Low Flying

[crossbow]

Now that the dust following the very sad cases of Melanie Dodds (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3045699) and Heather Bell (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4039291.stm) has settled, I heard a very good buzz recently that the UKLFS is under threat. Do we need to use the UKLFS as much as we do? Why practice Low Flying over our green and pleasant land when the only time we seem to OLF is over sand? Is there a requirement to Low Fly in this country?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

a tough subject that has been flogged endlessly

Unfortunate accidents do happen, and I think we all know that H&S has really gone too far

[Jackonicko]

These are tragic cases, for sure, but they are just as unavoidable as people being killed by 'blue light' police cars and ambulances, and, though it seems hugely callous to say so, it's a price worth paying.

Let's not forget that horse riding is an inherently dangerous activity, and people ride in that knowledge.

It would be a different matter if it had been shown that the helicopter crews were acting irresponsibly, or were operating outside their authorisation. They weren't.

Accidents happen, and we don't always need to apportion blame and obtain compensation.

[WorkingHard]

Is Mil low flying necessary at all? Yes a very serious question. I dislike the effect it has on many of us BUT am quite willing to accept the need if someone will care to explain the need. On other threads it has been made clear the low flying (at least FJ low flying) was not done in Iraq because of obstacles; it was, it seems, abandoned in Gulf 1, so where and when is it used and useful? The last 2 conflicts seem to suggest it cannot be used in action. So please tell us the NEED for it then we may rest assured it is not just for keeping crews in practise for some manoeuvre that will not be used (except for practise of course).

[Pie Man]

WH

Low flying may not have been used in the last 2 conflicts but the problem is it may have to be used in the next conflict - wherever it may be! Low flying is not a skill that can be turned on and off at the flick of a switch.

Pie

[bowly]

Low flying WAS used in Gulf 2, and at night, and on goggles. It CANNOT just be turned off and then back on again. I'm fed up with people writing things on this forum without knowing the facts. It would be a grave mistake to kiss off this role just because the current threat (as some perceive it) doesn't warrant its use.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sky News broadcast a live action very early on during GW2 with Challenger tanks and Harriers supporting a US Marine unit. The Harrier attack looked exactly the same as they practise every day on the ranges.

It is also rather difficult to deliver cannon and CRV7 from high LEVEL.

[crossbow]

Concur all your thoughts. Low flying is a vital and neccesary skill. I do have it on good authority and from a reliable and high ranking source that the UKLFS is very seriously under threat and there is a very realistic chance it will be abolished.

What chance then?:{

[buoy15]

Waiting on the Findhorn road for an ac to land at ISK one summers day, a lovely elderly lady said to me

"Young (ish) man, why do these aircraft have to fly so very low when they come in to land ?"

"Not sure M'am - might be something to do with the experience of the pilot"

"Oh, I see, thank you - by the way, my grandson want's to be a pilot, so I can explain that to him now"

Retired to the Kimberley

[[email protected]]

So if they bin the UKLFS then we will be able to operate to CAA regs ie 500' rule - No-one will notice the difference in noise nuisance between a FJ at 250' and one at 500'. The folks who will suffer (and it's started already) will be rotary. Helicopters don't do medium or high level in conflict, we have to be low to survive and to do our jobs.
This unfortunate (Heather Bell) incident has escalated from a fatal accident (possibly avoidable had she been wearing a helmet) to the possible death knell for UK low flying. The coroner may well have had views on the way to prevent this sort of accident happening again (stable door closing and horses comes to mind - pun intended) but stopping us low flying won't reduce the number of horse riding accidents that occur every year due to traffic. Is someone going to stop vehicles using the roads in case a horse gets spooked? It is a massive overreaction from the MOD which should have been dismissed out of hand.

[crossbow]

very true. Banning Low flying will have a severe detrimental affect on our OC.

[devonianflyer]

I'm currently holding on a UK SAR flight, and as of Monday we will have to record a record of every single low level flight each day, along with exact routing and heights.

In times gone by we just faxed the LFBC to tell them what LFA's we'd been in when, but now we must tell them our enitre route and how high we were flying! This must be returned each day so some desk-jockey can fill in a form to file away in a filing cabinet never to be seen again!

And just to add to the madness we are also going to have to produce a map of all local horse stables, along with probable routes that the horse riders might take! Its not like we can avoid low flying, when the clouds on the deck and we need to get somewhere.

Surely this is beurocracy gone mad!!! As if we didn't have enough forms to fill in!!!

DF

[BEagle]

What complete and utter madness!

What happens if young Chlamidya Windless-Chunder is thrown off in the middle of nowhere because Dobbin has taken offence to a black bin liner or something, and is now lying there in agony, needing to be airlifted to a spinal injuries hospital? Does the SAR crew have to check that Dobbin and his kin are safely chained down before they can attend the shout?

It's all a balance of risk. Something the huggy-fluffy litigation culture cannot understand. Horse riding is a dangerous activity!

But if you want to have a spy-in-the-cab position logger, they are readily available as sealed, integral GPS-driven devices which make an independent position/time record for later download. About £500 a pop.

[airborne_artist]

I've fallen off horses more times than I can remember, and never was an aircraft or car/lorry to blame. In 40 years of riding no-one (who I know personally) has been in accident caused by a low-flying a/c, yet I can count several deaths and paraplegics resulting from riding accidents.

We live 2.5 miles from Benson and my children have also fallen off plenty, and again, not once was a moving vehicle/aircraft involved.

There's a girl I know (of the type that Beags and I admire, from a distance) who has fallen off (in competitions) and required the services of TV HEMS 5 times in 3 years.

Go figure.

[WorkingHard]

Well put BEagle. Why do you types that operate low level (or any level for that matter) not wish to be "monitored" I have on more than one occasion been informed that the mil are not required to used mode c and at low level rarely do so. Use of a LL squawk is no doubt a requirement, or is it, and so why no mode c to go with it? Any particular reason. I have read what has been said above about use in combat but, I repeat, on earlier threads it was stated that this was not done because it was too dangerous for the a/c. Now come on guys who is telling the truth and who is not? When, where and in what circumstances have different a/c (FJ and C130 for example) been used in combat at low level in recent years. No secrets just what is already in the public domain. Perhaps we can then form a BALANCED view of the training requirements.

[Skylark4]

Beagle,
Under £300 for a datalogger for a Glider Beags but I expect the manufacturer could get the price up to 5 or 10 thousand pounds if you tell him you want it for a military aircraft. After all, they would have to convert it from an internal pp3 battery to duplicated uninterruptible, interference free 28 volt supplies and fit it in a waterproof to 300 m box capable of withstanding a 50g decelleration.

Mike W

[SET 18]

Gosh, Working Hard, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing!!!

The mode C of a transponder transmits, when interrogated, its height (and this is the important bit) in relation to the pressure setting 1013.2 mb. There is a separate capsule in the master altimeter which is constantly set to this pressure.

This is entirely useful in an airway when the pressure to be used is same, but at low level, when:

(a) all flying is done with sole visual reference to the ground

(b) no pilot would ever pay too much attention to what the
altimeter says anyway

(c) if the atmospheric pressure is anything but 1013.2 mb ( as is almost always the case) then the reading is inaccurate anyway.

Of course, one could attempt to recover the exact pressures at the time from along the route, but this would be a bit difficult to say the least.

If you were to attempt to prosecute someone on the strength of your pressure record and their mode c reading I don't think you would be very successful.

[WorkingHard]

Set 18 - thanks for the lesson! Read up a bit more on the accuracy and use of mode c, there's a good chap. I said nothing about prosecution, is that your paranoia showing through?
The whole idea is that we learn from others, including the military, and learn what is NEEDED by all airspace users so that we may co-exist in peace, harmony and safety. Do you not wish to subscribe to that?

[caspertheghost]

I would be interested to hear who doesn't use Mode C at LL. As pointed out above there is no advantage/disadvantage to using C when in the UKLFS, but everyone I have worked with over the years still wears mode C at low level.

[LoeyDaFrog]

We need to do low flying, simple!

[Pie Man]

It is rare to see fixed wing ac operating in the LFS without mode C, some helicopters operate without it but that's because it is not fitted.

[crossbow]

LoeydaFrog - Good argument. But why?

Why do we need to low fly?

What is the advantage to flying Low level?

[ralphmalph]

As a lowly army pilot I am slightly surprised by the response here.

we fly low level all the time.

army piolts rely on the fact that we are n.o.e.to survive.

all the best

Ralph

[crossbow]

But surely bu utilising NOE you are placing the aircraft in danger. So, why use NOE. what tactical uses does it have. Where is the advantage? How does using NOE overcome the enemy?

[Postman Plod]

I'm just a lowly civvy, so I'm sorry to stick my nose in to what it obviously a deeply technical debate that clearly goes beyond logic :rolleyes: but... surely the point of low flying is so that they (the enemy you need to overcome) can't see you coming (whether visual or on radar)? Or is that a little simplistic of me?

I mean fairs fair, its still quite clearly being used operationally even in the fast jet world it seems, and purely for survivals sake, has to be used by the rotary bods (especially those supporting the army - oh, isn't that pretty much all of them?) and I would imagine the Tactical Transport bods - wouldnt really want to be pootling around like a slow moving sitting duck during duck hunting season for everyone with an AK / MANPAD to see would we? Or can you support the ground forces from 10,000ft?

So the options... assuming your mode of transport has options...

1. Fly at low level, using noe and speed, to get you to your intended destination without being seen. Anyone who does see you will hopefully not have had a chance to do anything about it because you are using the terrain to mask yourself and at low level you'll be out of his field of view quickly. Risk - Crash the aircraft in to the ground if your piloting skills aren't up to low flying....

or

2. Get shot down at medium level if you're flying in anything other than a fairly benign air defence environment (and even then its a risk), which requires no great skill, yet is likely to make you just as dead, and your aircraft just as useless....?

I'd choose the option that I have some control over.

And you guys were worried so much about MikeHegland?? :suspect: :E

[Wingswinger]

Could there be something in the fact that there is relatively little military low-flying these days compared to 20 - 25 years ago? People and animals are less accustomed to it so are more startled when a jet arrives suddenly at up to 540 kts ( that used to be the limit when I was in Betty Windsor's Flying Club, I don't know about today. ).

[[email protected]]

Postman Plod - thanks for spelling it out for crossbow, aircraft in combat (especially helicopters) have to fly at low level to avoid being shot down - it's not rocket science! If you are not detected then you can't get targeted, we use the ground to mask us from radar/IR/visual detection.

Working Hard - this is not about airspace utilisation, it is about beating the military with a big stick because of 2 well publicised accidents where horseriders were killed and it was convenient to place the blame solely on low flying helicopters. Helicopters fly over horses all the time and 99.9% of the time there is no problem - they can't be avoided unless you spot them early and that is near impossible unless they keep away from trees, hedges, fences etc and only stay on open ground. More riders are dismounted as a result of cars spooking the horse every day than those unseated by helos in a year, yet no-one is talking about banning cars from the roads or making them record their journeys. This episode is 'fear of litigation' gone mad.

[orca]

Just two points of my own.

I have, for a few years, served in a community that records their route on a chart and fills in a 'to the minute' form detailing what low flying we did when we return, (Inaccuracies will sneak through for free nav and affil). Our tapes are then impounded, for a few weeks. In my opinion this is only right and proper. It may seem an onerous task and takes up minutes of our time - but as with all resources used by the military, the best way to ensure the UKLFS's survival is to show we respect it and use it properly.

Secondly, whilst i realise that our defence budget and therefore thinking relies upon our big brother across the pond being with/ infront of us this 'may not always be the case'. One capability that they have AN AWFUL LOT OF, is SEAD and EW. We do have some very capable players in these departments - but very few in comparison. If our elected government want British strike aircraft to cross into badlands, without international support then we have two choices:

1. Attrit as many SAMs as possible using Tornado/ Alarm and the limited number of TLAM and Storm Shadow available. All of which have other tasks, some possibly more important. And then go anyway.
2. Fly as low as you dare, because the lower you go the less chance you have of being seen, engaged and killed.

We already have a long list of capabilities we no longer possess. Low level's worth hanging on to. Which means reasoned argument and proper recorded use of the UKLFS.

[PTT]

Helicopters, by definition, do not fly a "route". We fly tasks as given to us by the Army and are often retasked in the air. The inherent flexibilty of the helicopter means we can change from USL bus-runs to a pickup of downed aircrew to recce tasks or troop inserts at the behest of the tasking authority and with no need to land and replan. Our training has to reflect this.

The argument for low flying has already been given - it is the single best way to avoid being shot down in a helicopter.

Given the need for retasking and the requirement to low fly, people now want us to trace a line on the map, minute-by-minute, as we go along? Hardly reasonable given that it requires quite a bit of capacity to fly at LL anyway. Without some sort of data-logger this is not going to be possible, and it's already been stated that this would cost too much.

[Pontius Navigator]

Some further thoughts,

possibly accepting that an LGB delivery from medium to high level within a SEAD package is almost the SOP way of delivering ordnance this poses the question of low level.

Well low level would enable an ac or package to use terrain masking to avoid early warning detection and alerting the very defences that the SEAD pacakge has to suppress. Once inside enemy territory and approaching the target aircraft can climb for whatever delivery they wish, LALB, Dive, MALB etc.

The fact remains that only in an entirely benign environment to the penetrators not need the advantage of terrain masking.

[heights good]

very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'

Without going into things that cant be discussed in a public forum the lower you fly the safer you are from enemy fire. To keep this skill up we need to practice regularly. There is no complaints to the police, fire brigade, airline pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. regularly practicing their skills. Could you imagine getting a dentist that had not practiced for a year or two? But this is accepted by goody goody tree huggers who can understand this because it relates directly to them.

I would love to get the whining, moaning so and so's who think its not needed to low fly and get them to even try hover a helicopter. And after they screw this up royally then see how they feel after 2 hours of low level, under wires, CAD's, IP - Grid, LL Nav, EW, Fighter Efil etc. etc. Would be interesting to see how much respect and understanding they would have about the need for LL ops. After they have recovered then take them out at night and do Cat A NVG with all the above skills again. Should shut them up for a bit. :E

[Tourist]

Whats Cat A NVG?:confused:

[the_cyclone]

From a purely FJ point of view......Admittedly there was (and is) lots of ML taking place in the Gulf because it is now such a benign environment. Despite this there were times when an a/c had to get to LL, at night on the goggs, to deliver a wpn or whatever and the weather precluded a ML option.
Given this low threat level environment, LL still had a large role to play. Two main things come out of this:

1. Even in a predominantly ML conflict you need to be prepared for all aspects of the war. LL skill fade occurs very quickly and it is definately not something you could quickly get up to speed on.
2. The age old addage of 'don't train for the last war'. I.E. Our next conflict, wherever that may be, may not be over a flat desert and without a LL option we could be in a lot of trouble!

This said, as weapons and aircraft develop I can see a time where LL flying may have had its day. This won't be for some time and certainly as long as the Harriers and GR4s are still operating. When Typhoon and JSF are up to speed, and stand off and guided wpns have evolved further, I can see less need for LL. The only caveat to this is in the LL CAS role on a ****ty day when you may still need this back up skill.

[WorkingHard]

Some very different views so far. Some are well reasoned whilst other merely inane. Keep convincing us guys and then the heat will die down. If LL skills are still a requirement (I really accept they may well be) why do you not practice LL over built up areas?
Conflict is not just over open countryside.

[PTT]

WorkingHard - We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!

Also, if you have to throw the aircraft away there's much less chance of it hitting someone if you do it in the countryside - that's less of a concern during wartime.

There are places helis can practice for urban ops.

[jumpseater]

I think heights good is over egging the pudding, course he can prove me wrong by taking me along for a trip as he describes!....:ok:

[WorkingHard]

OK PTT - Just so we may be clear on a point. LL flying is a critical survival skill that one must keep current EXCEPT if you are to get a lot of complaints! What am I missing here? Do you only do LL in combat over open country? Do you just not need to practice over towns? Should you not need to practice such a critical skill over all terrain types?

[jockspice]

WorkingHard
Yes we do and yes we should. Considering some of the other answers on this thread, you do not seem to be taking in what is being said. We need and want to practice as much as possible but are only allowed to through the UKLFS, in certain areas and certain heights. We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints, so we have to make the best of what we have. Complaints will always happen, and we will never get enough practice.
As usual it will take aircraft being shot down and crews being lost to hammer this point home to the public, I fear.:uhoh:

[WorkingHard]

Jockspice I hope I have taken in all the points (worthwhile ones of course) and I understand what you say BUT I say again if training is so critical then why avoid areas such as towns? Either you need the practice or you dont. Either you operate in combat over towns or you dont. Just because you are to get complaints does not lessen the need for training. Do you use sims for LL training and if so what proportion of sim time to flight time? How good are the sims? Before anyone shouts at me I know full well there is no substitute. I, and no doubt others, are just trying to get a handle on what is actually needed. Helos are a different matter and the tragedy of the horse rider I would not lay at the door of the crew.

[Monty77]

Fastjets do not weave in and out between chimneys in built-up areas. Helicopters can and do, but in special secret built-up areas like Ulster, or some parts of Salisbury Plain. To me, Wiltshire can never meet that "If I'm awake, so are you." moment. Ahem.

Low-flying is a military skill across the board that you lose at your peril. Much like the missile/gun debate of the 60s.

[Pecs]

Workinghard,

You need to balance the benefit obtained from training with the risks involved:

Flying low over rural areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, minimal risk to civilians on the ground (in an ejection)

Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!

Basically, it ain't worth it!

Kind of obvious, I thought.

[Postman Plod]

What real difference is there between an urban area and a rural area that would make such a great difference to low level fast jet operations? You have tall buildings in urban areas - you have tall trees, hills and buildings in rural areas. The aim is to fly above / around them and not hit them - same rules would apply whether urban or rural. Topography is topography, whether covered by crops or buildings. So why risk complaints of thousands (or worst case the lives of thousands) while training where you will get the same training value over less habitatd areas?

Similarly, surely your avetrage pilot would want to avoid population centres (unless of course they are the target), therefore avoid being seen and reported on / shot down?

Its already been mentioned that helo operations already train in the uban environment - the ones most likely to need to use that skill.

[Canary Boy]

Try as hard as I might I can't for the life of me see how Working Hard is an anagram of Mike Hegland...:uhoh:

[WorkingHard]

PLEASE dont confuse me with such an esteemed individual, he is not I.

[PTT]

To answer the question re simulators, they simply are not good enough for heli ops. The graphics simply are not good enough to hover on in an effective manner (there is no 2 o'clock daisy), and the handling is just not the same as the aircraft. You can use sims (certainly our one) for IF training and for emergency training, and even for fairly effective EW training, but for low flying, winching, fast roping and USL work it just doesn't cut the mustard.

The risk to population is the main reason we don't go practicing winching from the Oxo building or lifting loads in and out of Horseguards. We can do those things to purpose-built buildings where the risks are reduced. When it comes to urban heli training the hard bits are navigation (i.e. finding the target) and the actual hover work (as your references tend to be further away). We practice the both to these purpose built places.

[Lafyar Cokov]

I have a friend who did 6 months rotation as a trainee doctor in Guildford hospital's A&E dept. He has told me that about 20% of serious injuries (breaks and above) are equine related. There is an inherant risk involved by climbing on a horse. I do not discount that the accident in question is an awfully tragic - but scared pheasants startling horses have killed many more riders than low flying ac.

I'm not in any way anti-horse, my wife and I both ride, but I do find the horse community trying to ban low-flying as about as ridiulous as if we tried to ban power cables had we just flown into a set.... If either hadn't been there the accidents wouldn't have happened.

Just my 2p...for now.

[heights good]

Cat A NVG is flying at night down to 100'.

I can assure you that is not a skill that you just pick up after a night of flying.

[hairyclameater]

Is the whole UKLFS under threat? I have read that a massive portion of 7T is under threat due to UK power or some other pc energy company with hands firmly in politicians back pockets wanting to extend the already massive wind farms through out this region. So the locals loose ad hoc jet noise (notably less than 10/15/20 years ago) but them, their livestock and wildlife become driven insane by the constant humming of these monstrosities!?

[hyd3failure]

Is that Cat A thing an RAF rule? How come the RN can go down to 50' at night?

[heights good]

thats over land for the RAF we can go down to 50' or COCISS over water for specific tasks.

[PTT]

Is that Cat A thing an RAF rule? How come the RN can go down to 50' at night?
Because the JHC FOB isn't quite joint yet.

[Carnage]

Just a quick point. I've been on a FJ fleet where we were forbidden to fly LL if our IFF was U/S. Therefore I have never flown LL without mode C.

[orca]

I realise that many will be of like mind...but is anyone of sound mind surprised that we dont practice URBAN LOW FLYING?

Of course we'd all like to train as we fight, but we need - in peacetime - to balance risk with training value!

What's the alternative? Why not use real troops as targets....or get the infantry to bayonet cattle, or maybe our submarines could just sit in the channel, 'practicing' by sending 'the odd' merchant man to the sea bed. Workinghard, even if the training would be valuable you have to be sensible.

Moreover, what weapons could a FJ deliver at LL in the urban environment. Lots can be achieved from ML, but low level, with oblique trajectories in what is the most 'colateral intense' target area? Let's have a pause for (sound minded) thought.

As for rotary aircrew i'm sure urban low flying would be invaluable, but that doesn't mean that on balance it's worth the risk. Which, in turn, doesn't come close to meaning they'd be allowed to do it.

[BEagle]

I rather fancied dropping a WE177 from low level on a counter-value target... But we had to make do with photographing the odd grid ref instead.

I wonder how many horses our V-bumblers used to annoy at low level? Was on school CCF camp as a cadet many years ago on Exmoor and the local cattle didn't bat an eyelid whenever one of HM's tin triangles whispered quietly overhead at 300ft- ish!

[crossbow]

Actually guys Im a tadge surprised that no one has mentioned the fun element. You have all provided the staff answer, Low flying is important to aircrew because...etc etc....but not one of you has replied....Cos its bloody good fun

[hyd3failure]

Bloomin good point.....seems that whenever the lords n masters wanna ban something its always the fun stuff. Why can't they Ban night flying and low level IF ?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Urban Low Flying..................used to be common place, day and NVG, in the land of the "boggy b@stard".............. till the onset of peace:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[WorkingHard]

Deliverance - I was merely asking questions that have ellicited some surprising answers. Some of course are just plain stupid as one always gets on these sites but others do try and take the question(s) seriously. There are many pilots of all experiences who would like to know some of these things. I have made it clear that I dislike the effects of FJ low flying but am willing to learn and understand why it is necessary. The following responses do not help your cause and would be latched onto by many. The contributors by and large list themselves as mil pilots in their profiles. So it is not I that is necessarily in need of convincing but others who may get a different view on things.

"all flying is done with sole visual reference to the ground

no pilot would ever pay too much attention to what the
altimeter says anyway

We need to do low flying, simple

very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'


We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!

We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints

Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!"

Piss off joe public too much and you know the result.
WH

[PPRuNeUser0172]

We, as mlitary aircrew dont need to give you a reason as to why we need to low fly WorkingHard. Who are you to deserve a special brief on why we need to do it? Just keep paying your taxes and rather than question the means by which we provide your security, I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. If you want to know the 'official' justification for low flying, go to the RAF website or trawl through the MOD sources, this is after all a RUMOUR forum and therefore needs to be taken lightly.

I know that this is going to inflame your cleary narrow minded and polarised little brain, but quite frankly, I dont give a monkey's. Now kindly poke off and annoy someone else.

I dont expect a reply, although will undoubtedly receive one as you dont seem to be able to keep out of things which dont affect or concern you. Now why dont you go to the "company pilot" forum and let us worry about all things military.

Yours

DS

[WorkingHard]

DS - Reply as expected. I trust, no I know, you are not typical of todays military and whilst you list FJ as your occupation, I would be very surprised if you remained on any flight very long. Your annual assessment no doubt reflects your poor grasp of reality. As for things that dont concern me, well we all share the same airspace so any thing anyone else does in that airspace is of concern to us all. Despite your obvious ire we are not yet a military dictatorship.
WH

[crossbow]

Not sure that DS is in the military at all. If he is then he clearly hasn't grasped todays economic and social clime. Maybe he is a SAC with aspirations of grandeur. Maybe he should have studied harder at School.

[caspertheghost]

Working Hard.
I don't really see where you're coming from with your post at the top of this page. Are you suggesting that the replies you listed are silly?
As for LL urban training- it can't be done in the UK. We are trying to minimise disturbance to those on the ground, not enrage them!

[PPRuNeUser0172]

WorkingHard

I felt the need to comment about your posts as reading through this thread you quite clearly dont know what you are talking about with reference to low flying. OK so that is good reason to find out some info, but dont add spurious information which is incorrect. With reference to your post on page 1, you claim that us mil types, dont bother with mode C and are not required to do so at low level. YOU ARE WRONG, and as such, you do your credibilty no good, when you claim that you want a 'balanced' and comprehensive understanding of why we low fly. Another chestnut of yours is to practise low flying over built up areas, what had you been smoking when you suggested that one?? If you want a serious response, then ask some serious questions.

Crossbow, thanks old bean, I will keep my nose to the grindstone and maybe one day my 'aspirations' will materialise.

DS

[Slow-Rider]

WH

The various quotes you gave on the whole seem reasonable to me. What exactly do you feel "does not help your [MOD's] cause"?

Low flying is a vital skill which needs to be practised and is highly regulated. Take a look at the "Low Flying" video on the RAF website.

[Wee Beard]

WH,

You have freely criticised others for having a poor grasp on reality, but I think you have clearly shown to all parties interested in this thread that it is YOU, sir, that is struggling to understand. I think you will find that all military users of the UKLFS do so with the utmost respect for the rules. Your posts smack of jealousy and expose you as the idiot that you clearly are.

Mr Wee Beard

[WorkingHard]

I'll get me coat and leave under the withering fire of insults>

[pr00ne]

How do you recognise Dirty Sanchez is a FJ mate, you don’t have to, he will come and tell you.

I used to know annoying little Harrier jocks who sounded like you when I flew a real aeroplane just down the road from their jumpy hidey little hole at Wildenrath, they thought they were God’s gift too……………………

Working Hard,

While agreeing entirely with your post (the latter one on DS) I do have a little bit of bother with your last paragraph;

“Despite your obvious ire we are not yet a military dictatorship”

Actually, if you think about it, you are.

[hyd3failure]

Tee Hee - Good comment Pr00ne ....