Aviation Units in Large Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Functions and Costs of Law Enforcement Aviation Units
The functions and costs of law enforcement aviation units Lynn Langton Statistician Bureau of Justice Statistics Why study law enforcement aviation units? • Advantages of airborne policing – Able to cover distances faster- often 1st on scene – Greater visual range from the sky – Can cover otherwise impassible areas – Officers removed from dangers on the ground – Potential deterrent effect from aircraft patrols – Able to perform routine homeland security critical facility checks • Major drawbacks – Helicopters/planes are expensive to obtain & operate – Helicopters generate substantial noise – Aerial patrol & surveillance viewed as obtrusive – Safety concerns Prior research on law enforcement aviation units • Schnelle et al. 1978 – Examination of the deterrent effect of helicopter patrols in Nashville, TN – Found reduction in burglaries during 6-day periods of helicopter patrol • Alpert et al. 1998 – NIJ helicopter pursuit study – Studied effectiveness of helicopters in police pursuits in Baltimore, MD and Miami-Dade, FL – Over 80% arrest success rate when helicopters involved in pursuits Prior research on law enforcement aviation units • London Police Service Helicopter Research Project 1999-2000 – Assessed deterrent effect of helicopter patrols & impact of helicopter use on police efficiency – No effect of patrols except on rates of commercial breaking & entering – Improved police response times & rate of suspect apprehension • Toronto Police Service Air Support Unit evaluation 2000-2001 – More effective to hire 25 new officers than to pay $2.1 million for air support unit 2007 BJS Census of Law Enforcement Aviation Units • Census of agencies w/100+ sworn that reported operating a fixed-wing plane or helicopter in the 2003 BJS LEMAS survey • 1st national study on airborne law enforcement • Data collected from 3/08 to 9/08. -
Aviation Law 2015 3Rd Edition
ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Aviation Law 2015 3rd Edition A practical cross-border insight into aviation law Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from: Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP Locke Lord Edwards LLP Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro Maciel, Norman & Asociados Arnecke Siebold Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft McAfee & Taft Arte Law Firm MMMLegal - Legal Counsels Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners NDR – Neville de Rougemont & Associates Cabinet BOPS – SCP Bouckaert Ormen Passemard Ozturk & Partners Chacón & Rodríguez, S.C. Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partners Christodoulou & Mavrikis Inc. Salazar & Asociados Condon & Forsyth LLP Studio Pierallini DDSA – De Luca, Derenusson, Schuttoff e Azevedo Taylor English Duma LLP Advogados Ventura Garcés & López-Ibor Abogados Dingli & Dingli Law Firm VISCHER AG Kaye Scholer LLP Worldwide Airports Lawyers Association (WALA) Kromann Reumert Kubes Passeyrer Attorneys at Law The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Aviation Law 2015 General Chapters: 1 The Use of Personal Data by the Commercial Aviation Industry – Alan Meneghetti, Locke Lord Edwards LLP 1 2 The Aviation Industry – Constant Change Leading to Tales of the Unexpected – Philip Perrotta, Contributing Editors Kaye Scholer LLP 4 Alan Meneghetti, Locke Lord Edwards LLP and Philip 3 Recent Developments in U.S. Aviation Law – 2015 – Unmanned Aircraft Systems Perrotta, Kaye Scholer LLP – Donald R. Andersen, Taylor English Duma LLP 8 Head of Business Development 4 The Cape Town Convention: An Evolving Process (with Side Notes on Selected Issues) Dror Levy – Erin M. Van Laanen & Maria E. Gonzalez, McAfee & Taft 11 Sales Director 5 The Need to Extend WALA’s Presence in the Airport Industry – Alan Meneghetti & Michael Siebold, Florjan Osmani Worldwide Airports Lawyers Association (WALA) 16 Commercial Director Antony Dine Account Directors Country Question and Answer Chapters: Oliver Smith, Rory Smith Senior Account Manager 6 Argentina Maciel, Norman & Asociados: Rogelio N. -
Global Military Helicopters 2015-16 Market Report Contents
GLOBAL MILITARY HELICOPTERS 2015-16 MARKET REPORT CONTENTS MARKET OVERVIEW 2 MILITARY HELICOPTER KEY REQUIREMENTS 4 EUROPE 5 NORTH AMERICA 10 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 12 AFRICA 15 ASIA-PACIFIC 16 MIDDLE EAST 21 WORLD MILITARY HELICOPTER HOLDINGS 23 EUROPE 24 NORTH AMERICA 34 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 36 AFRICA 43 ASIA-PACIFIC 49 MIDDLE EAST 59 EVENT INFORMATION 65 Please note that all information herein is subject to change. Defence IQ endeavours to ensure accuracy wherever possible, but errors are often unavoidable. We encourage readers to contact us if they note any need for amendments or updates. We accept no responsibility for the use or application of this information. We suggest that readers contact the specific government and military programme offices if seeking to confirm the reliability of any data. 1 MARKET OVERVIEW Broadly speaking, the global helicopter market is currently facing a two- pronged assault. The military helicopter segment has been impacted significantly by continued defense budgetary pressures across most traditional markets, and a recent slide in global crude oil prices has impacted the demand for new civil helicopters as well as the level of activity for existing fleets engaged in the offshore oil & gas exploration sector. This situation has impacted industry OEMs significantly, many of which had been working towards strengthening the civil helicopter segment to partially offset the impact of budgetary cuts on the military segment. However, the medium- to long-term view of the market is promising given the presence of strong fundamentals and persistent, sustainable growth drivers. The market for military helicopters in particular is set to cross a technological threshold in the form of next-generation compound helicopters and tilt rotorcraft. -
Aviation Law Review
Aviation Law Review Sixth Edition Editor Sean Gates lawreviews © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd Aviation law Review Sixth Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in August 2018 For further information please contact [email protected] Editor Sean Gates lawreviews © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS Thomas Lee, Joel Woods SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGER Pere Aspinall ACCOUNT MANAGERS Sophie Emberson, Jack Bagnall PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCHER Keavy Hunnigal-Gaw EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Hannah Higgins HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Tessa Brummitt SUBEDITOR Gina Mete CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul Howarth Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of July 2018, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business -
Aircraft Types Used in Law Enforcement
Aircraft Types used in Law Enforcement ACT Lancair Philippines, Airships [all types] R series [R33 etc.] United Kingdom, Skyship France, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Virgin/ABC Lightships Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Aeritalia AMC-3/AL60 South Africa, Aero 24 Hungary, 45 [K-75] Czechoslovakia, Hungary, AP-32 Czechoslovakia, C-104 Czechoslovakia, Aeronca 7AC United States, Aero Baero 180RVR Argentina Aero Commander [see Rockwell] Commander/Shrike Commander Australia, Bahamas, Colombia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Panama, United States, Airspeed Ferry United Kingdom, Agusta A109 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Ghana, Italy, Japan, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, AB139 Oman, Albatross CIII Germany, DIII Germany, Antonov An-2 Estonia, Latvia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Poland, Russia An-24 Mongolia, An-26 Nicaragua, An-32 Mexico, Peru, Russia An-72 Russia Arado 68 Germany 96 [Avia C-2B] Czechoslovakia, Armstrong-Whitworth AW660 Argosy C1 United Kingdom, ATR ATR42 Italy, Auster Auster Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, Kenya, Malaysia [RAF], Netherlands, United Kingdom, Avia International Police Aviation Research - law enforcement aircraft types 2 B-534 Czechoslovakia, S-89 [Supermarine Spitfire] Czechoslovakia, S-97 [Lavockin La-7] Czechoslovakia, S-99/S-199 [Bf109] Czechoslovakia, C-2B [Arado 96B] Czechoslovakia, K-65 [Fiesler Fi-156C] Czechoslovakia, K-75 [Aero 45] Czechoslovakia, VR-1 [Fa-223] Czechoslovakia, Avro Anson Australia 748 Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Ayres S-2 -
Recent Cases and Developments in Aviation Law Donald R
Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 2 1994 Recent Cases and Developments in Aviation Law Donald R. Andersen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Donald R. Andersen, Recent Cases and Developments in Aviation Law, 60 J. Air L. & Com. 3 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol60/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. RECENT CASES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LAW DONALD R. ANDERSEN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION ................................ 5 A. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION .............. 5 B. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT ....... 7 C. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ................... 8 D. FEDERAL REMOVAL .......................... 9 II. PREEM PTION ................................. 14 A. PRODUCTS LIABILITY ........................ 14 B. AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT ................ 26 1. PersonalInjury or Wrongful Death Claims .................................. 26 2. Air CarrierBusiness Practice Claims ...... 34 3. Air CarrierEmployment Practice Claims ... 39 4. Implied Preemption of Air Carier Claims.. 43 III. WARSAW CONVENTION AND AIR CARRIER LIABILITY ..................................... 51 A. WARSAW JURISDICTION, PREEMPTION AND REMOVAL ................................... 51 B. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE UNDER WARSAW CONVENTION ............................... 53 1. Notice of Liability Limitations ............ 53 * Partner, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Atlanta, Georgia; B.E.S., Georgia Institute of Technology, with honors 1973;J.D., University of Georgia School of Law, cum laude, 1976, Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, Georgia Law Review 1975-76; member, The Florida Bar and State Bar of Georgia. -
In-Flight Crimes, the Tokyo Convention, and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction, 35 J
Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 2 1969 In-Flight Crimes, The okyT o Convention, and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction Jacob M. Denaro Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Jacob M. Denaro, In-Flight Crimes, The Tokyo Convention, and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction, 35 J. Air L. & Com. 171 (1969) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. IN-FLIGHT CRIMES, THE TOKYO CONVENTION, AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL JURISDICTION By JACOB M. DENAROt I. INTRODUCTION A T TOKYO in 1963, a specialized agency of the United Nations 1 drafted a convention directed against offenses committed on board aircraft. The United States is signatory to that convention; but neither that sovereign nor a requisite number of States necessary to effectuate the document have as yet ratified the Tokyo Convention. Whether the Conven- tion should be ratified is a matter seriously being considered by the United States Government. The decision is dependent on two vital factors. First, it depends upon the ability of the Convention to respond to serious de- ficiencies presently existent in international criminal air law. Second, it depends upon the capacity of federal law to complement the Convention in areas which are intrinsically related to the subject matter of that docu- ment but which are, because of their inherently domestic nature, inappro- priate areas for a multilateral treaty. -
Military Aviation Safety
Order Code RL31571 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Military Aviation Safety Updated November 25, 2003 /name redacted/ Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Military Aviation Safety Summary Military aviation safety is a concern to policy makers in both the Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress. DoD is concerned about improving safety because aviation accidents erode DoD’s war fighting capabilities in many tangible and intangible ways. DoD aviation accidents are classified by the severity of injury or property damage. Class A accidents are the most severe events and the rate at which these accidents occur is the most frequently used yardstick for measuring aviation safety. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the military Services (including the Coast Guard) have different roles and responsibilities in military aviation safety promotion and mishap investigations. Generally speaking, the Services have the most active and involved role in promoting aviation safety. The Services conduct two types of mishap investigations, generally referred to as safety investigations and legal investigations. In the commercial and civil sector, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducts a single investigation. The status of military aviation safety depends heavily on one’s viewpoint. There is no consensus on how well the Services are doing in promoting and improving aviation safety. Some believe that the current mishap rate is acceptable. Others believe that it is unacceptable and can be improved. Others believe that DoD should strive for, and achieve, a “zero mishap rate.” Over the past 50 years, data show that the total annual number of accidents and the rate at which they occur have significantly decreased. -
THE RUSSIAN AEROSPACE FORCE Nicholas Myers
3. ARMED FORCES, MILITRY TECHNOLOGY THE RUSSIAN AEROSPACE FORCE NICHOLas MYERS ABSTRACT DOI: 10.26410/SF_1/18/8 The Russian Air-Space Force (VKS) retains great ca- pabilities for both defensive and offensive operations. Despite difficulties acquiring 5th-generation stealth technology, the VKS has replaced aging Soviet jets with 4++-generation fighters and fighter-bombers such as the Su-34 and Su-35 that will continue to provide it a powerful edge over its immediate neighbours while it develops its space policy and completes the moderni- zation of its other services. NICHOLAS MYERS KEY WORDS War vs Peace Foundation, President, Russia, Air Force, Military Modernization, Space. The United States of America Since 1 August 2015, the Russian Fede- military infrastructure and to prevent at- ration has combined its Air Force with its tacks coming from air and space spheres7. Space Forces, creating the Aerospace The doctrine specifically requiresimproving Force1. In Russian, this is called the the systems available to the VKS during Vozduzhno-kosmicheskiesily,2 or VKS. The peacetime to fulfil these missions8. 2014 Military Doctrine of the Russian Fed- eration defines the main missions and The importance of the air responsibilities of both the air and space dimension dimensions3 not only as air-delivered deg- Doctrinally, the VKS is tasked with air and radation of a potential enemy,4 but also pro- space defence, communication systems, viding timely information of enemy threats5. intelligence assets, electronic warfare, un- Recognizing that modern warfare involves manned aerial vehicles, automatic weapon the entirety of the depth of the country’s systems, military transport aviation, and aerospace, the VKS possesses considera- personal protective equipment. -
Corporate Civil Airlines Criminal Responsibility Against Theft of Passengers Luggage in Terms of the Aspect of Criminal Law Indonesia
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 192 1st International Conference on Indonesian Legal Studies (ICILS 2018) Corporate Civil Airlines Criminal Responsibility against Theft of Passengers Luggage in Terms of the Aspect of Criminal Law Indonesia Benny Sumardiana Aviation Law Expertise at Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES), Indonesia Email: [email protected] Abstract—Air transportation has a place in the hearts of the people, As a major transportation. Airline offers a lot of facilities that can be enjoyed passengers. The facilities are all about comfort in flight And its land crew service facilities. But, among the various strengths there is one community concerns that’s the theft was to passengers luggage, Loss of luggage or the contents of the luggage that missing. It is come to the attention of the public because so may cause adverse effect to airlines passengers. To this article will be discussed how the law aspect of airline responsibility over the phenomena.Corporate in this matter is an airline flight as the subject of a criminal act flight law make a different form of criminal responsibility with the individual criminal accountability. So, examined and discussed legal issues related to this is Reduction policy of criminal acts of flight in indonesia and Corporate civil airlines criminal responsibility Against theft passengers luggage In terms of the aspect of criminal law indonesiaWriting method of this legal research is a normative juridical research conducted by collecting primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials through literature study. The legal substance studied is Code No. -
Second Combat Brigade of PRC Air Force Likely Receives Stealth Fighter
Second Combat Brigade of PRC Air Force Likely Receives Stealth Fighter Derek Solen Something unusual appeared in a satellite image of an airbase in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in early April 2021. In the image, a J-20 appears to be taxiing from the runway at Anshan Airport, a military-civilian, dual-use airport in northeastern China that is the home base of the 1st Aviation Brigade of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).i The J-20 is China’s fifth-generation fighter aircraft.ii Only three units are known to operate the J-20. Two of them are testing and training units, the 172nd Aviation Regiment at Cangzhou Airbase and the 176th Aviation Brigade at Dingxin Airbase; the third is a combat unit, the 9th Aviation Brigade, which is temporarily stationed at Quzhou Airbase. Therefore, it is unusual for a J-20 to operate from Anshan Airport, which is also known as Anshan Airbase. There are a few possible reasons for the presence of the J-20 at Anshan. First, it is possible that the pilot was practicing long-distance flight and/or deployment from Quzhou and that he merely landed at Anshan to refuel before making his way back to his home base. The PLAAF does occasionally i The author would like to thank Roderick Lee for bringing this to his attention. ii The PRC defines aircraft generations differently than in the USA, categorizing what are known in the USA as fifth-generation aircraft as fourth-generation aircraft. China Aerospace Studies Institute May 2021 practice airfield-hopping for long-distance strikes, but these training events are rare, and given the advanced nature of the J-20, conducting such training with the J-20 would likely require specialized equipment and ground crewmen at each stop.1 Second, it is possible that the J-20 was deployed from Cangzhou to participate in the 9th Aviation Brigade’s air combat training, perhaps as an aggressor. -
PAR's Listing of Aircraft Used in Law Enforcement
Police Aviation Research AIRCRAFT USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SINCE 1914 The listing below includes those aircraft types associated with airborne law enforcement since 1914. In some instances this refers to one use in isolation in others an alleged and recorded in a public document but a use not subsequently proven. See the entry for the Blackburn Botha. We can be certain it is spurios but it is in a public record and has therefore been included. This list should be taken as a guide and/or a basis for further research. Manufacturer ModelModel CountryCountry ofof use ACT Lancair Philippines, Airships [all types] R series [R33 etc.] United Kingdom, Skyship France, Japan, Trinidad & Tobago, United Kingdom, United States, Virgin/ABC Lightships Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Aeritalia AMC-3/AL60 South Africa, Aero 24 Hungary, 45 [K-75] Czechoslovakia, Hungary, AP-32 Czechoslovakia, C-104 Czechoslovakia, Aeronca 7AC United States, Aero Baero 180RVR Argentina Aero Commander see Rockwell CCommander/Shrike d /Sh ik Australia, t li BBahamas, h Colombia, C l bi Costa C t Rica, Ri Commander Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Panama, United States, Airspeed AS4 Ferry United Kingdom, Agusta A109 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovenia, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Ghana, Italy, Japan, Oman, SlSlovenia, i SSpain, i SSwitzerland, it l d United U it d Arab A b Emirates, E i t United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, AW119 Brazil, Finland, Uganda, United States AW139 Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, South Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Oman, Spain, Trinidad & Tobago,