res6cue

WCPD Aviation - Two Bell 407's?

19 posts in this topic

Am I seeing double, or did the county purchase a second Bell 407 in 2011? Two separate FAA registrations (N509PD and N592PD), two different years of manufacture (2006 and 2011), and two different serial numbers on the registrations (53703 and 54073).

They didn't publicize the second one like they did with the first, that's for sure. I couldn't find a single article online announcing the purchase of the second one, nor is it mentioned on the DPS website. :ph34r:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=509PD

http://flic.kr/p/aumzx4

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=592PD

http://flic.kr/p/cDa4v7

Edited by res6cue
x635 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Thanks for the confirmation.

It's remarkable, given the post you made over the summer regarding the (lack of) availability of the pilots because the county is concerned with OT being out of control, and yet the county can find $9 million to spend within the last 8 years for two fully equipped, state-of-the-art helicopters.

I'm not hating on the PD or the aviation unit, so don't anybody get it twisted. I actually think it's fantastic that they're so well equipped, and I know they keep very busy, so this isn't a case of some outfit buying a very expensive piece of equipment that will only get used a handful of times a year at most. More power to them for managing to pull of getting two of these 407's...I only hope they staff them properly so that when their services are requested, they can actually have a crew to operate them.

Bottom of Da Hill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a good source, WCPD aviation has placed an order for Airwolf.

That is only because Blue Thunder was hit by a train!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use to have some WCPD pilots on here what ever happened to them?

I was going to ask the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2. Both were obtained through grants, do not blame them, blame the US Government for the way they do things. The 3rd bird is around in pieces. They did not cost the County anything for the actual birds.

Bottom of Da Hill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funds were given to the County specifically for another helicopter, another case of use it or lose it.

Edited by jr51070

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true if that money was part of the UASI funds it could have been used for any number of things (not specifically earmarked for a helicopter use it or lose it) It was the County's decision to earmark the funds for the choppers!

Edited by billfitz
Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true if that money was part of the UASI funds it could have been used for any number of things (not specifically earmarked for a helicopter use it or lose it) It was the County's decision to earmark the funds for the choppers!

People who live in a glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with having two helicopters, or three or four? What would happen if it was grounded due to maintenance? Redundancy keeps the machine going. There may be plenty of equipment on standby(i.e. METU, or the USART trailer), no other equipment, works every day for the Tri-County area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being critical of having two choppers - correcting statement that it was use it for a chopper or lose it!

Edited by billfitz
Dinosaur and SageVigiles like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the first helicopter was a combination of grant money and county funds. I don't believe it was entirely funded by grants.

Unlike many projects where grant funded equipment sits idly by "waiting for the big one", the helicopters are used all the time.

Made sense to me at the time, makes sense now. IMHO.

jr51070 and SageVigiles like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first heli was purchased with a combination of funds. A source I know involved with the 2nd told me that they had to use the money on the 2nd heli, maybe they had it earmarked for that, and that is why he said that they had to get the heli. Either way, irrelavent. The staffing is still the same level and only 1 is used at a time, so the extra expense is minimal. The County already has everything else they need, a new communication/command vehicle, ESU trucks, a small Navy, etc. The only thing I can see them spending all that money on would be new cars, but, I was told that the County buys those cars and they do not use grants, etc to purchase them, though I am not sure why. The County has stashes of cars all over the place anyway, some that have been sitting for a long time.

Edited by jr51070

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.