Talk:Police aviation

Armed choppers

Why aren't Police choppers armed with Machine Guns or Wing Pylons equipped with Missle Launchers? -C2CFAN

Because they aren't combat vehicles. --Andrusi 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• So they can shoot use innocent civilians with the bad guys?? Come on.. -Fnlayson 05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, what about aerial sniping? I'm pretty sure that law enforcement sharpshooters use helicopters as platforms. Ops101ex 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging & renaming

OK, this article is somewhat repeated in article Police plane. What about merging that content here? Plane and helicopter are used in similar roles. This article could then be renamed "Police aircraft" to cover both (also allow for UAVs, etc later). Thanks to BillCJ for suggesting this on Rotorcraft task force talk btw. -Fnlayson 04:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - per nomination. - BillCJ 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - per above. -Fnlayson 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No content. Merge proceeding. - BillCJ 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Police Plane vs. Helicopter

The initial paragraph references the police helicopter as if it had already been introduced. I would recommend that either the position of the paragraph be changed from 1st to 2nd or that the uses be listed and that the police helicopter paragraph refer to the uses of the police plane. --Born2flie 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to change it in any way necessary. I won't quibble over it. - BillCJ 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Should there be a section on the Criticism and alleged controversies – such as the inappropriate use of police aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.209.160 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Paraglider use

There is currently a very brief article on police use of paragliders.The purposes for which they are used are similar to those for which other different kinds of aircraft are used. It makes more sense to include it here than as a separate article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AVOID MERGING: That remote article Paragliding (police work) is not focused on the "aircraft" as in this Police aircraft article. That remote article is about the activity "paragliding" in police work; it is a given that an aircraft is involved--paraglider--but that is not the focus. Keep Police Aircraft about aircraft that police use. Police use drones, UAV, blimps, paragliders, ultralight aircraft ...and this present article would do poor to merge an article that is about the activity of paragliding in police work; police are having to arrest paragliding people, police are using the paraglider to do police work, but the paragliding aspect of the machine is having its special challenges for the police departments or policing more general, like policing one's own ranch. Keep the good quality of both. Mature both articles. There is much to do in this Police aircraft article just to face the list of aircraft; much is absent in this article. This police aircraft will probably not get into the knowledge about blimping, ultralighting, drone using.

Do not merge, but in Police aircraft, certainly cover the paraglider and powered paraglider as a choice for police departments. Joefaust (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So far, the Paragliding (police work) article consists of a rambling two sentence long lede, and two short sections. The first includes a few instances where the police have been involved with paraglider incidents, the second of two instances where police forces have used paragliders instead of helicopters. Sourcing is entirely from news articles. Bringing the two together seems to be case of Synth.

REgarding the police use of paragliders, I do not believe, the usual criteria for separate articles is met - and Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." which is what is proposed. That this article is lacking in some areas is no reason to avoid adding material that does belong here - especially since the instances cited where police have used paragliders is due to the unavailabity of other forms of aviation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article Paragliding (police work) is being expanded in a reasonable time. AVOID MERGE.

Well a google search that looked for "police" + "paragliding" - "arrest" (to avoid instances of police arresting paragliders) - "palm" (to avoid the Palm Bay venture) brought up a case of Lima police patrolling beaches as the only other instance of police use of paragliders; the rest of the hits being paragliders getting into trouble. So I am sceptical that (short of listing every crime that can be committed using a paraglider) the article can be expanded in reasonable time. And trawling the archives of newspapers for cases is not the same as significant coverage in reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

By "-arrest" in search regarding police work, would lose opportunity for police pages that have "arrest" for other purposes on such page, like using police aircraft to reach scenes where arrest would occur relative to any law. Paragliding is an activity of using a machine paraglider. Full search would respect the generic implied paragliding when a paraglider is the police aircraft. These more open searches would be part of a fuller search effort. Joefaust (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

MERGE The Paragliding (police work) "Paraglider use by police forces" section should be merged into this article and the "Police work expends resources for both legal and illegal incidents involving paragliding" section should be retitled and merged into Paragliding. These are really different topics and don't belong in one article. I agree that most of the text is a stretch or at least a WP:SYNTH, so if there is no consensus to merge then Paragliding (police work) should be sent to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

MERGE. It seems to me there are two sentences about the use of paragliders by the police force. The rest seems to be a list of mainstream news articles (hardly reliable references) regarding the illegal use of paragliders. Clearly off topic for the page itself and would need looking at if it were to be merged. This is either confused rambling, or I have completely misunderstood the purpose of the page. 88xxxx (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

AVOID MERGE. 88:xxx , you seem to have misunderstood the article. Police work as regards paragliding does have aspects to it. Be bold enough to face the aspects not limited to these: 1.Choice to involve in paragliding as a tool of police work. 2. Choice to enforce laws with respect to paragliding. The one thing in common is police work relative to paragliding. What is the interface of police work with paragliding. The topic is in the news on noteworthy matters. You are invited to give better sources or add to the sources. Differently, the article Police aircraft is apparently concentrating on the list of aircraft that have been considered and perhaps chosen to be employed in police work. As police have interfaced paragliding incidents, such easily might be a cause for the departments to consider adding the paraglider to their aircraft department. Joefaust (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

MERGE. Then surely you should be creating two pages Powered Paragliding (police use) which should be merged with this police aircraft page, and separate pages Powered Paragliding (illegal use) & Paragliding (illegal use) pages which would simply be lists of news articles regarding the illegal use of powered paragliders & paragliders. 88xxxx (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AVOID MERGE. The topic of paragliding done with or without power is sometimes sufficient; the attending police may or may not care which kind of paragliding is occurring, gravity powered, potential-energy powered, electricity-powered, gasoline-powered, robot-powered, man-powered, etc., as the machines are powered by something, else the machine would not be moved about. It is simple in "Police aircraft" to have it nodding to each aircraft found to be used by police; but a focus on the activity in police work is another matter. Also, it is not up to WP to discern what is legal or not except by court records and notable opinion; incidents that are legal or illegal is the gathering place for the fuzzy noteworthy incidents that teach what police are notably having to concern themselves with, an interest to readers. Joefaust (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To Ahunt: Gutting topic aspects by ripping aspects apart from a body on the "synthesis" lever can be abused, as every article includes aspects. The article is about paragliding (police work) and the article wraps the several aspects to face the load of paragliding in police work; gutting the aspect of choice of aircraft from the other aspect of facing paragliding incidents in the public sector would deplete the total load on police work. Ahunt, the 88:xxx and company are pressing to have Paragliding just for recreation and sport paragliding with an aversion to commercial, societal service, scientific, ascertainment, art, military, criminal, UAV, etc. paragliding. Many illegal incidents of paragliding are outside the recreation and sport paragliding; e.g. using paragliding to win attention for one's book, using paragliding to protest a war, etc. Such matter does not merge to the Paragliding article; see the Discussion on that article; admin WP and 88:xxx and some others are pressing hard for strict recreation and sport. So, not to merge even the section content that you mentioned. Although that article Paragliding might do well to have a section on recreation and sport paragliding that might be done contrary to various laws. Joefaust (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Joefaust: You have added a section regarding the "Ripon Police Department" using powered parachutes. Why? This has nothing to do with paragliding, they are different aircraft and you should remove it, and at the every least link to the powered parachute page and create/add it to a page called powered parachutes (police use or something. 88xxxx (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Joefaust: You have added a section regarding the "Palm Bay Police Department" using powered paragliders. Why? This has nothing to do with paragliding and you should remove it or create/add it to page called powered paragliding (police use) or something. Paragliders are gliders, not powered wings! 88xxxx (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above two comments: once again you are adding information to a page that has very little, if anything, to do with paragliding and are confusing readers for no encyclopaedic gain. 88xxxx (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment and suggestions

Over the last few days I've done my best to clean up this article, sort out references and add missing information but for a subject I have only a passing interest in I think I've done more than enough.

The History section still needs references relating to the New York Police Department and the section on rotary-wing aircraft needs references relating to equipment (or lack of).

However if someone has the time and interest may I be as bold to suggest a couple of major changes...

Article name

I think that Police aviation or Law Enforcement aviation would be a better title than the current Police aircraft.

Either of those makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The big difference between the two is that Law Enforcement aviation would also encompass things such as customs aircraft, immigration aircraft and organisations such as the Department of State Air Wing in the USA etc. --Thefrood (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true. To keep the subject focused then perhaps Police aviation would be a better choice then. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is how I feel about it. --Thefrood (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done --Thefrood (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite/restructure of the article

The main content of the article is currently split by aircraft type (rotary-wing / fixed-wing / lighter-than-air / unmanned) may suggest that using the role that aircraft are deployed in might be a better way to structure the article (e.g. observation / surveillance / prisoner transport / personnel transport / multi-role).

--Thefrood (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Police Blimp article

I've started a merger discussion thread over on the Police blimp page suggesting that it be merged with Police aircraft --Thefrood (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done --Thefrood (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Police Aviation Units section

This section is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Police_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)