Other pilots opinion of LE pilots

[Fidelis]

And you are absolutely correct, in that the chief of police has absolutely no expertise in helicopters. He also has no expertise in SWAT operations, but he has a SWAT team too. Why? Because he selected the right people to run it and ensured that they were properly trained and equipped to handle their assigned mission. That's what is known as effective management.

 

While I don't back down from my own, you make some good points. I would disagree with this last statement though. The vast majority of Chiefs of Police have a wide range of law enforcement experience. Rarely will you find a chief that does not have experience on patrol, as a detective, narcotics, special ops of many varieties including SWAT, admin positions, and more. Even an officer that has spent any time just on patrol has a good working knowledge of SWAT operations. With the proliferance of active shooters, many line officers are even getting advanced training in special ops. To say that a chief does not know policing is simply untrue. True, it sometimes seems like they've forgotten where they came from but that's generally when we're getting reprimanded for something we did.

 

The spectrum of experience of a chief, while broad, generally does not extend to an air program. You can't expect a police administrator to understand air ops any more than you can expect a baker to understand computer science. Enough with the analogies though. I think we all understand my point and yours.

 

By the way, you do make good points. However, in my experience I am simply unconvinced that the average air program is worth it to the cops on the ground. Certain situations, yes. Across the board, no.

 

Without a doubt, and I have discussed it more times than I can recall with the guys on patrol, we're in the same boat. And the fact is that the opinion of the cops on the street is really what counts. You don't have to have an inkling of how a helicopter works to know that it's rarely there for you when you need it. And you don't have to have one tidbit of knowledge about the program to understand that the thousands of dollars being spent on a program that doesn't benefit you could be spent on patrol officers that actually have your back.

 

As a test, ask a patrolman if he'd rather have the helicopter above him or a minimum of 10 more officers on his shift. I'll bet a crapload of money that they'll take the latter. A helicopter can be a force multiplier once in a while, but 10 more officers is a force multiplier for your entire shift, every day.

 

We all know and respect the heroic stories of the police helicopter saving lives. That is awesome and to be commended. I'm talking about every day and the cost/benefit. Ordinary cops, especially more of them, save lots of lives too.

[EC120AV8R]

While I don't back down from my own, you make some good points. I would disagree with this last statement though. The vast majority of Chiefs of Police have a wide range of law enforcement experience. Rarely will you find a chief that does not have experience on patrol, as a detective, narcotics, special ops of many varieties including SWAT, admin positions, and more. Even an officer that has spent any time just on patrol has a good working knowledge of SWAT operations. With the proliferance of active shooters, many line officers are even getting advanced training in special ops. To say that a chief does not know policing is simply untrue. True, it sometimes seems like they've forgotten where they came from but that's generally when we're getting reprimanded for something we did.

 

The spectrum of experience of a chief, while broad, generally does not extend to an air program. You can't expect a police administrator to understand air ops any more than you can expect a baker to understand computer science. Enough with the analogies though. I think we all understand my point and yours.

 

By the way, you do make good points. However, in my experience I am simply unconvinced that the average air program is worth it to the cops on the ground. Certain situations, yes. Across the board, no.

 

Without a doubt, and I have discussed it more times than I can recall with the guys on patrol, we're in the same boat. And the fact is that the opinion of the cops on the street is really what counts. You don't have to have an inkling of how a helicopter works to know that it's rarely there for you when you need it. And you don't have to have one tidbit of knowledge about the program to understand that the thousands of dollars being spent on a program that doesn't benefit you could be spent on patrol officers that actually have your back.

 

As a test, ask a patrolman if he'd rather have the helicopter above him or a minimum of 10 more officers on his shift. I'll bet a crapload of money that they'll take the latter. A helicopter can be a force multiplier once in a while, but 10 more officers is a force multiplier for your entire shift, every day.

 

We all know and respect the heroic stories of the police helicopter saving lives. That is awesome and to be commended. I'm talking about every day and the cost/benefit. Ordinary cops, especially more of them, save lots of lives too.

 

Point taken. But I still disagree with the assertion that the ground officers would rather have more officers than an air support program. Our officers (and in my experience ,most in So. Cal) are so conditioned to having a helicopter available, that they ask for us for everything. We hear a call dispatched, and we are usually keying the radio to put ourselves enroute, because we know the next question from the officer is going to be: "is the helicopter available"?

 

If that is not what your experience is, your officers got short-changed with their program. Like I said before, public safety is a money consumer. There's a lot of "gee whiz" things every agency has that cost a lot of money and are hard to justify. Like we always said on SWAT: "We don't get paid for what we do, we get paid for what we are willing to do".

 

I also have to say the day of the multi-faceted experienced chief is going the way of the Do-Do Bird. Today's administrators are academic ticket punchers who spent just enough time in a detail to put it on their resume. Most can in no way claim vast expertise in any particular discipline.

 

Good discussion, thanks.

[airdoggy]

By the way, you do make good points. However, in my experience I am simply unconvinced that the average air program is worth it to the cops on the ground. Certain situations, yes. Across the board, no.

 

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, but it might help if you would define what an average program is in your mind. "Average" has a lot of different meaning to a lot of different people depending on their experience.

 

Again, like we all do, you are basing your assumptions on your LE experience. In your previous postings you have related your experience with 3 agencies-Border Patrol, State Police, and County Sheriff over about a 10 year period. You have made good comments on Border Patrol Aviation, none about the State Police program, and some not so positive comments about the County program. So, I'll go out on a limb and guess you are basing your negative opinions of LE Air Ops based upon your interaction with your County program. If a I am wrong, tell me, I'm just trying to get a feel based on putting myself in your shoes. Remember, Experience Counts, everything else (forum postings, things heard, etc) is just cannon fodder on the assault of the greater good.

 

Without a doubt, and I have discussed it more times than I can recall with the guys on patrol, we're in the same boat. And the fact is that the opinion of the cops on the street is really what counts. You don't have to have an inkling of how a helicopter works to know that it's rarely there for you when you need it. And you don't have to have one tidbit of knowledge about the program to understand that the thousands of dollars being spent on a program that doesn't benefit you could be spent on patrol officers that actually have your back.

 

I agree 100% that what matters are the troops on the ground. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome is educating the ground guys on what exactly the air unit can do/not do to help them. If the air unit does not take a proactive approach to "ground officer" education, then the ability of the air unit to assist goes down. I have found this is one of the most important aspects of the job and often the easiest, but it has to be continual. When they realize the air units capabilities, minus their previous misconceptions, activity goes up and the full potential of the unit is realized. I've always found the best approach is to be totally honest and at all costs avoid the "prima donna" attitude.

 

As a test, ask a patrolman if he'd rather have the helicopter above him or a minimum of 10 more officers on his shift. I'll bet a crapload of money that they'll take the latter. A helicopter can be a force multiplier once in a while, but 10 more officers is a force multiplier for your entire shift, every day.

 

This is really subjective based on different departments, quality of the air program, etc. If an officer is in a gun fight, I'll venture to say he would want 10 more officers and the helicopter overhead. If he is in a pursuit, I would bet he would want the air asset overhead(my personal experience). The list of situations goes on and on, but the outcome is the same.

 

In previous posts you indicate that LE air ops should be contracted out to private companies. Now, it seems, you are trying to make the case against having air assets at all. Come on man, that isn't holding water. In my opinion, you are debating both sides of the fence. In my experience, there have been a lot of times I haven't been over a good call. However, I sure have been over a lot of awesome calls that relied heavily on the air asset. Nothing is better than being at the right place at the right time.

We all know and respect the heroic stories of the police helicopter saving lives. That is awesome and to be commended. I'm talking about every day and the cost/benefit. Ordinary cops, especially more of them, save lots of lives too.

 

Uh Oh! I'm finding myself agreeing with you! Say it isn't so!

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[Trol]

I've been in LE over 20 years with two different agencies. I've been in our helicopter unit for almost 3 years. I've been a pilot for 10 years. I don't necessarily agree that a civilian pilot will do a better job flying LE calls then a police officer trained as a pilot. Most civy pilots are just looking to build hours in attempt to get that magic hourly number for the higher paying job.

A LE agency isn't going to be able to pay the civy pilot as much as one could get in the private sector. The LE pilot is with his/her agency for the long haul and isn't looking at counting hours, they want to catch the bad guy. The civy is probably going to be thinking about how many hours to their next goal.

I'm with an agency of over 2000 officers in a million plus populated city. Our air unit does a great service to the ground troops. We generally respond to calls from the ground vs being in the air waiting and looking. We are still able to arrive and assist and find the bad guy. We can get to locations around the city in about 10-15 minutes max. The use of the FLIR at night is an invaluable tool and works wonders.

I think Fidelis needs to perhaps see some other LE agencies with air units. The patrol guys constantly ask for the helicopter to come assist, because they know it is an asset.

My point? Well, there are lots of sucessful LE aviation units that are run in a professional manner that do a great service. The pilots are LE officers and strive to do the job safely and accomplish the mission.

[EC120AV8R]

On another note, I meant to make a point on Fidelis' assertion that Law Enforcement agencies are not experts in aviation/helicopters. I completely disagree. NYPD has a had a unit since 1928 and LAPD since 1956. I think all those years of operations would qualify them as experts. My agency has a had a continuously operating aviation unit since 1971. I'm pretty sure that 37 years of operating aircraft makes us experts too.

 

Fidelis, I think you are basing your "lack of expertise" argument on flawed data. If you are making comparison based on a small up-start unit with poor planning and execution, it's not a comparison. There are plenty of longstanding professional units for those small agencies to turn to for advice on everything from aircraft and crew selection, to unit manual/policies and procedures advice and budget planning. We get those types of calls fairly regularly. Nothing is a "trade secret" and it is our responsibility to share with those units that want the assistance.

[Fidelis]

I think that some of you are reading my posts too quickly and not actually soaking up what I am saying. I have said many times in this discussion and others that there are air support programs that I think are great. You guys are actually making my points for me so I appreciate that.

 

EC120AV8R, I bet that New York has an outstanding program that would stand up to most scrutiny. LAPD, same thing.

 

Trol, if you're working in So Cal for a department of 2,000 and a population of a million, I bet you have full justification for a program.

 

What do those agencies have in common? Exactly what I have been saying all along. The population and the call volume to justify a program, and the resources to adequately fund and maintain it. Go back and read my posts. I have said this several times now.

 

Departments like LAPD, NYPD, Phoenix, Denver, and others are not the average department with an air support unit. They are the ones we think about when we think LE aviation, but they are but a very small number.

 

The vast majority of departments are not large enough to warrant an air support unit. If you don't have the resources to staff and maintain a quality air support unit, and most departments are in this category, than you are wasting money. Most departments are not in metropolitan areas, nor do they have a call volume to warrant a program. This does not stop many from trying to do so. If you are spending money on what equals a gadget that is rarely used, you're stupid. And in most areas the helicopters are operated part-time, if at all. This is no benefit to anyone on the ground.

 

Airdog, I am not arguing both sides of the fence. I have been very specific in my points. There are justifiable programs. Small agencies, generally not, even though many have an air program. I am for a program in which smaller agencies could pool their funds and resources.

 

Here's an example and I'll try to keep it brief (it's been tough):

 

Many small departments rarely have use for a SWAT Team. It is unfeasible to train and keep current half of your staff to be ready for a call that may happen once a year. For this reason, many of the departments in one area provide an officer or two to a Metro SWAT Team that covers several cities. Now, these officers are utilized more often and are a huge benefit but their departments minimize the amount of resources they had to provide. But they get the full benefit when needed.

 

Now, let's say we did the same thing with an air support unit. Whereas one smaller agency cannot support its own air unit, why not have a Metro Air Support Unit? Now we can justify the helicopter unit. It patrols an area of multiple jurisdictions but in a smaller area (you can rarely tell the boundaries in suburban cities anyway), each department pays their fair share to support the unit, the aircraft is in the air much more often, and it would be there when the officers on the ground need it. Why not contract this out to a capable helicopter operator? They could demand the best and most experienced pilots. While they could be, the pilot doesn't have to have a law enforcement background any more than an ENG pilot had to be a Sportscaster. Am I the only one that sees the sense this makes?

 

I'm not arguing against air support units. I'm arguing against air support units in the all too often crappy way in which they are designed, the good ol' boy system they utilize, the inexperienced pilots they bring on at taxpayer expense when they could have higher time already trained pilots, the inadequate throw back helicopters they use, and the current pilots that often have to be called out from home to come fly them.

 

Like it or not, most air support programs are not NYPD or LAPD style. They just aren't. It can be debated all day long but pull out an Atlas and see how many areas of the country you think would actually have the call volume to support an air program. It's limited. It's sure a lot less than actually have them.

 

Airdog, Trol, and EC120AV8R, I am not purporting to be the Encyclopedia of LE Aviation. I do have plenty of experience with agencies around the country to have my opinions supportable. I am sure you do as well. We are not that far off on our statements if you read my posts instead of critiquing them. If anyone wants to PM me I will be happy to respond with the details of who I speak. As I stated before, I will not post publicly the names and jurisdictions as my opinions are my own and quite honestly, it would be embarrasing for some of the agencies I speak of. But if you want them, just PM.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Fidelis

[EC120AV8R]

Fidelis, I disagree. We are reading your statements thoroughly, however, both myself and Airdoggy have been trying to convey the inconsistency of your position. Early on you asserted that Law Enforcement are not "experts" in aviation, and thusly should leave aviation to the "experts". That's almost a quote of your initial position. My understanding, at least initially, was that you feel law enforcement aviation should be contracted (that's almost a quote too). Your position morphed into some units are great, some are ok, and others should be drawn and quartered (not a quote...).

 

You are absolutely right that smaller agencies should form a cooperative air unit (a "Joint Powers Authority" or JPA is the appropriate buzzword). It does help several agencies defray the cost of the unit, keeps the unit busy with a larger patrol area. There's no argument with that. However, any agency that feels they have the financial resources (whether large or small), and believes their troops on the ground will be well served by an air unit is free to start and run a unit at will. As I said before how it's run is a matter of putting the right people in the right place. Yes, running an aviation unit requires a lot of planning, oversight and industry knowledge, but it isn't exactly rocket science either. A properly trained manager can do it well (ALEA offers several unit manager courses).

[airdoggy]

I am for a program in which smaller agencies could pool their funds and resources.

 

Here's an example and I'll try to keep it brief (it's been tough):

 

Many small departments rarely have use for a SWAT Team. It is unfeasible to train and keep current half of your staff to be ready for a call that may happen once a year. For this reason, many of the departments in one area provide an officer or two to a Metro SWAT Team that covers several cities. Now, these officers are utilized more often and are a huge benefit but their departments minimize the amount of resources they had to provide. But they get the full benefit when needed.

 

Now, let's say we did the same thing with an air support unit. Whereas one smaller agency cannot support its own air unit, why not have a Metro Air Support Unit? Now we can justify the helicopter unit. It patrols an area of multiple jurisdictions but in a smaller area (you can rarely tell the boundaries in suburban cities anyway), each department pays their fair share to support the unit, the aircraft is in the air much more often, and it would be there when the officers on the ground need it. Why not contract this out to a capable helicopter operator? They could demand the best and most experienced pilots. While they could be, the pilot doesn't have to have a law enforcement background any more than an ENG pilot had to be a Sportscaster. Am I the only one that sees the sense this makes?

 

 

I'm all for smaller jurisdictions pooling their money/resources for any program(air ops included) that will help the officers on the ground. It's a no-brainer and it is already being done done in several locations with success. This is nothing new and definitely not ground breaking.

 

Also, but again not ground breaking or new, is using a private company contracted to provide helicopter and pilot(most are previous LE pilots). There has been varied success with this setup. I believe a successful program would be the San Bernardino CA or Fontana CA operations. Both these programs(owned by same company) seem to be working well for their very specific mission. I don't believe this system can work in all law enforcement, but when it does great.

 

Based on my experience, it is definitely a plus to have a law enforcement background, better yet, it is nice to have agency specific background. This is especially true in the agency I work for, in that we are multirole/multifaceted which requires intimate law enforcement knowledge. I'm definitely not saying that is can't be done, but it sure is nice that I know what the heck is happening on the ground and can be an integral part of the crew and decision making process. At one point in my career, I flew single pilot(as in no one else in the aircraft) in a very agency specific fixed wing and successfully managed pursuits, foot pursuits, speed enforcement, searches, IMC flight, you name it, etc. In my scenario and obvious legal reasons, I don't believe a contract pilot and aircraft could have done it.

 

Have a great day!

Airdoggy

[palmfish]

Another difference between an LE pilot and contract pilot is loyalty. The LE pilot won't think twice about backing up a brother on the street, and will more than likely serve the agency for many years. A contract pilot may not make (or recognize the need for) the extra effort that could be the difference between life and death. And of course, a mercenary is much more likely to jump ship when a higher paying offer comes along.

Edited August 14, 2008 by palmfish

[EC120AV8R]

Another difference between an LE pilot and contract pilot is loyalty. The LE pilot won't think twice about backing up a brother on the street, and will more than likely serve the agency for many years. A contract pilot may not make (or recognize the need for) the extra effort that could be the difference between life and death. And of course, a mercenary is much more likely to jump ship when a higher paying offer comes along.

 

I have heard this exact complaint from a unit that contracted pilots. To pilots who had no prior LE experience, a call is a call is a call. If it was time to go off-duty, they wanted to head in, even if they were working a call, that troops really needed the support. I couldn't count the number of time we have worked hours past our off-duty time to stay with a call. Differnet mindset.

[ctimrun]

By working the streets of a city as a police officer you inherently will learn the in's and out's of the city as it relates to the function of law enforcement. Nobody else can or will know the city the same way as a long time policeman does. For those of you who have never worked in a law enforcement helicopter, you would be very surprised at how little the pilot and observer communicate to each other directly when working a call, from getting dispatched to when the helicopter no longer is needed and leaves the area of that call. This can only happen when both the pilot and the observer are on the same page, along with the officers on the ground.

 

I could only imagine trying to work as observer with a non law enforcement pilot flying. Not only would I have to do my job, but I would have to communicate a lot more to the pilot which will take away from my focus of assisting the ground units.

[Spike]

While this topic certainly has been beaten to death, it’s obvious it won’t die so I’ll go ahead and cap a few rounds into it.

 

I can only speak from my own experience as a former contract LE pilot, who is now sworn (read; experienced with both sides of the fence).

 

I found little to no difference between the operations of the aircraft and /or coordination of the flight crew. More importantly, on the sworn side, I found individuals who were in charge of, and/or assigned to, the unit who have no business being there. On the contract side, only extremely experienced aviation professionals had responsibility of the operation of the aircraft which lead to a pretty high standard. This was due to the agency (contractee) being viewed as the customer. Therefore, the customer received the best service the company could provide.

 

As for the attitude of the pilot, with experienced professional helicopter pilots in general, you show them what to do, and how to do it, and they’ll usually have it mastered within a few moments. And, if your guy, contract or sworn, doesn’t give-a-sh*t about doing his J-O-B, then he shouldn’t be allowed in the cockpit at all. This is an individual, personnel, cultural issue, not a contract vs. sworn issue.

 

It’s already been said in this thread but needs repeating. Very few, if any, EMS helicopter pilots came from a medical background. Very few, firefighting helicopter pilots come from a firefighting background. Very few, if any, ENG helicopter pilots come from a media background. We can go on-and-on with this. Most helicopter pilots come from either the civilian sector or the military. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument why the LE sector is considered different than those mentioned above. The “a profession within a profession” adage is a myth. Especially when the engine quits…………….

 

IMHO of couse……

[EC120AV8R]

Spike, you are right, it has been beaten to death, and you certainly make some valid points. I somewhat disagree with your statement that a "Profession within a profession" is a myth. Like I said some time ago in this thread, we are pilots first, officers second. That's the point of that statement.

 

I am glad you have had the opportunity to see it from both sides, it gives you some great insights. However, my question remains: if me or any other "homegrown" LE pilot has to pass the same FAA standard, as you or any other pilot when we trained and earned our licenses, how are we any less of a pilot than you, or any other pilot? "When the engine quits" are you any better prepared than I am, because you paid for your own training? Did that give you some special skill I wasn't?

 

I don't care what industry you fly in. You have 5,000 hour pilots and pilots who are one hour pilots 5,000 times. No matter how you cut it it always comes across as sour grapes from those pilots who are in hock up to their eyeballs to pay for their training, and I had mine provided for me. I didn't work any less to get there. I paid my dues too, if you are a cop, you understand.

[Spike]

EC120AV8R

 

Before I get to the question I’ll have to apologize as I must not have communicated my point very clearly as my reply had nothing to do with the “paid for training” aspect or how you earned it. Additionally, I’m not personally criticizing anyone or their experience. In fact, I’m about as smart as a brick and by what people tell me, they don’t care what I have to say anyway so why should anyone else?.…… No ego here my friend… Having said this, I can only comment on what *I* have experienced and what *I* have seen or what I have read. I know and respect many individuals like you who choose to serve the community over serving themselves and no one is “less” then me in any aspect.

 

Now for the remaining “question” and remember this is *my* opinion. I agree we all must pass the same FAA check ride to obtain our certificates. However, the FAA standard is considered the “minimum” standard and by no means a solid gauge of experience and/or skill. As a former CFI, I’ve seen plenty of pilot’s gain this same certification who I believed had no business being behind the controls of a helicopter. In other words, saying you passed a private or commercial check-ride isn’t saying much albeit an accomplishment. If you’re an experienced aviator, you understand.

 

In the commercial sector (and to an extent some government agencies), the employers and insurance companies want to see pilots with a wide range of experience over thousands of hours in order to qualify for pilot positions. Why is the LE sector different? Furthermore, I say the “profession within a profession” is a myth because it philosophically separates the LE sector from the helicopter industry, or, only “we” can do this attitude which I believe is bogus. More agencies should understand there are a ton of highly qualified, talented pilots out here who would love to work for them. This also applies to laterals. Again, why would a Department accept me as a lateral Patrol Officer, but not even consider me for an open pilot position? Mind boggling……..

 

As far as the "when the engine quits" comment, if you had one fail, you surly understand.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Spike

[EC120AV8R]

Spike, again, you make some very valid points. I should say that I wasn't specifically singling you out. I agree that the checkride is the bare minimum, and that training is (or should be) an ongoing process. I also agree that there pilots out there who have passed the checkride and yet have no business even flying anything on Microsoft FlightSim, let alone an actual aircraft. I am fortunate that we have a vigorous ongoing training program, and I feel blessed to be in the program that I am. there are some out there that get by with the minimum, and they don't do us any justice. certainly, point taken.

 

You won't get an argument out of me on almost all of your post, except the whole "Profession within a profession" thing. ALEA has s number of non-sworn pilots members who provide service to agencies that opt to employ civilian pilots. I honestly have no issue with that. What I see is that the LE profession is just that...a profession. Within that profession, the aviators who work in that sector are professionals unto themselves. I have always taken it as we are pilots first within the LE profession.

 

I think agencies that choose to hire experienced pilots are smart in a number of respects...so long as the pilot is making a choice to serve in that sector because he/she believes in what the mission is, and not just because it is another flying job with a steady paycheck. In short (too late, I know) I pretty much agree with you.

[Spike]

This topic rose from the grave again like weeds in a cow pasture and was recently highlighted in the latest issue of Air Beat magazine. After reading this stuff, I came away with the usual disappointment. I can’t say I’m surprised with the various politically correct articles which really didn’t say much about the topic. While being PC is not my forte, to me, some of these articles read something like this;

 

If any organization plans to operate with a civilian pilot, they should evaluate the following qualities when considering civilian pilot applicants for the Airborne Law Enforcement mission.

 

Check for a pulse. If the applicant’s heart isn’t beating, then he/she should not be considered qualified.

 

Check for extremities. Applicants without arms and legs rarely make good LE pilots.

 

Can the applicant speak? Albeit a FAA requirement, speaking enhances the critical coordination with other crewmembers and ground units during a LE mission.

 

Sight is another important quality for a civilian pilot entering into the LE mission. While blindness is a quality regularly overlooked by administrators, it should be considered a necessity when flying.

 

Previous experience. While it’s not necessary for the sworn pilot to have previous flying experience, it’s critical for the civilian due to the lack of knowledge of probable cause, reasonable suspicion and not knowing what “code 4” means.

 

Yes, I’m a cynic.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Spike

[airdoggy]

I read the articles in Air Beat and came away with slightly different interpretations. It seemed to me, that each article(that was not Agency specific) was written to present both sides of the debate. The pros/cons were presented and the reader was left up to their own judgement to form their own opinion.

 

This debate does not end, and I don't expect it to anytime soon. Everyone has their unique opinions, because they are based on their varied backgrounds of experience. Everytime you list a pro, I can list a con and vice versa.

 

I happen to fly for a "sworn only" agency, but that doesn't mean every pilot was a 300 hour wonder boy. All the pilots come from varied backgrounds and experience; military, civilian, etc, but all are bonded by the "espirit de corps" of being an officer first(no laterals accepted). It works for us and everyone is dedicated to being the most professional helo crew they can be, whether it is doing SAR, Medevacs, Hoists, Long Line, Law Enforcement, etc.

 

The never ending debate continues.....................

[EC120AV8R]

I'm sitting this round out. I too read the articles, and you can take what you will from them. I think there are strong opinions both ways, and trying to convince the "other side" of anything different is about as beneficial as smacking oneself in the forehead with a ball peen hammer.

[Spike]

It’s not unusual to find such indecisive commentary within the pages of AB. To me, stating the obvious to fill pages is a poor representation of the issue and a disservice to the LE sector.

 

Funny thing is it really doesn’t matter. Very few of us sworn pilots ever move from one department (culture) to another. In fact, the majority of us will end our LE flying careers with the same agencies we started with. After we retire, we can become industry experts and give advice how to do heli-logging….

 

Where’s that hammer - PING… OUCH!!!!!!!!!!

[aclark79]

A LE agency isn't going to be able to pay the civy pilot as much as one could get in the private sector. The LE pilot is with his/her agency for the long haul and isn't looking at counting hours, they want to catch the bad guy. The civy is probably going to be thinking about how many hours to their next goal.

 

I respectfully disagree. Unless your comparing southern officer's pay scale (I only know Atlanta's and surrounding agencies pay scales back in 1999) to helicopter pilots then I think your mistaken on how much more money most pilots make. I know I'd have been happy to work for Suffolk County's Police Air Unit as a contractor if you pay me as much as they make. Or I'd happily fly for King County Washington, or Portland Oregon for what they pay their officers. Granted I don't know the pay scale across the country, but at least at the departments I do know, most I'd be more than willing to work for long term.

 

Add to that the fact that Police flying is a heck of a lot more interesting that shuttling guys to and from oil platforms, or taking the same tour route over and over. Heck, I know a ton of highly professional experienced civilian pilots who would happily fly contract for a police agency, but don't want to be ground officers for the years it takes to have a potential shot at getting a police pilots job, assuming they make it through the political morass.

 

I don't personally buy the argument that only a guy who's been on the street for years can be a good police pilot. If that was true you wouldn't see officers go right into the aviation unit and do a good job (something I have seen many times). Its my opinion that the skills required can be trained. I think a good professional pilot, be he officer or civilian, and a police TFO is a good combination, its more important that the pilot be a professional at piloting than a professional at police work.

[EC120AV8R]

I don't personally buy the argument that only a guy who's been on the street for years can be a good police pilot. If that was true you wouldn't see officers go right into the aviation unit and do a good job (something I have seen many times). Its my opinion that the skills required can be trained. I think a good professional pilot, be he officer or civilian, and a police TFO is a good combination, its more important that the pilot be a professional at piloting than a professional at police work.

 

You are absolutely right. Sworn or not, we are pilots first.

[SuperPilot]

I am a law enforcement pilot for a large agency. I have 9,000 + hours flying various law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting and long line operations. I have 1,500 hours of NVG time over the city, mountains (10,000+ feet), deserts and ocean. I have tons of off airport operations to pinnacles, confined areas and every undesirable LZ you can think of. I have thousands of hours in MD 500 products including, D, E and NOTARS. I have hundreds of hours in MD600’s. I have thousands of hours in A-stars and several hundred hours in large multi-engine helicopters. I have over 20 years in the helicopter industry and I started out as an “observer” after working the streets so I have some para-military experience. I have been involved in a couple of shootings and I have been shot at on numerous occasions and experienced several in-flight emergencies which resulted in no injuries.

 

I am no longer challenged in my current employment and I want to fly Apaches in Afghanistan. Here is the thing. I really don’t want to be in the Army or any branch of the military. I don’t want to waste my time learning to become an infantry officer or do all that silly marching around, standing inspections and sleeping in the barracks, etc. I just want to fly the Apache and fly the missions! I have a lot more flying experience than many of the pilots currently in theater and I feel I can be an asset to the guys on the ground. I will work for less than the military officers as a contractor and they won’t have to pay benefits. I will save the taxpayers money. I am sure a few familiarization flights in the Apache and I should be good to go. I mean I will have an Army officer as my gunner so I can rely on him to worry about the tactics and stuff and talking to the guys on the ground. I can learn all the military stuff as I go and after a while it will all make sense to me. I will be a much safer pilot because I won’t be all wrapped up with what is going on, on the ground and I can focus just on the flying. I won’t understand what the guy on the ground is going through or really needs from me because I have never been there or done that, but again, that is what my gunner is for. He can explain it all as we go.

 

So my question is two fold.

 

#1 Anyone have any connections at the pentagon that might be able to help me out?

 

#2 What do law enforcement pilots really think about military pilots?

[palmfish]

I am a law enforcement pilot for a large agency. I have 9,000 + hours flying various law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting and long line operations. I have 1,500 hours of NVG time over the city, mountains (10,000+ feet), deserts and ocean. I have tons of off airport operations to pinnacles, confined areas and every undesirable LZ you can think of. I have thousands of hours in MD 500 products including, D, E and NOTARS. I have hundreds of hours in MD600’s. I have thousands of hours in A-stars and several hundred hours in large multi-engine helicopters. I have over 20 years in the helicopter industry and I started out as an “observer” after working the streets so I have some para-military experience. I have been involved in a couple of shootings and I have been shot at on numerous occasions and experienced several in-flight emergencies which resulted in no injuries.

 

I am no longer challenged in my current employment and I want to fly Apaches in Afghanistan. Here is the thing. I really don’t want to be in the Army or any branch of the military. I don’t want to waste my time learning to become an infantry officer or do all that silly marching around, standing inspections and sleeping in the barracks, etc. I just want to fly the Apache and fly the missions! I have a lot more flying experience than many of the pilots currently in theater and I feel I can be an asset to the guys on the ground. I will work for less than the military officers as a contractor and they won’t have to pay benefits. I will save the taxpayers money. I am sure a few familiarization flights in the Apache and I should be good to go. I mean I will have an Army officer as my gunner so I can rely on him to worry about the tactics and stuff and talking to the guys on the ground. I can learn all the military stuff as I go and after a while it will all make sense to me. I will be a much safer pilot because I won’t be all wrapped up with what is going on, on the ground and I can focus just on the flying. I won’t understand what the guy on the ground is going through or really needs from me because I have never been there or done that, but again, that is what my gunner is for. He can explain it all as we go.

 

So my question is two fold.

 

#1 Anyone have any connections at the pentagon that might be able to help me out?

 

#2 What do law enforcement pilots really think about military pilots?

 

 

You seem qualified to me. Call this number:

 

(703)-545-6700

[permison]

You seem qualified to me. Call this number:

 

(703)-545-6700

 

 

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during this conversation.

[palmfish]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during this conversation.

 

You wouldn't last long. In the Pentagon, all the fly swatters are O-5's - and there are a ton of them...