If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Order your FREE Small Blue Planet Toys Christmas Catalog before Oct 20th! | Small Blue Planet Toys | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 15th 03 05:26 PM |
Air Force announces winner in Small Diameter Bomb competition | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 30th 03 03:06 AM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |
Small Blue Planet Toys goes Postal !! Economy Shipping Options now availalble | Small Blue Planet Toys | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 11th 03 04:00 PM |
HUGE Summer SALE + Free Shipping @ Small Blue Planet Toys | Small Blue Planet Toys | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 8th 03 11:53 PM |