Editorials

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

A new option for aerial eye

By: Editorial

6/01/2010 1:00 AM | Comments: 3

THE Winnipeg Police Service needs to go back to the drawing board in its search for a crime-fighting ally in the sky. The department, backed by the city and the province, has decided a helicopter would be an invaluable resource, but new evidence suggests that a high-tech airship could provide the same or better service at less cost.

In a column on this page Tuesday, transportation expert Barry Prentice of the University of Manitoba explained that an airship could provide more effective and continuous aerial surveillance than a helicopter, which he described as old technology.

The helicopter proposed by the police service -- the Colibri EC 120 B -- would cost about $3.5 million, plus another $1.3 million a year to operate. By comparison, a small or mid-sized blimp might cost $3 million, but the annual operating costs would be lower, Prentice said.

Helicopters require daily maintenance, but airships need just one serious inspection every 1,000 hours, he said. The list of benefits in airship technology over helicopters goes on and on: less fuel burned, less noise, greater stability for mounting surveillance equipment and the ability to operate in an unmanned, remote-control mode.

They are not as fast as helicopters (225 km-h for choppers compared to a top speed of 140-km-h for airships), but the difference is not significant in the context of police surveillance and reconnaissance, particularly since a blimp is likely to be in the air for longer periods of time than a helicopter.

Airships are not designed for landing in dense urban environments, but they do have that capability. Prentice said they could rescue people from the top of a building in Winnipeg, but not from the side of a mountain.

The other advantage of an airship over a helicopter is its ability to carry payloads of up to 2,000 kilograms and to respond to emergencies outside Winnipeg and as far as northern Manitoba.

An airship, in other words, is far more versatile, flexible and green than a light helicopter.

The police and the city have so far failed to make a strong case for purchasing a helicopter, but if they are determined to add an aerial asset to their arsenal, then due diligence requires that they explore the option of acquiring an airship instead.

It may be that a helicopter is still the best choice, but the city should conduct a thorough study of both technologies and the potential impact it might have on the city's aerospace industries before a final decision is made.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 6, 2010 A8

Rate this
This article has not yet been rated.

We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

3 Comments

Posted by: Gamma Ray

January 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Stuart Kaye is right. If there's one thing this Mayor and city council doesn't like it's collecting 'evidence' and carrying out "thorough studies". Unless it's rapid transit, then the mayor is more than happy to kill a project and commission a study (only to end up going back to the original plan). I like results. I like Sam.

Report abusive comment

Posted by: Stuart Kaye

January 6, 2010 at 10:29 AM

"Evidence?" "thorough study?" Not in Winnipeg.

Report abusive comment

Posted by: Tig

January 6, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Why not a Pilot Project???
The arguments for and against a police service helicopter seem to be logical and I for one am undecided whether or not this is a good use of taxpayers money.
The one glaring question I ask is why are we bypassing logic and seemingly ram-roding this program through based on speculation and not real world facts?
Why is the police service not advancing this program similar to other intiatives and starting with a PILOT PROJECT to better understand the true needs of the city rather than using models from other cities? I would think that not all services are equal and each has it's own unique set of operating requirements and calls for service.
The City has run pilot projects before to evaluate safety initiatives ie. ankle bracelets and red light cameras and each of those programs has revealed changes that would make the program more effective as it moves ahead. Other agencies have run pilot projects. Some moving ahead while others, like Toronto chose not to. In either case there were valuable lessons leaned in the trials. Lessons that surely saved the agency money by navigating through the many pit falls associated with such a complex operation.
Why wouldn’t the city follow the same course with such a high cost, high profile program and know what they are getting into before they commit so many millions of our tax dollars?