Low Flying Policy Criticised by Coroner

[Vox Populi]

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3958685.stm)

Text:

MoD criticised over woman's death


Heather Bell was a novice rider, the inquest heard
The Ministry of Defence failed to take sufficient precautions to prevent an accident where a woman was thrown from her horse, a jury has decided.
An inquest jury said not enough was done to reduce the risk of low-flying military aircraft to the public.

Heather Bell, 38, was riding with two friends in Middle Rasen, Lincs, when the horse bolted, hurling her to the ground after a Chinook passed overhead.

She was wearing protective gear but died from severe head injuries.

Detailed verdict

The jury agreed the noise from the low-flying RAF Chinook helicopter had contributed to Mrs Bell being thrown from her horse in June 2003.

The members responded to 16 questions set by coroner Stuart Fisher.

"The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and ...are not accountable for their deeds and actions.

Bell family statement

Under new inquest rules which allow a more detailed verdict where public organisations are involved, the jury at Market Rasen Festival Hall found the MoD's low-flying policy was "insufficient".

The jury had heard from witnesses and saw a reconstruction of the incident over eight days.

The MoD came in for criticism during the hearing and witnesses said the case is set to affect the way the RAF carries out low-level flying.

'More simulators'

The hearing produced ideas, including the possibility of horse riders wearing radio beacons visible to aircraft.

The Chinook, from a base in Hampshire, had clearance to fly down to 50ft and it was travelling at 120mph.

The jury did not criticise the crew, which flew within guidelines.


Simon Bell said if one life is saved, Heather's death will not be in vain.

It recommended the MoD and RAF made more use of simulators for training.

The military services said there was a review under way of flying practices.

In a statement after the inquest, Wing Commander Jon Taylor, of the RAF Directorate of Air Staff (Lower Airspace), said: "The death of Mrs Bell was a tragedy and the Ministry of Defence extends its deepest sympathy to her family.

"We have listened carefully to the findings of the inquest and will, of course, consider very seriously the recommendations of the coroner."

Mrs Bell's family released a statement which said: "The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and therefore as far as they are concerned, are not accountable for their deeds and actions.

"We have lost a much-loved daughter and a sister to her two brothers and nothing can ever take away the heartache that we feel.


The low-flying policy of Chinook helicopters was criticised.

"Our consolation is that she will always be remembered in the hearts and memories of all those who loved her."

The family revealed Mrs Bell had been an organ donor to three women. A bell at St Peter's and St Paul's Church, Middle Rasen, is to be dedicated to Mrs Bell, who was a keen churchgoer.

Her husband Simon said his 12-year-old daughter Emma would continue to ride horses and wanted to buy Midget, the horse her mother was riding when she died.

He said of the inquest verdict: "I think that anger has dissipated because we feel this inquiry has been thorough.

"That was our main objective from the start. Even if it just saves one life, her death will not be in vain.".

[Fox3snapshot]

OK so perhaps we should fit Horse Radars to all the fleet that will be engaged in low flying activities...

:\

[S76Heavy]

Society really is dumbing down, people want their rights to engage in dangerous pastimes but hold the government accountable if they have an accident:rolleyes:
What happened to common sense and responsibility?
They should stick to playing checkers if they want to be safe. And even then their safety cannot be guaranteed..

[WorkingHard]

Deliverance - Is this quick enough? Just for the record I do not need a bandwagon on which to jump. I make my own observations and comments as I see it. Is that not what we are all entitled to do? As for this particular case I have already stated my views quite clearly but perhaps your reading is blinkered toward that which suits only you. Forgive me if I am wrong. I see your profile tells us very little about yourself (your right of course) but tell us all what your interest is in this. At least most contributors appear to be pilots/airmen of some description.

[L J R]

A wee bit of sensitivity might not go astray here. While we may all probably agree that low flying is a fact of life, some unfortunate lady did die, and has left a grieving family. While the lawyers and other potentially uninformed people may openly state their piece, remember that the first P in pprune is professional, and while said Chinook crew are in no way to blame, WE, as professionals should be sympathetic to individuals such as her in incidents like this. That professionalism should extend to forums such as this.

I don't imply that we need to change our procedures or not banter when banter is due, warranted or appropriate, just maybe treat accidents like this with equal respect as if one of our own was fatally injured in a low flying accident.
Have a think about what you post on threads such as this.

thats all...

[Pontius Navigator]

So what should the MOD do? The H&S Executive man gave a very balanced view. Over 4 years he said there had been some 114 deaths from riding accidents and about 34 were helicopter related. (Approx).

Is there a record of incidents or complaints involving horses?

Avoiding riding schools is one thing avoiding horse riding areas and bridle paths is something else.

With a smaller, expeditionary air force gravitating to southern and eastern England there will obviously be pressure from the helicopters for local low flying areas and avoidance of the long flog up to Sutherland etc.

One helicopter expert (40 years) said that the MOD must take action and that low flying at 50 feet was unnecessary. He said it was unnecessary as it was inadequate training for operational flying at 50 feet.

Maybe we should stop day time low level flying. Maybe we should agree time separation? Low fly between dawn and 10, ride like hell until 2 and low fly until 5. Ride from 5 until 8 and low fly until dark. If not applicable over the whole country maybe zoning could be used and notified?

Treating the horse fraternity the same way as we treat the microlight, parachute and other sensitive groups and share the scarce airspace is the way ahead.

An obvious zoning and time separation is during half-term holidays when younger, inexperienced riders may be more at risk.

[soddim]

Wockas at 50 feet need to be kept apart from horses and that is the simple truth. Whatever it takes to do it must be done because we should not kill the people who pay the military to defend them.

The point about simulation is, perhaps, not quite so valid in this case but the RAF does need to review the case for replacing some flying time with simulation - this is long overdue.

[Scud-U-Like]

Pontius Nav

MOD DAS should have stats regarding complaint types. I don't think horse related complaints are in the majority, by any means. But as horses are naturally animals of flight, it would be odd if they didn't feature significantly among complaints.

I think the idea of time separation is a good one and would be beneficial not only to horse riding, but to any controllable activity that might be adversely affected by low flying. Those who chose to pursue their activities during low flying hours would then do so entirely at their own risk. It wouldn't stop complaints or claims for compensation, but it might prevent the occasional low flying related fatality and would give the MOD a stronger position from which to defend the low flying system.

Of course, such a move would reduce flexibility for low flying training, but low flying is becoming increasingly politically contentious and litigious, so restricting it further may be something we're going to have to get used to.

[The Gorilla]

The coroner is actually not very happy with one of the pilots.
In his summing up to the jury he indicated that he had not been "too impressed" with the evidence given by the co-pilot who he felt was "suffering from selective memory loss"

This was of course after the co-pilot spouted the MOD party line about low level flying posing a risk to the public, a managed risk don't you know!!

This jury finding is going to cost the cash strapped MOD dearly.

The only comment I make is that once again the Human Rights acts have come into play on this one. The right to life of the horse rider takes priority over the requirements for low-level training.

I suspect that low level helicopter training days are numbered within the EU!!

:ok:

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Gorilla

Can you point me to the report you have seen which comments on the co-pilot please.

The only comment I make is that once again the Human Rights acts have come into play on this one. The right to life of the horse rider takes priority over the requirements for low-level training.

I find these comments of particular interest; if I or my crews are not given opportunity to practise low-level flight as their bread and butter, I would not be prepared to shoulder the risk of send ing them to operate in a hostile environment unprepared. The Americans have gone down the road of low-flying at 250-ish feet in their helos and look how many they have lost to enemy action in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our pilots also have a right to live too!

HPT

[ORAC]

The hearing produced ideas, including the possibility of horse riders wearing radio beacons visible to aircraft...... :rolleyes:

[KENNYR]

Once again "Joe Public" has shown its ignorance. Where did they get the "more simulator training" from? Any one in the business knows that nothing compares with the real thing. Sending aircrew into hostile territory with only simulator "flying" time would be criminal.

Simulators are good for sorting out the systems and the emergency drills but cant replace the actual flying at 50' or less.

Disband the Armoured Corps because their tracks damage the roads, disband the Infantry because they leave toxic rubber marks on the roads and countryside, disband the Navy because they disturb the fish and the whales and pollute the oceans. Where does it all stop!!!!

[Regie Mental]

If you're driving your car and you see a horse and rider ahead you slow down. If you don't you know you may scare the neddy which may then bolt and throw it's rider. If you did drive past at speed and the said consequences occurs you would be driving without due care (and if you tooted your horn as you went by probably dangerous driving aswell).

In my experience all helicopter pilots are fully aware of the dangers of spooking horses and will pull up/turn away if they see them. To carry on regardless despite seeing a rider would breach the duty of care owed to the rider and lead to a claim in negligence against the MoD (although to succeed the rider would have to show that the pilots did, or should have, seen him/her).

If the chopper crew do not see a rider because, for example, they are in a woodland or in a steep hedged lane, then there is no blame to attach to the crew. The issue instead is one of policy, i.e. what altitude military helicopters are allowed to fly, where, when and what notice should be given. I'm not qualified to comment on that aspect but agree that this is a very sad case, both for the deceased, her family and indeed the totally blameless crew.

[jumpseater]

This thread has proved interesting for me for two main points, one, the missus and eldest daughter ride neddies, and two,a previous life dealing with civvy noise complaints.

Firstly horses are obviously potentially going to be spooked by anything from a piece of newspaper to a low flying heavier than air machine. I am assuming that Mrs Bell was riding using safety gear, however anyone who hangs around horses and their riders know that a good number do not, so where should we draw the line regarding personal safety, if some riders do not protect themselves?. It would be interesting to know how many of the 34 helicopter related incidents had safety gear on? As a civvy the time zoning of low level flying could have some benefit, but there will always be the problem of how to 'notify' those that need to know. Just defining a local night flying policy to local residents councils is bad enough, without trying to cover all riders in LFA's. If such a system were to come in to play, then perhaps notifications would be in mags such as Horse and Hounds and other publications targetted towards the horse riding community, in the way that firing range times are published in local rags. It was also interesting in that a week or so ago, riding my road legal motorcycle past a field of cows, they all took flight at the noise, I suppose the farmer would want to sue for me making the cows produce cheese!. It was not something I had considered before, despite slowing and usually stopping for horses, as my bike a converted motocrosser, normally sends horses absolutely barking mad.

I always have doubts about the reporting of low flying altitudes, from my experience in dealing with complaints. Invariably they are wrong and usually err on the low side of the altitude flown. I had access to SSR radar plots on a geographic database, so I could show a particular incident to the complainant. Obviously if it were possible to record military aircraft in a similar way, then it would act in two beneficial ways. Firstly it would enable accurate incident investigation to take place, secondly any flight violations that took place could be addressed. This would be impractical countrywide without massive investment, however for those incidents that took place within a MATZ for example, could be accurately investigated. This has the advantage of complainants near to airfields have their concerns/perceptions accurately addressed, and would build trust with local communities helping forward the case for allowing low-flying training. It may be that the cost of a fleetwide modification for a/c is prohibitive to allow them to be recorded, but if the Low Flying training is under threat in the future, there could be a case for dedicated units with only a few suitably equipped aircraft, to cover the lowest altitude elements of the training sylabus. This would have increased costs in terms of manpower, in transferring to this unit each time they need to fly low level (I'm thinking >50ft here) to maintain current. On a bleaker side I would guess that CFIT accidents may increase, and may potentially be concentrated on the 'low flying' special units I have outlined.
The ability to show an incident in 'replay' to an individual or a group, council or even a village hall (no doubt full of 'village people', who have local shops for local people), cannot be underestimated, as it rapidly disperses perceptions, and at the very least you end up discussing fact! If anyone want further info please feel free to contact by pm. One way forward for this family, may be that the MOD could somehow compensate them by offering to buy the horse Mrs Bell was riding, and that the daughter has expressed a desire to keep/own.
rgds js

PS. The family always enjoy the Northumbrian Airshow's south of Coquet island, keep up, or should I say 'down'?:E , the good work!

[AllTrimDoubt]

Please also bear in mind that in the case of a late visual sighting of a horse/rider, the crew's best course of action may be to avoid a pull up or aggressive turn - often the noise produced by doing so is far greater than continued "level" flight - although the rider probably doesn't realise that!

[The Gorilla]

HPT

I don't disagree with you, I merely say on here that which the coroner had said. This particular inquest is the first in this county since a landmark House of Lords ruling earlier this year. It concerns the Human Rights Acts and employees of the State.

Check your PM's!!

TG

[gijoe]

Too many people, not enough dentists, a President punching above his weight everywhere he can, everyone blaming every mistake they make or accident they have on someone else...

Anyone seen the new series of Little Britain?

Yeah but no but..

[elderforest]

That's Benson b*ggered then . . more horses than helo's in these parts.

[airborne_artist]

That's Benson b*ggered then

All of my family ride - we live less than two miles form EGUB, and have never had a problem with Pumas/Merlins, or the TVP helo. My guess is that being close in is an advantage, since LL training won't be taking place inside the MATZ?

Is there a possible technical solution to this problem, though?

Most riders carry mobiles, and mobiles already (and it will improve with GPS chipsets in the handset) can be located (approximately) if they are on and in contact with a base station (ie, you've got 1+ bars showing).

LL flights outside military training areas could be pre planned, and the waypoints logged on a central database. Every xx minutes during daylight hours those routes are scanned, and SMS messages sent to handsets within the probable routes with a warning message.

These messages could be reverse charged (ie to the user), and they could be automatically activated by the user sending a message to the server, by SMS, email, or web browser, so they only get messages for say three hours at a time.

Most of this is avaialable off the shelf - I'm less sure about the LL planning side as it's 25 years since I flew one of Aunty Betty's a/c LL.

[Pontius Navigator]

I'm pleased the idea of zoning is seen to have some merit. On further thought the zones could be geographically limited and time separated on a set rota.

Certainly this would be disliked where the weather or activity require a different time/zone but that is what its all about. Even in a war zone it is never freeplay.

Lincolnshire could, for instance, be low flying 09-12 whereas the counties en route from the helo base could be 06-09 so all helicopters fly out in one zone and the switch to another helicopter zone. Somat like that anyway but such details would be well above my pay grade and away from my experience.

Regarding height estimation, this week we had the 'correct' identification of the potential offender and the complainant, an air traffic controller and the crew all stated that the height was 250 feet. Was this a first?

[jumpseater]

Problem is you'd have to be able to send the text upside down as well, if we're travelling north to south Mrs js reads the map upside down!.... why do wimmin do that? (that might need a jetblast thread though!). The MOD could also make money selling the same info to spotters,binka's etc....

PN could you ask them this weeks winning numbers too? ta!..

Seriously though regarding height estimation, I used to be quite good at it, it needed to be a type I was familiar with and in a location I knew in relation to the flight paths. I would regularly beat the complainant with the estimate, frequently by hundreds of feet!, maybe your atco used the same trick!

[airborne_artist]

I'm pleased the idea of zoning is seen to have some merit. On further thought the zones could be geographically limited and time separated on a set rota.

It may suit the aviators, but I'm less sure how it could help the riders.

Most professional yards do more of their riding in the morning, but with so many people these days working part/flexi/shift hours the happy hackers (the girlies that Beagle so admires) might be riding any time during daylight. They might not find it so easy (esp. in winter) to time their rides with the LL programme.

[Scud-U-Like]

Naturally, there would have to be some give-and-take to make such a system work. You wouldn't plan to ride your horse on the road during the morning or evening rush 'hour', so why would you plan to ride during a notified low flying period? Perhaps novice riding could be planned during non-low flying periods, with the more experienced riders, who are better able to control their mounts, riding at any time of the day.

I like the SMS idea, but I suspect the more techno-reliant you made the system, the more potential for screw-ups there would be.

I think a simple time separation system (as suggested by Pontius) to deconflict controllable low flying-aversed activity and military low flying would be the best solution. It would be easy to publicise (internet, press, local radio), simple to understand and easily remembered.

[hotshots!]

Quote: "but the RAF does need to review the case for replacing some flying time with simulation - this is long overdue."

NO - if there is more money / time for extra simulation in addition to flying then fine, however there is no substitute for the real thing. Swapping flying hours for simulation time is a bad idea.

[AllTrimDoubt]

Develop a horse simulator then?

[Amateur Aviator]

With the advent of so many local avoids, we are fast running out of places to fly anyway! The red blobs on maps are doing naughty things under the sheets, and next thing you know, you cant fly for more than 3 rotor spans without having to avoid someone/something! Any has already been said, the higher you fly, the greater the size of the noise footprint. I have seen no-win situations, but this is unreal! Us stick monkeys do try hard to avoid horses and riders. Contrary to some belief, we don't have competitions to see how many noise complaints we can get in a short period of time!

AND another thing:

I nearly have more simulator time than aircraft time. Does that mean that we have a simulator for going away to war then?

[Scud-U-Like]

I'm afraid your own OC Ops must carry the can for local avoids. They're local avoids for local people.
http://www.lunacynet.com/league/images/s2_tubbs.jpg

There certainly hasn't been any great proliferation of avoidances nationally and , as you know, many of those are there for your own flight safety.

[Autorev]

SoddimWockas at 50 feet need to be kept apart from horses and that is the simple truth.Whatever it takes to do it must be done because we should not kill the people who pay the military to defend them.


Absolutely ,
However, out here in the badlands, Heliopters need to be kept apart from SAMs HMGs, RPGs and small arms fire, and that too is a simple truth. We do this by low flying.
If the country wish us to continue to operate out here, surely we should be able to expect to train accordingly... after all the ground also has a PK of 1.

[WorkingHard]

I well understand the need for training (real not simulator) and agree that we must do all we can to prepare our troops for combat situations. I assume that low flying for both fixed and rotary wing in hostile environments is not just over open country. That being so you must be operationally able to deal with this. The question is therefore why in th UK is low flying restricted to open countryside? Why dont we see the fast jets and the helicopters operating at minimum authorised levels over large towns and cities? Would that not be proper preparation for combat?

[TURNBULL]

This may sound controversial but this is PPrune. Many of those contributing here have adopted the traditional aircrew defense of low flying saves lives and simulation can never replace live flying. They are absolutely correct!!

However, no one has raised the issue of how much [low flying] is enough. We do not have a low flying competancy target to achieve and generally can low fly as much as we want - true? When was the last time the DA or DFC told you that you were competent enough at LF and the transit should be flown at medium level. Those decisions tend to be dictated by the weather. In fact many self autorising units can do and go where they please. We are almost self-policing. But is there a regime that says young guys get x amount of LF while more experienced crews get less - no. Where does your sqn record an individual's LF stats?

Don't get me wrong, I love LF and it is an essential part of our job, but how can we justify it without knowing how much we do as individuals and how much we genuinely need.

As for simulators, I think we all know the answer to that. Its not real and it doesn't do what it says on the tin. The Inquest expert may have had 30 odd years helicopter experience but it was all in the North Sea oilrigs - not quite the same.

[KENNYR]

Turnbull, whilst I hear what you are saying I dont agree with graduated low flying. For instance, an Army recce pilot spends probably 90% of their tactical flying at or below tree top height or sand-dune height. This is dictated by the nature of their tasks.

Chinook pilots, by the nature of their tasking cant fly below 50' due to the presence of an underslung load (in most cases).

All this controversy over an accidental death where helicopter met horse. We have been low flying in the UK since the 1930's. Are we now going to change tactics by cancelling low flying training in favour of doing it on a big TV screen? I hope not because the aircrew going to the front line will be totally unprepared for the "real thing". Let sleeping dogs lie and stop all this nonsense about "time zones" for low flying. The current low flying system has worked for many many years, there is no need to change it because of some bleeding heart, gut reaction.

No disrespect to the grieving family intended.

[BEagle]

Unnecessary low flying has always been a thorny subject - fun though it might seem at the time.

I once queried why we wasted fuel doing lo-lo-lo transits to Wales from Wattisham to do our LLOLPI training in the 'toom rather than going hi-lo-hi to get another LLOLPI split in the area. No real answer - I feel that the transits were indeed unnecessary low flying.

As was the stupidity of a certain QWI who thought that a 3-ship low level transit from the North Sea to Wattisham at 2100 hrs one summer evening was sensible. Had the phones red hot with complaints at his few minutes of unnecessary low flying, that did. Then another idiot coasted in at low level in the wrong location and went underneath a hovering helicopter at Beccles airport which had a CAA checker on board....... Both came from the "We did it all the time in RAFG" school of thought.

[TURNBULL]

KENNYR,

I assume what you mean by "graduated low flying" is an allocation of hours based on experience? Chinooks, like other SH, do fly below 50' IAW the JHC FOB - we don't always carry USL!

But at the moment we have no idea of who does what, once we do maybe we could discuss just how much we do need. The current practice is fill your boots - can we justify that approach?

[propwash866]

I suppose gone are the days when low flying complaints could be met with "Did it have red stars on the wings??" :sad:

[Bertie Thruster]

I had originally posted this on a thread in "Rotorheads":

"The Lincoln County air ambulance attended this riding accident. Most of the countryside around Middle and Market Rasen is difficult ground on which to carry out equine friendly ad hoc hems landings. Even with extended 500ft recces, it is not always possible to spot all the horses that seem to pop up all over the place in this well-known horse training and racing area.

It is a bit like trying to operate around the Newmarket area, but on a smaller scale."


Riding accidents make up about 8% of our callouts (80/1000 per year.) Calls to the Rasen area have always produced an uncomfortable feeling due livestock in area and the nature of the beast.

[Sedbergh]

We have a line of argument on thread that simulated low flying is not realistic enough.

In the interests of true realism then, shouldn't the pony club be armed with Stinger missiles?

Clearly not, but be careful about the realism argument guys

[BEagle]

Ooh yes - put the story about that the little lovelies might be carrying concealed weapons and there'd be a sound reason to check that those weren't grenades hidden under their jumpers.......

:E

[B Fraser]

Interesting that there is no report that the coroner commented on the inadequacy of the helmet that the rider was wearing. It may well have been to the latest BS standard however the fact is that it was not capable of preventing the unfortunate death of the rider.

[just noise]

You all under-estimate the "Trust Me Tony" plan.

1. Ban fox hunting.
2. Poor country folk loose their jobs, move to the big smoke.
3. Rich country folk have nobody to look after their horses.
4. Shoot horses, feed them to the poor people that are left.

Horse riding/Low flying risk no longer a problem - Trust Me.

Sorry for an inject of humour in what is an otherwise interesting thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

Turnbull.

On many of the ac I have been on, and this excludes helos and tooms, we had set out basic training requirements. If this included 10 low level attacks in a given period then that dictated our need for low level training, we did not have to do X low level sorties. We did need a specific number of low level sories to accomplish TFR and fighter evasion but these were not mutually exclusive.

Then we had a limited number of flying hours in which to accomplish these evolutions. The more experienced we were judged the number of events required was reduced and the performance target was increased. We were typical allocated 20% less hours than the new crew. Not only that we picked up more overseas sorties where the high level transits ate into our reduced amount of flying hours. We had to train harder when we could.

Gash low level transits were denied partly from the fact we were limited to specific routes but also we needed to conserve fuel and fatigue.

In Beags case, dashing at low level across the UK was probably not good training whereas the fuel saved with a mdeium level transit may well have permitted more training in the play area.

Helo transits OTOH are probably a waste of flying time if the crew could otherwise be honing its cooperation skills.

True, in a very good simulator, the realism may well giev the pilot a first class training experience but what about the crew members? Will the door gunner also have a synchronised TV screen? Can the loadie peer out of one of the side windows to for a visual scan? Can the crew members talk the pilot through an evasive manoeuvre from a blind, to the pilot, threat?

We had a first class simulator in the Nimrod and it could shake it we did something wrong but you could never simulate the following intercom call:

"Captain, port beam, snort, 3 o'clock, two miles."

"Port beam you mean 9 o'clock."

"Captain negative, 3 o'clock, I'm looking out through the starboard beam window from the port beam seat."

Bboom!

[M609]

You shold come up here more often, no one to scare! :E

(Not counting the reindeer, and scaring them is encouraged! Damm the sami..... :mad: )

[WorkingHard]

Deliverance - Yes ex mil. Flippant No. If there is a need to train for operational readiness (which there clearly is and which I support) then why is no training done over towns and cities where both the FJ and Hellos will be required to operate? A simple straightforward question, no flippance, no undertones, no hidden agenda. I should really like to know. I suspect the answer may be very enlightening.

[airborne_artist]

WorkingHard

This is the kind of response you'd see:

(First published on Tuesday 31 August 2004 - Wallingford Herald) Fighter jets which flew loud and low over Wallingford annoying residents were from a special families day at RAF Benson.

The base received calls after the planes buzzed the town on Thursday morning.

Flight Lieutenant Sarah Lye said: "We had as many calls from people wanting to know if there was an air show at the base and whether they could attend as we did from people complaining. We are an operational station and our families here are often split up.

"Our families day is the one day in the year where we encourage everyone to get together and have fun.

"During the morning we had Tornados, Hawks and Jaguar fighter planes and they went over Wallingford and surrounding villages."

Flt Lt Lye added: "This was a one-off and not an indicator that we are going to be flying low over Wallingford regularly in future."

The families day was not advertised because of possible security risks and consequently no warnings of low flying aircraft were issued.

RAF Benson is a helicopter station flying Pumas and Merlins and does not have jet aircraft on the base.

The low-flying incident lasted less than 10 minutes but it caused a stir in Wallingford.

Rod Paddock, of Wantage Road, said: "I am very upset and annoyed about the noise.

"They came over loud and low and without warning.

"I'm sure lots of elderly people were terrified by this thoughtless action.

"They were too low -- well under 2,000 feet.

"If they have to practise low-flying, they should do it over stretches of unpopulated moorland and countryside, not over a market town."

Michael Rust, from St Nicholas Road, Wallingford, said: "It was ridiculous.

"There are a lot of old people in the town and they could have been very severely frightened."

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Working Hard,

Here is your enlightening answer. RW crews do not need to practice low flying over towns and cities because when on ops we almost always avoid overflying towns and cities. There are more people with more weapons in centres of population than there are in open desert. Quite simple really.

If overflying conurbations was routine on ops then it would have to practised in peacetime too - the number of whip aerials over Basrah is scary. This would naturally be unpopular with the British public.

The coroner, jury, much of the media and general public seem to have no idea of the effort that goes in to minimizing the negative effects of low flying and the consequences for aircrew who bong avoids, low fly outside their bookings or auth. Advocating LF trg in the sim shows a lack of knowledge of its limitations. To the chap who suggested that every stable block was treated as a SAM site, then there would be nowhere to train in England.

The death of the rider is very unfortunate but the risks must be balanced. I am sure more horses have thrown riders because of cars, motorbikes, bunnies, pheasants, plastic bags etc than helicopters since the UKLFS was revised but noone would advocate banning cars from roads of separating them from horses by time.

If you undertake a potential risky activity (as do bikers, climbers, scuba divers, base jumpers, pilots et al) you must take responsibility to accept those risks without looking for others to blame. The MoD and Govt should not capitulate on this matter.

[WorkingHard]

Max - I was taught that the "window" for both small arms and rpg and in fact anything that might be directed at you was much less over towns and cities than in open country. Thinking clearly changes as tactics develop. As for the whip aerials over Basrah, they must be very long to be high enough for FJ and helos. Still I at least have an answer. TV shots often indicate such fairly low level activity over the cities however; is it camera angle that is distorting the view?

[PTT]

The "window" may be smaller, but there are a hell of a lot more weapons. The whip aerials at Basrah (and I can confirm that there are loads of them!) are easiliy more than 50ft high - certainly high enough to be an issue for helos, and maybe even for jets if they're carrying out OLF (by definition? :D )

As for why we tend to fly over countryside more, it's because
a. You get more complaints where there's lots of people around
b. There's a lot more of it!

I agree that the death of the rider was tragic, but agree with the general sentiment - it's a dangerous activity and there are risks involved which people simply have to accept - if you are going to sit on a half-ton of extremely jittery and slightly mad animal then you can expect to be surprised by its reaction at times.

As for solutions, maybe encouraging the overflight of stables during non-riding hours (if there is such a thing) would "immunise" horses to the sound of aircraft. The horses I've seen a stables near airfields seem completely untroubled by aircraft because they're used to them.

[The Gorilla]

Some people on here don't get it so let me try and spell it out. I am NOT saying it's right or wrong but here goes!!

Riding a horse with or without helmet = perfectly natural civilian thing to do in peace time.

Walking in the street carrying table leg with or without Irish/Scottish accent = Perfectly natural thing to do in peace time.

whether you are killed by a low flying chinook helicopter or bullets from a policemans gun = you shouldn't have died!!

Just as our 2 erstwhile colleagues in the Police force are finding out, the new Human rights acts and inquests are deadly!!

Anybody employed by the state who is responsible for a death will in future be up on charges and that includes low flying crews so be warned gentlemen!! The MOD will not be able to protect you!!



:ok:

[S76Heavy]

Gorilla,

what killed the lady was her inability to control her horse. It was not an action by the MoD or the Chinook crew that killed her.
When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions like participating in dangerous sports? It was a tragic event, it is a waste of life, it could have been prevented by the lady either not getting on the horse, wearing proper safety kit and/or being in full control of the animal.

Dumping this one on the government is another example of modern man wanting it all but not accepting any responsibility for his actions.
You get on the horse, you fully accept the risks involved. Sometimes it's just not your day.

[The Gorilla]

S76

Again, I don't disagree with all that you say. But in Blairite Britain today if an employee of the state causes a civilian (Non employee) death, then that said employee and/or organisation must take the blame.

People in this country no longer take responsibilty for their own actions as witnessed by the recent couple who defaulted on the home loan!!

It's sad I know!!!

:ok:

[PTT]

Gorilla
whether you are killed by a low flying chinook helicopter...
She wasn't killed by a low flying chinook helicopter, she was killed because she was on a horse that went do-lally.
Contributory to the horse going do-lally was the fact that a helicopter went overhead at low-level, but had she not been on a horse then the accident would have been as unlikely to happen as had there not been a chinook there. The horse, and the fact that she was riding it, are as much to blame as the helicopter.
Contributory to the fact that she did not survive is the lack of proper safety gear.

[Pontius Navigator]

Not a couple of dozen miles away from Market Rasen I was chastised for driving 'too fast' past a horse and rider by the man, on a bicycle, giving her a lesson.

It was daylight but not too bright. They were on an unclassified road but one that is a direct route to a largish city. He was wearing high visibility clothing - dark brown and dirty barbour. She was similarly attired in high visibility clothing - black hat, dark barbour on a dark brown horse.

Had they been out riding with the SAS they would not have been out of place. Rarely do we see proper dayglo yellow and reflective clothing.

[Scud-U-Like]

Gorilla.

If anything, the result of the Heather Bell case tends to contradict your rather melodramatic view of the individual public servant having to carry the can for everything that goes wrong. The police investigation concluded there was no evidence of criminal behaviour by the aircrew. Similarly, the inquest (which had a far broader remit to apportion blame) found the actions of the aircrew did not cause Mrs Bell's death.

This is simply a question of MOD low flying policy and whether a better balance might be struck between the essential need for operational LF training and the public's use of those areas where LF takes place. No one is suggesting military low flying should be banned, but that doesn't mean we should not be looking at ways of further reducing the negative effects of military low flying. As others here have already suggested, that might include more scrutiny, at sqn level, of the need for each LF sortie and a review of LFS operating hours by the MOD.

[The Gorilla]

Scud

You miss the point!! The Police investigation is completely irrelevant because AIUI the whole point of these new style inquests is to ensure that the State doesn't cover up mistakes of the State or its employees.

In this case as it happens the inquest jury did find that the Aircrew were not responsible but that the MOD was. In the case of the Police shooting incident both the CPS and the Police investigation revealed no wrong doing but the inquest jury did.

You are also incorrect in your assumption that no one wants low level flying banned. I beg to differ on that!! Particularly in my county!!

Any future helicopter incidents causing horses to throw riders may well find the Aircrew carrying the can because if the MOD knows it might get the blame they will sure as hell disperse it elsewhere. You only have to look at the premier chinook thread on this forum to see that!!

:ok: