Palm Bay, Fl Police Aviation Unit

Actually seems like a really good idea. Much better than the UAV!
 
Spell checkers don't catch everything that a good editor should...

It will have two gliding shoots, one with a 27-foot wingspan and the other stretching out to 34-feet from tip to tip.
Click to expand...

So the policeman makes his approach, pulls his service revoler, but unlike Barney Fife who only had one bullet, he has two!:yikes:
 
gprellwitz said:
Actually seems like a really good idea. Much better than the UAV!
Click to expand...

FAA has been grounding a lot of police departments wanting to use small UAVs. They are not cleared to fly in the National Airspace System and employ see and avoid.
 
BillTIZ said:
FAA has been grounding a lot of police departments wanting to use small UAVs. They are not cleared to fly in the National Airspace System and employ see and avoid.
Click to expand...

They are allowed to fly in the NAS, just it requires obtaining an Certificate of Authorization every time they want to fly one. And, well, by the time the COA is obtained, its probably too late to use the UAS anyway.
 
Dean said:
This is not something new, The Texas Sheriff's Association has been working with the Feds for a couple of years on this.

http://www.alea.org/public/airbeat/back_issues/jul_aug_2007/Affordable Aviation.pdf
Click to expand...
A friend and his wife are deeply involved in this effort. They're looking at it as a way to get law enforcement in the air easily and without hundreds of hours of training. So far, it's working out quite well. My friend has also gotten to fly a lot of LSAs as part of the effort, and is having a great time. :)
 
I understand the want to use a UAS for police activity, but after spending a semester in a UAS class, I'm not sure they are really the best choice. Sure they are a little cheaper than an actual aircraft, but there are quite a few regulations on them that absolutely kill them, IMO. You're going to have to be a pilot, who is current in the same type aircraft as the UAS (SEL). Then, from what I've seen, they are going to require a 2nd class medical.

Either they (the FAA) needs to really rethink their proposed rules, or the UAS isn't going to be cost effective in many situations.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I understand the want to use a UAS for police activity, but after spending a semester in a UAS class, I'm not sure they are really the best choice. Sure they are a little cheaper than an actual aircraft, but there are quite a few regulations on them that absolutely kill them, IMO. You're going to have to be a pilot, who is current in the same type aircraft as the UAS (SEL). Then, from what I've seen, they are going to require a 2nd class medical.

Either they (the FAA) needs to really rethink their proposed rules, or the UAS isn't going to be cost effective in many situations.
Click to expand...


The article I posted focuses on LSA's and PPC's not so much UAS. Cost of operating helicopters vs. cost of operating a LSA.
 
I totally understand wanting to use an LSA or PPC for a police asset. And, the way they are described in the document is a good use for them. However, I'd bet that those who sign the checks to purchase the hardware are going to want to know how a department is going to cover the cost of the purchase. If they can use them in speed trap operations, great. However, if you want to use an LSA versus a high speed chase, there are quite a few cars that are going to outrun an LSA.
 
How much revenue do you think a muni PD generates from traffic tickets as opposed to high-speed chases in a typical year? If you were presenting the case to the city council, would it be a hard deal to sell?



KSCessnaDriver said:
I totally understand wanting to use an LSA or PPC for a police asset. And, the way they are described in the document is a good use for them. However, I'd bet that those who sign the checks to purchase the hardware are going to want to know how a department is going to cover the cost of the purchase. If they can use them in speed trap operations, great. However, if you want to use an LSA versus a high speed chase, there are quite a few cars that are going to outrun an LSA.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
How much revenue do you think a muni PD generates from traffic tickets as opposed to high-speed chases in a typical year? If you were presenting the case to the city council, would it be a hard deal to sell?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a clue. I'm not a cop, never have been a cop, and have no real interest in doing that kind of work. I do know that police aviation is a very small niche. It takes the right kind of municipality to operate an aviation asset. Every time I've read the posted article, I feel its aimed towards a small town type department, that really, IMO, likely has very little need for an aviation asset.

I don't doubt that an LSA or UAS, used in the right ways, can be a valuable asset to a law enforcement agency. But in these economic times, I wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck who tries to convince the city that the PD needs to go drop 100K on a single unit, plus the training of officer's, plus the associated operating costs, to have a marginal aviation asset.

And I love how the article talks about LSA's being easy to fly. What a myth that is. The CTSW is probably the hardest plane I've flown to land. It has some very weird tendency's to it. You want an easy to fly PD asset, get a 182.
 
Being a LEO for over 28 years and doing it in rural Missouri, I can tell you aviation units are the last thing a department wants to fund. The same goes for departments in most other states. We (the small agency) have to rely heavily upon the State Police (HWY Patrol) to provide air support for SAR operations and drug interdiction. The Texas Sheriff's Association was looking at a way to purchase several LSA and PPC to loan out to agencies and the only cost to them would be their pilot and fuel. The grant would pay for the purchase, up keep and replacement. These units are not for high speed chases and if you brake it down, police aircraft are used only about 2% for chases. That is what makes the news, so people think that is the main reason we have them. I have spent more time hanging out the door of a helicopter looking for marijuania plants than anything else. And I must say that is one hell of a rush.
 
Dean said:
These units are not for high speed chases and if you brake it down, police aircraft are used only about 2% for chases.
Click to expand...

I was always most glad to see the air units when it involved foot chases or searching for suspects on the ground. Officer safety is the biggest reason to use the air unit, and their airborne perspective can see around that corner or in that bunch of trees (thank gawd for FLIR!) better than us fools on the ground. You don't need anything very fast for following a guy on foot.

For years the small towns around Fort Worth have talked about a co-op air unit for the smaller agencies. Ft Worth and Dallas used to send an air unit anytime a local small agency requested one, but over the years with budget cuts and liability issues they've pretty much stopped most of that. It pretty much as to be an officer down call to get them to go very far outside their city limits on a mutual assist call these days.

I doubt the co-op will ever get off the ground. It's hard enough to get all the members of one city council to agree on something, it's near impossible to get several councils to agree.
 
Dean said:
Being a LEO for over 28 years and doing it in rural Missouri, I can tell you aviation units are the last thing a department wants to fund. The same goes for departments in most other states. We (the small agency) have to rely heavily upon the State Police (HWY Patrol) to provide air support for SAR operations and drug interdiction. The Texas Sheriff's Association was looking at a way to purchase several LSA and PPC to loan out to agencies and the only cost to them would be their pilot and fuel. The grant would pay for the purchase, up keep and replacement. These units are not for high speed chases and if you brake it down, police aircraft are used only about 2% for chases. That is what makes the news, so people think that is the main reason we have them. I have spent more time hanging out the door of a helicopter looking for marijuania plants than anything else. And I must say that is one hell of a rush.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting to learn. I knew law enforcement used aviation assets for more that just speed situations, just not exactly how they used them. Perhaps if the general public knew how the assets were being used, they would be more receptive to funding them. Because, I'd bet that if you go ask John Q Public what the police use their helicopter for, the response will be "Chases".
 
Wouldn't a cop flying any aircraft as a paid job need a commercial ticket? If so, then isn't the supposed ease of learning to fly LSA a moot point?

It's hard to justify the paid flying part of an airborne SAR, patrol, or pursuit mission as merely "incidental" to employment.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Wouldn't a cop flying any aircraft as a paid job need a commercial ticket?
Click to expand...
Nope. A pilot doesn't need any license, private, commercial, or otherwise, to fly an airplane owned by the government and used on a government mission.
 
jmaynard said:
Nope. A pilot doesn't need any license, private, commercial, or otherwise, to fly an airplane owned by the government and used on a government mission.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, the police function has been subcontracted to an outside firm, like Blackwater. I think they'd need a commercial ticket.
 
jmaynard said:
Nope. A pilot doesn't need any license, private, commercial, or otherwise, to fly an airplane owned by the government and used on a government mission.
Click to expand...

I knew that exemption applied on the federal level, but I didn't know it applied on the state and local levels.

So if Sheriff Andy gets an airplane for Mayberry, and they use the airplane for surveillance or what-have-you, Andy can authorize Barney -- or even Opie -- to fly without a ticket?

Now that's scary.

--Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I knew that exemption applied on the federal level, but I didn't know it applied on the state and local levels.

So if Sheriff Andy gets an airplane for Mayberry, and they use the airplane for surveillance or what-have-you, Andy can authorize Barney -- or even Opie -- to fly without a ticket?

Now that's scary.

--Rich
Click to expand...
Maybe Capt. Ron will chime in here, but from what I remember from a previous post, YES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top