Defund police helicopters.

brien23 said:
Washington state, King County Sheriff’s Air Support Unit is the only full-time rotary-wing law enforcement aviation unit in Washington State. Four other counties (Chelan, Thurston, Snohomish and Spokane) each operate helicopters. Seems like the only good use is to provide high paying jobs to those who fly them, military helicopters seem to do all the rescue work on TV.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the civilian agencies fly up there now but the H-3's at NAS Whidbey and the H-46s out of Fort Lewis were the only helos in the area capable of operating up at altitude, especially in the summer, in the Cascades for the SAR work when I was there. SAR in the mountains is a pretty specialized mission. Can't see police departments training for it and keeping current unless they're going to do a lot of it (and I'm sure some do)

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article226474740.html

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article243268316.html

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/556180/nas-whidbey-island-sar-rescues-trapped-family-near-la-push

Not missions you just say "let's go" without a significant risk of hurting yourself sans training to do it.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
Don't know where you got that info from, but the LEO aircraft we worked on at the old day job could hardly hide their mx costs.
Click to expand...

It was a game. Get approval to acquire a "Free" helicopter. Once in possession of said helicopter, you've gotta maintain it right? You don't want your department flying around in poorly equipped, unmaintained helicopters. So you roll the upgrade costs into your maintenance program. Again, you "wouldn't" want to skimp on maintenance, would you? Easy argument to sell and an easy rhetorical position for a politician to defend. Maintenance is a line item within a much larger operating budget. It is much easier to slide through higher maintenance costs while rebuilding a helicopter than it is to go to the Board of Commissioners and request funds to buy a brand new helicopter. That is a tough and highly visible "sell" when the county is raising taxes and scrambling to fund all of the improvements the latest wave of politicians promised. I mean, who actually scrutinizes the helicopter maintenance expenses anyway? ;-)
 
kyleb said:
It was a game. Get approval to acquire a "Free" helicopter. Once in possession of said helicopter, you've gotta maintain it right? You don't want your department flying around in poorly equipped, unmaintained helicopters. So you roll the upgrade costs into your maintenance program. Again, you "wouldn't" want to skimp on maintenance, would you? Easy argument to sell and an easy rhetorical position for a politician to defend. Maintenance is a line item within a much larger operating budget. It is much easier to slide through higher maintenance costs while rebuilding a helicopter than it is to go to the Board of Commissioners and request funds to buy a brand new helicopter. That is a tough and highly visible "sell" when the county is raising taxes and scrambling to fund all of the improvements the latest wave of politicians promised. I mean, who actually scrutinizes the helicopter maintenance expenses anyway? ;-)
Click to expand...

Not really sure where you are going with this. What upgrades are you alleging they are trying to hide as maintenance?
 
Doc Holliday said:
But you can look around any government agency and find abuse.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any of it right.

I'm sure there are some police aviation units that provide a good service for the taxpaying public. For a city like Los Angeles (huge population, huge land area, huge....everything), I'd have to think a robust police aviation unit is critical. Those kinds of instances seem like the the exception though. As others have pointed out, most police helicopter units seem like a great deal for the police pilots and staff, and a poor deal for the taxpayer.

I spent a little bit of time flying with police aviation (not Los Angeles). It was an enjoyable experience, and there were some great people involved in that arena. But, by gosh, they constantly struggled to point to any kind of tangible benefit they provided to the public. It seemed like yet another example of the "self-licking ice cream cone." They need funding to fly the helicopters X amount of hours per year in order to maintain their qualifications to fly the helicopters. With nothing to show for it at the end of the year except for a big fuel bill.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not really sure where you are going with this. What upgrades are you alleging they are trying to hide as maintenance?
Click to expand...

Point is, a police helicopter operation *can* be a shell game for a flying club. It happens. Based on my friend's accounts, there was a fair amount of that going on in one of the local counties when he was getting his rides. So instead of picking around the edges, why don't you put your opinion out there - "Never happens", "Happens all the time." or "Happens infrequently" and be done with it?
 
fasteddie said:
That doesn't make any of it right.

I'm sure there are some police aviation units that provide a good service for the taxpaying public. For a city like Los Angeles (huge population, huge land area, huge....everything), I'd have to think a robust police aviation unit is critical. Those kinds of instances seem like the the exception though. As others have pointed out, most police helicopter units seem like a great deal for the police pilots and staff, and a poor deal for the taxpayer.

I spent a little bit of time flying with police aviation (not Los Angeles). It was an enjoyable experience, and there were some great people involved in that arena. But, by gosh, they constantly struggled to point to any kind of tangible benefit they provided to the public. It seemed like yet another example of the "self-licking ice cream cone." They need funding to fly the helicopters X amount of hours per year in order to maintain their qualifications to fly the helicopters. With nothing to show for it at the end of the year except for a big fuel bill.
Click to expand...

Show me where I stated “It makes it right”?

Citizens are responsible for their local municipalities and how they operate. This is done at the ballot box by electing people who should show fiscal restraint.

Trying to broad brush a statement (such as the OP was attempting) simply isn’t true.

How many here that are upset with their local LEO use of helicopters have ever contacted their local representative or even attended a city council meeting and put it on the agenda?
 
kyleb said:
Point is, a police helicopter operation *can* be a shell game for a flying club. It happens. Based on my friend's accounts, there was a fair amount of that going on in one of the local counties when he was getting his rides. So instead of picking around the edges, why don't you put your opinion out there - "Never happens", "Happens all the time." or "Happens infrequently" and be done with it?
Click to expand...

LOL. I’ve stated my opinion on the subject, rather clear. You simply refuse to accept it.

But I’m sure your second and third hand information is reliable. ;)
 
kyleb said:
I mean, who actually scrutinizes the helicopter maintenance expenses anyway? ;-)
Click to expand...
In my actual experience, the head shed of whatever municipality that oversaw the LEO department. So like I questioned earlier, it sounds like your info is 2nd hand. I've spent hours with different auditors justifying the mx performed. My boss hated to do it so if I was around I got stuck with it. Most of the auditors were contract so they questioned everything. So, as I mentioned, outside a very small municipality, you'd be pressed to hide anything unless the entire municipal government plus LEO was in on it. Have seen many more LEO ops go away than stick around due to "excessive" mx costs.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
I’ve stated my opinion on the subject, rather clear. You simply refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...

So, your opinion is that abuse happens, but you continue to argue against what I'm saying (which is that abuse happens).
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not really sure where you are going with this. What upgrades are you alleging they are trying to hide as maintenance?
Click to expand...

fasteddie said:
The big FLIR ball they hang on the front?
Click to expand...

Doc Holliday said:
Duh. So how are they suppose to do their mission?
Click to expand...

Their "mission." Which is.....what?

I think this is kind of the crux of the whole discussion. People struggle to see the tangible benefits provided by a police helicopter unit.
 
fasteddie said:
Their "mission." Which is.....what?

I think this is kind of the crux of the whole discussion. People struggle to see the tangible benefits provided by a police helicopter unit.
Click to expand...

So let me see you take a helicopter out on a moonless night to find a lost person, search for someone who has fled a crime scene, etc and not have NVG, FLIR or a NightSun.

Or should they just not use this at all?
 
kyleb said:
So, your opinion is that abuse happens, but you continue to argue against what I'm saying (which is that abuse happens).
Click to expand...

Nice twist, but not buying it. Your point is a bit inane. If you know of abuse of a particular dept or agency, then why haven’t you voiced your concerns or presented evidence to those that can make a change?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Nice twist, but not buying it. Your point is a bit inane. If you know of abuse of a particular dept or agency, then why haven’t you voiced your concerns or presented evidence to those that can make a change?
Click to expand...

What's that big fish I see? Wait. Wait. It's a RED Herring. What I do/have done/will do/won't do isn't the topic of discussion.
 
kyleb said:
What's that big fish I see? Wait. Wait. It's a RED Herring. What I do/have done/will do/won't do isn't the topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

All I keep seeing from you is you want affirmation of some agency, somewhere, that has “abused” a helicopter. Then you want affirmation that because this agency has abused the helicopter, justification that ALL LE helicopter operations are abusive.

I’ve stated, the ones I have first hand experience with aren’t what you and the OP allege. I’ve also made it perfectly clear I don’t speak for all LE agencies using Rotorcraft.

Is it really that difficult? :rolleyes:
 
Bell206 said:
It's changed names a few times but I think it is still considered the 1033 program through the DoD. There is a specific department which handles DoD transfers of surplus equipment (aircraft, vehicles, weapons, etc) to various civilian LEO departments. There's another level via a different DoD department that handles the surplus sales to the general public via auctions.
Click to expand...

Yup, and that program would specifically prohibit the department from 'flipping' a helicopter after they refurbish it. 'Aircraft' are considered 'controlled property' , remain titled to the DoD and have to be returned to the defense logistics agency once a law enforcement agency doesn't have use for it anymore. So those helicopters that the military seems to give away willy-nilly seem to be in some other program.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
All I keep seeing from you is you want affirmation of some agency, somewhere, that has “abused” a helicopter. Then you want affirmation that because this agency has abused the helicopter, justification that ALL LE helicopter operations are abusive.
Click to expand...

I didn't write that or imply any of that. My comment here is that abuse does occur. How often? Dunno.

Very simple.
 
weilke said:
So those helicopters that the military seems to give away willy-nilly seem to be in some other program.
Click to expand...
As I recall, if you wanted to go the free route then a "permanent loan" from the DoD was the ticket (1033). But if you wanted to be free from any oversight then procuring an aircraft through a GSA auction was the route. Public entities are given preferred treatment with these auctions but afterwards any person can bid also. Difference is no oversight as you become the outright owner and the federal government surrenders all claims. This is the method where most OH-58s, UH-1s, and all civilian Blackhawks are procured.
 
Doc Holliday said:
IIRC, the LEO and news gathering helicopters in LA have a MOU on altitudes so they don't create collision hazards.
Click to expand...

You are correct, they do. It's pretty common in larger cities where they have both police and news flying.

You're also probably correct in assuming this is what the OP was referring to, but he didn't make it clear, and sounded as though he thought this was some kind of regulation. As you stated it, it's not a reg, it's an agreement.

I just wanted to clarify that statement.
 
weilke said:
Viewed as an hourly rate, that's true. Over the course of a career, the LEO pilot probably comes out ahead. That paycheck keeps coming whether the barrel o oil is $140 or $20. Training is paid for, you put in your 23 years and retire with a pension + healthcare. In the private sector you have to squirrel away a lot of money to make up for the predictability and fringe benefits of a public sector job.
Click to expand...

Well, in my experience, I would say, if that's the case, they (or you) are working for the wrong operator. The good operators offer excellent salaries or daily rates, (some even offer both) for skilled pilots, plus flight pay on top of that, plus per diem, plus extended pay for Gov contract over 9 hours, plus all expenses paid, plus travel to and from work, plus 401k, plus medical, dental, vision, etc.

I could have retired comfortably 10 years ago but choose to continue flying because I love flying, not because I need to. It's just icing on the cake that I'm pulling in good money and awesome bennies.
 
JOhnH said:
Instead of defunding police and sending social workers on 911 calls, they should increase the funding and ADD a social worker to the single officer police car.
Click to expand...

I'm just waiting to see what happens when the first social worker responding to a 911 call gets killed.

Do these people (those for defunding) realize that Fire wont even roll up on a potentially dangerous scene until police arrive and secure it?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm doubting this thread will be open long here. But this defund the police thing, stupid. Unfortunately it's going to happen in places and unfortunately it will be deadly for some people, generally the most vulnerable amongst us.

IBTL
 
SToL said:
My guess is that was just a fluke... they were probably already in the process of getting ready to go... because 1 minute is just not a reasonable response time even if you're already sitting in the helicopter.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct. I was surprised to see it liftoff so quickly after the reports came in. It's also possible that they were ready due to earlier laser reports I didn't hear.
 
tlglenn said:
You are probably correct. I was surprised to see it liftoff so quickly after the reports came in. It's also possible that they were ready due to earlier laser reports I didn't hear.
Click to expand...

That or they were landing from another call, and just went back out.
 
I suppose “high paying” is subjective but I’ve never considered LEO as high paying in the helo community. They probably average $80K a year. A program like LAPD possibly $100K a year.
 
JOhnH said:
Instead of defunding police and sending social workers on 911 calls, they should increase the funding and ADD a social worker to the single officer police car.
Click to expand...

Where I live (also in the Phoenix area and probably elsewhere) there are mobile acute crisis teams that can respond to calls. Sometimes the police will call for a MAC team, MAC will call for the police, or both will get dispatched. I've seen police drop-off individuals at a behavioral health treatment facility instead of taking them to jail. And I've seen the facility call the police to take someone away.
 
SToL said:
I'm just waiting to see what happens when the first social worker responding to a 911 call gets killed.

Do these people (those for defunding) realize that Fire wont even roll up on a potentially dangerous scene until police arrive and secure it?
Click to expand...

I mentioned mobile acute crisis teams in another reply. They won't go inside a perimeter with police unless the police have secured the area. Definitely don't want them rolling up in the police cars.
 
SToL said:
I'm just waiting to see what happens when the first social worker responding to a 911 call gets killed.
Click to expand...
That won't take long, even if they roll up in a police car with a veteran officer. Even quicker if they send out a social worker alone.
Cops are like lawyers; everyone hates them until they need one.

I for one would like to offer my thanks to any LEOs or any former LEOs on this forum. You guys (with very few exceptions) are indeed heroes.
 
Zeldman said:
And then do what, arrest the owner of the plate that was stolen off their car and put on a different stolen car.??
Click to expand...

You seem to think they can't see what kind of car is registered to that stolen plate.
 
N1120A said:
You seem to think they can't see what kind of car is registered to that stolen plate.
Click to expand...

Ok, I was really hoping common sense would prevail and we wouldn't have to go here.. but...

...you seem to think that this is some kind of utopian discovery that some how will magically make pursuits a thing of the past...

Follow along in this senario.

I steal YOUR car, commit a bunch of crimes and then ditch the car and go to Disney land. The cops didn't need to chase me, or bother IDing me, because they simply got the license plate and let me go...

Guess who's going to jail under your brilliant plan?
 
::I want common sense to prevail::

::I'm going to use absurdist fallacies to demonstrate that::
 
Back on topic - I have a former federal LE airplane. Man o man. They took good care of this thing and they put some expensive upgrades in it. Who else has an actual TCAS I system (no RAs) in a single engine cessna? Some still have UHF/VHF radios. Cool stuff. If they start selling them off again, you guys are going to find some sweet deals on sweet birds.
 
N1120A said:
You seem to think they can't see what kind of car is registered to that stolen plate.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that crooks registered their stolen tags to their own cars. I wonder if the cops know that?
 
N1120A said:
::I want common sense to prevail::

::I'm going to use absurdist fallacies to demonstrate that::
Click to expand...

The absurd fallacy is that you think simply obtaining the plate number is somehow going to identify the actual driver of the vehicle and that some how negates the police actually doing their job and catching the person committing the crimes, because we all know, no one ever drives a car that isn't registered to them.
 
SToL said:
Pt 135 - min alt 300' over congested area
Pt 91 - whatever floats your boat, provided without hazard to persons or property on the surface... or with the exception of routes or altitudes specifically prescribed by the FAA
Click to expand...

Interesting! Who decides whether it's a hazard to the surface? What if some a-hole complains that you were hurting his ears or scaring his chickens or giving his dog anxiety from 200 feet above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top