Small Sheriff's Departments Using Helicopters

[Gig Giacona]

Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
requirements?

[Jim Eli]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
> requirements?

IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
I'm not aware of any SO doing this.

[Mr. MD500]

On 18 Aug 2003 19:51:13 -0700, (Jim Eli) wrote:

>"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
>> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
>> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
>> requirements?
>
>IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
>regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
>I'm not aware of any SO doing this.

Here comes another one of those "police pilots are not licensed"
threads.

Fact is isnsurance carriers will require a commercial license,
minimum. For liability reasons, no agency would allow a unlicensed
persion to pilot their aircraft. Thats basic common sense . At a
minimum, law enforcement aircraft are maintained to part 91 standards.

[Ken Sandyeggo]

(Mr. MD500) wrote in message >...
> On 18 Aug 2003 19:51:13 -0700, (Jim Eli) wrote:
>
> >"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
> >> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
> >> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
> >> requirements?
> >
> >IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
> >regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
> >I'm not aware of any SO doing this.
>
> Here comes another one of those "police pilots are not licensed"
> threads.
>
> Fact is isnsurance carriers will require a commercial license,
> minimum. For liability reasons, no agency would allow a unlicensed
> persion to pilot their aircraft. Thats basic common sense . At a
> minimum, law enforcement aircraft are maintained to part 91 standards.

They don't have to use certificated aircraft, however.

[toadmonkey]

On 20 Aug 2003 22:35:14 -0700, (Ken Sandyeggo) wrote:

(Mr. MD500) wrote in message >...
>> On 18 Aug 2003 19:51:13 -0700, (Jim Eli) wrote:
>>
>> >"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
>> >> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
>> >> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
>> >> requirements?
>> >
>> >IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
>> >regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
>> >I'm not aware of any SO doing this.
>>
>> Here comes another one of those "police pilots are not licensed"
>> threads.
>>
>> Fact is isnsurance carriers will require a commercial license,
>> minimum. For liability reasons, no agency would allow a unlicensed
>> persion to pilot their aircraft. Thats basic common sense . At a
>> minimum, law enforcement aircraft are maintained to part 91 standards.
>
>They don't have to use certificated aircraft, however.
>
And what is overlooked is because of the high liability issues involving both
city and county goverments, they have the option of becoming self-insured,
courtesy of the state government. So if they insure themselves, who's gonna
complain *if* they don't license their pilots? The waiting game is often used
by city and county governments when someone makes a claim, regardless of how
justified the claim may be. If they can wait you out long enough, you lose the
funding and the will to continue a suit. Happens quite often.
TM

--
Toadmonkey: "Now now. Brain popping and world crashing may be hazardous to ones perception of reality.
Very dangerous business that can lead to madness or something worse for some, truth."


Remove "3+4" from addy before replying


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Gig Giacona]

"Mr. MD500" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Aug 2003 19:51:13 -0700, (Jim Eli) wrote:
>
> >"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
>...
> >> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
> >> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are
pilot
> >> requirements?
> >
> >IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
> >regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
> >I'm not aware of any SO doing this.
>
> Here comes another one of those "police pilots are not licensed"
> threads.
>
> Fact is isnsurance carriers will require a commercial license,
> minimum. For liability reasons, no agency would allow a unlicensed
> persion to pilot their aircraft. Thats basic common sense . At a
> minimum, law enforcement aircraft are maintained to part 91 standards.


Since I started the thread, asked the question, and am new around these
parts I hate that I have to do this but the statement that "Fact is
insurance carriers will require a commercial license, minimum." Is not
stopping all agencies.

Here is an example of one with pilots with only Private ratings. They have 2
OH-58s and a Huey and one officer with a commercial ticket.

http://www.acsoaviation.com/crewfram.htm

[Mr. MD500]

On 20 Aug 2003 22:35:14 -0700, (Ken Sandyeggo)
wrote:

(Mr. MD500) wrote in message >...
>> On 18 Aug 2003 19:51:13 -0700, (Jim Eli) wrote:
>>
>> >"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
>> >> Are any of you guys flying for "small" SOs that have received their
>> >> helicopters from the military? How is your program set up? What are pilot
>> >> requirements?
>> >
>> >IMHO, as "public use", SOs are not required to abide by FAA
>> >regulations. In fact, pilots do not need to be licensed. However,
>> >I'm not aware of any SO doing this.
>>
>> Here comes another one of those "police pilots are not licensed"
>> threads.
>>
>> Fact is isnsurance carriers will require a commercial license,
>> minimum. For liability reasons, no agency would allow a unlicensed
>> persion to pilot their aircraft. Thats basic common sense . At a
>> minimum, law enforcement aircraft are maintained to part 91 standards.
>
>They don't have to use certificated aircraft, however.

But the vast majority do.

[toadmonkey]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:18:36 GMT, (Mr. MD500) wrote:
>
>Can you name one agency that allows an unlicensed pilot to fly PIC?
>Name just one...
>
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that any departments did
that. Just stating what I know is the truth about how governments insure
themselves.
TM

--
Toadmonkey: "Now now. Brain popping and world crashing may be hazardous to ones perception of reality.
Very dangerous business that can lead to madness or something worse for some, truth."


Remove "3+4" from addy before replying


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mr. MD500]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:13:05 GMT, (toadmonkey)
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:18:36 GMT, (Mr. MD500) wrote:
>>
>>Can you name one agency that allows an unlicensed pilot to fly PIC?
>>Name just one...
>>
>Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that any departments did
>that. Just stating what I know is the truth about how governments insure
>themselves.
>TM

I didnt put any words in your mouth but from some of the comments the
implication is law enforcement is allowing unlicensed pilots to fly
PIC. That is simply not the case. Granted, some police pilots are cut
loose with not much experience past a commercial check ride & the
factory course in the aircraft they fly. This is perfectly legal. Just
like commercial aviation, law enforcement has good & not so good
pilots. The vast majority oin both arenas are highly competent.

[Davdirect]

The police dept here had people flying for 2 years with only a private. I
still think it would be wiser to have professional pilots to worry about the
piloting and let the police worry about the policing. When the pilot starts
being too much of a cop and not enough of a pilot is when things will turn
bad. Here's an article praising the cops for finally getting their commercial
tickets:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030804/NEWS16/10804009
1/-1/ARCHIVES30

Dave
(20hr student pilot)

[toadmonkey]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:21:54 GMT, (Mr. MD500) wrote:
>
>I didnt put any words in your mouth but from some of the comments the
>implication is law enforcement is allowing unlicensed pilots to fly
>PIC. That is simply not the case. Granted, some police pilots are cut
>loose with not much experience past a commercial check ride & the
>factory course in the aircraft they fly. This is perfectly legal. Just
>like commercial aviation, law enforcement has good & not so good
>pilots. The vast majority oin both arenas are highly competent.
>
I honestly don't know if they do. Very unwise, I would say. Who'd trust a
fella that ain't got a license? I sure wouldn't.
TM

--
Toadmonkey: "Now now. Brain popping and world crashing may be hazardous to ones perception of reality.
Very dangerous business that can lead to madness or something worse for some, truth."


Remove "3+4" from addy before replying


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mr. MD500]

On 22 Aug 2003 17:52:46 GMT, (Davdirect) wrote:

>The police dept here had people flying for 2 years with only a private. I
>still think it would be wiser to have professional pilots to worry about the
>piloting and let the police worry about the policing. When the pilot starts
>being too much of a cop and not enough of a pilot is when things will turn
>bad. Here's an article praising the cops for finally getting their commercial
>tickets:
>http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030804/NEWS16/10804009
>1/-1/ARCHIVES30
>
>Dave
>(20hr student pilot)

One of the topics taught at airborne law enforcement seminars is
cockpit management. There is a strict division of duties between the
flight officer & the pilot. The pilots sole mission is the safe
operation of the aircraft.

[Davdirect]

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? Am I
not getting something?

[One side of the COIN]

> 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.

[Other side of the COIN]

> 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?

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.

If in their wisdom they were to hire YOU off the street and spend tens
of thousands of dollars and many hundreds of hours training YOU to be a
police officer and at the end actually give you a gun with all the
responsibility that it implies. then why wouldn't they take an
experienced police officer and spend tens of thousands of dollars and
hundreds of hours to train them to fly a helicopter with all the
responsibility that it implies.

[Mr. MD500]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:23:16 GMT, Other side of the COIN
> wrote:

>> 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?
>
>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.
>
>If in their wisdom they were to hire YOU off the street and spend tens
>of thousands of dollars and many hundreds of hours training YOU to be a
>police officer and at the end actually give you a gun with all the
>responsibility that it implies. then why wouldn't they take an
>experienced police officer and spend tens of thousands of dollars and
>hundreds of hours to train them to fly a helicopter with all the
>responsibility that it implies.

I have found I can train a person to be a good safe pilot in much less
time I than I can teach them to be a police officer. If a person goes
to the trouble to go through the police training, work the streets &
go through the BS you have to go through to get in an air unit, it is
far less likely thy will leave a short time later.

In law enforcement I want both members of my flight crew to be cops.
That "low time pilot" flying PIC usually has a high time pilot riding
with him as the other crewmember for some time. He doesn't stay a low
time pilot for long. If you can land a gig as a police pilot, it's a
great job, thus the petty professional jealousy on the issue of
civilian vs. cops for pilots.

My department started its air unit in the 20's The helicopters showed
up in 1967. Since then we have only suffered 1 crash. The cause was
pilot error. The pilot had 20,000+ hours of military & civillian time.
The "low time" guys have never put a scratch on the ships.

[BEEPER708]

Illinois State Police used to have a program called "Air-One". It was 2
Enstrom's roaming the state that were basically leased back to indiviadual
towns for a night or a week at a time. When not roaming a particular town, it
just roamed around the sky's looking for trouble.

The occupants of the aircraft were, one State Trooper and a civilian pilot. If
there was an individual town involved, that person would be flying the left
seat instead of the trooper.

This was a great program. Nabbed a lot of bad guys....then it was nixed by the
state.

I don't think anyone in Illinois uses helicopters anymore.

[Ken Sandyeggo]

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

[Mr. MD500]

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.

[Eric Scheie]

"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.

[No Badge For Frank]

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.

[Eric Scheie]

"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.
>

Re: 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.

Re: 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!

[Jim Carriere]

"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.
> >
>
> Re: 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.

[Ed Ortiz]

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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>