pull someone
over, land, shut down, police officer pilot get out, and write a ticket. I
can see possible scenarios where a pilot might land and let the observer get
out and make/assist with an arrest.

Landing defeats the entire purpose of the air crew. carrying a gun is
not the issue. Understanding police tactics & proceedure is the issue.

Flying with two pilots (vice a pilot and an observer) would allow for a less
experienced pilot to learn from those with more experience, and they may
find themselves in a situation where one might need a gun. However, for
those flying single pilot with an observer, a more experienced pilot is
going to make for a safer operation. Put yourself in an observer's shoes,
would you rather fly with pilot with maybe 250-300 hours who just got their
commerical rating, or a pilot with 2000 hours? Ask the taxpayers who they
want flying their aircraft.


How many hours do you think our military pilots have when we turn them
loose in an F-18? A few hundred. It all comes down to the quality of
the training.

"One side of the COIN" Later went on to say:

If you were a police department what would you rather have.......

An experienced police officer who knew the lay of the land, had worked
the streets, understood exactly what was going on, and had been
trained to fly a helicopter as a police officer pilot.

OR...... An experienced helicopter pilot who had never made an arrest,
worked the streets, or knew what the boys and girls actually went
through down there on the ground...... but was now a sworn in police
officer with a gun at his hip.

What experience is more important to the police department.


As has been stated in this thread, politics, more than anything, drives the
decision about who becomes a police pilot. Unfortunately, politics and
policies are often controlled by people with little to no knowledge of
aviation.

How true.

One law enforcement agency that hires people to be pilots is the US Customs
Service. Yes, you attend their academy (16 weeks, I think), become a sworn
officer, and carry a gun. Then you go straight to an aviation unit. There is
nothing that states that a Customs officer could not become a pilot, if they
meet the flight time minimums.

Do you know anyone in Customs? I do. Lots of problems because people
are thrust into a law enforcement job with no law enforcement
background.

I think it could be argued effectively that an experienced pilot, especially
one with a military background (no slight intended toward civilian pilots),
could learn a patrolman's job faster than a patrolman could become a
pilot's. Some in this thread may disagree, but I'll stand by my statement.

The only way you learn it is spending time on the streets.

"No Badge For Frank" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:36 GMT, "Eric Scheie"
wrote:

Landing defeats the entire purpose of the air crew. carrying a gun is
not the issue. Understanding police tactics & proceedure is the issue.


Yes, I agree, the issue is understanding tactics and procedure. I still
maintain that it you will probably get a better product, and a safer program
by taking an experienced pilot and giving them training in police tactics
and procedure.


Put yourself in an observer's shoes,
would you rather fly with pilot with maybe 250-300 hours who just got
their
commerical rating, or a pilot with 2000 hours? Ask the taxpayers who they
want flying their aircraft.


How many hours do you think our military pilots have when we turn them
loose in an F-18? A few hundred. It all comes down to the quality of
the training.


the F/A-18 pilot - not even a valid argument. There is a popular
misconception that a new pilot in the single seat version is trained and
then "let loose all by themselves". Granted, they are the only one sitting
in the Hornet, however, they are FAR from alone. While they may do certain
training or cross country flights by themselves, they do not go into combat
alone. A new pilot will fly along with another, more experienced pilot.

quality of training. This is something that is evaluated throughout a
pilot's training (Hornet, or otherwise) in the military. A new F/A-18 driver
has gone through 2 years or more of flight training before they get to their
first operational squadron. That pilot also learns the basics of tactics and
procedure. Once in their squadron there is a great deal of time dedicated to
further training and exercises. I hope police departments invest the money
to allow their pilots to train on a continual basis.


Take these comments and those I made above. One primary mission of Marine av
iators in close air support (CAS) of ground troops. Marines go through (or
at least used to) 9 months of Trooper Basic School. I will bet Marine Hornet
and Harrier pilots get more CAS training during their respective syllabi,
and still more when they reach their squadrons. They don't take a person,
tell them, "You be a ground-pounder for a few years, and then we'll send you
to flight school." To make the point another way, there have been people
who have washed out of flight school and become ground pounders, but not the
other way around.

My point is not to simply hire someone to be a pilot and NOT give them any
law enforcement training. Quite the contrary. However, take two people, and
all things being equal, how long would it take to produce a pilot and how
long would it take to produce a police officer? You asked how long before a
person is "let loose" with an F/A-18. How about a patrol car and a gun?



One law enforcement agency that hires people to be pilots is the US
Customs
Service. Yes, you attend their academy (16 weeks, I think), become a
sworn
officer, and carry a gun. Then you go straight to an aviation unit. There
is
nothing that states that a Customs officer could not become a pilot, if
they
meet the flight time minimums.

Do you know anyone in Customs? I do. Lots of problems because people
are thrust into a law enforcement job with no law enforcement
background.


Yes, I know a few. Have worked with them and flown with them. The flight
times they require for pilot applicants are just about right, in my opinion.
Why accept less when you can get someone experienced? Since Customs pilots
go through their academy, what "problems" are you referring to that couldn't
potentially affect ANY Customs agent, pilot or no. Can you elaborate?



I think it could be argued effectively that an experienced pilot,
especially
one with a military background (no slight intended toward civilian
pilots),
could learn a patrolman's job faster than a patrolman could become a
pilot's. Some in this thread may disagree, but I'll stand by my
statement.

The only way you learn it is spending time on the streets.


By the same token, the only way to learn to be a safe, effective pilot is by
spending time in the cockpit.


While I may have philosophical differences with certain aspects of law
enforcement aviation. My comments should in no way imply that I am "anti"
any area of that field or the people in it. Fly safe, all!

"Eric Scheie" wrote in message
...
"No Badge For Frank" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:36 GMT, "Eric Scheie"
wrote:
Put yourself in an observer's shoes,
would you rather fly with pilot with maybe 250-300 hours who just got
their
commerical rating, or a pilot with 2000 hours? Ask the taxpayers who
they
want flying their aircraft.

How many hours do you think our military pilots have when we turn them
loose in an F-18? A few hundred. It all comes down to the quality of
the training.


the F/A-18 pilot - not even a valid argument. There is a popular
misconception that a new pilot in the single seat version is trained and
then "let loose all by themselves". Granted, they are the only one sitting
in the Hornet, however, they are FAR from alone. While they may do certain
training or cross country flights by themselves, they do not go into
combat
alone. A new pilot will fly along with another, more experienced pilot.

Exactly- no nugget is "turned loose." Or, how about the typical military
helicopter pilot:

They get their "wings" and qualify simply as a pilot around 200 hours. This
is equivalent to a commercial license.

Next, they qualify as a "second pilot" (or copilot) between 200-300 hours,
and finally, as an aircraft commander around 500. An aircraft commander is
"turned loose." Two second pilots may do cross countries and certain
training flights by themselves, and one of them will be "pilot in command,"
but a qualified aircraft commander is required for a real mission.

I agree that experience in police tactics and procedures is important.

How about this though? Compare an experienced pilot as trained as a cop, to
an experienced cop trained as a pilot. I believe in you will find a
difference in decision making priorities, namely safety of flight vs the
mission.