Small Sheriff's Departments Using Helicopters

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.

Since several questions have been sent to my email regarding the program I
am in I am adding a link regarding it! GOTO:

http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=posse

Cheers and stay safe out there!

Ed


"Ed Ortiz" wrote in message
news:n9h6b.17644$n94.7571@fed1read04...
The issue LE vs Civilian pilots have a lot to be argued. I do want to say
that I think it will go all to the amount of training and experience the
pilot has regardless his law enforcement experience. They can always
learn
the LE side! I am a volunteer for the local Aviation Sheriff Dept. Our
county has a program that will allow civilians to be "deputized" to help
in
law enforcement operations.

I have been with the local aviation unit several years and I can tell you
that the line that separates the duties of the pilot and the tactical
officer are very distinct. We have in our unit pilot LE officers and
civilians. Both have performed excellent since they are experienced
(minimum requirement of 1500 hours turbine to apply for insurance
purposes!). I do have to say that all the law enforcement duties rely on
the tactical officer and not the pilot (if he is civilian). The pilot
duties in my unit stay with maintaining positive control of the aircraft
while I direct him to where I want to (orbit, direction to a call, etc.).
You are to busy hearing ATC. If the pilot is LE, then it is better but it
does not mean the job cannot be done. As a tac officer in the law
enforcement role I am the one getting out of the helo in case of any
emergencies. The pilot will take off back and stay with the aircraft (on
the radio) unless necessary to come out.

Our program runs all civilian volunteers by the same weapon
qualifications,
background investigations, and a modified academy to accomodate all
legalities. All tactical oficers are armed, pilots have the option of
carrying a handgun or not! They do have to qualify with it at the range if
they want to carry.

The difference is that I only have arrest powers when on duty and
"supervised" by an LE officer. In some states like in TX is like been a
level three reserve officer. Some of our pilots are not qualified to
carry
a gun while on duty. Of course the duties in an emergency will vary.

I think a big difference is in the way the unit implement their SOP's and
training. I do have to say, must of our volunteer pilots are x-military
(with zillions of flight time) or are still flying for private companies
(air evac, MD, etc!). Politics are going to happen everywhere so you deal
with those as appropriate.

Our only requirement for civilians is to make a minimum of 8 hours (1
shift)
a month. Everybody is happy, the deputies get their backup and we get the
fun!

I will like to hear of any other Rotary Aviation Support unit made of
civilian volunteers. For along time I thought we where the "only ones",
now
I am not sure!

Ed Ortiz


"Eric Scheie" wrote in message
...

"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.