Changes to MoD helicopter low level training rules

[Heliport]

Link here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190103)

[Eagle 270]

Would it not have been more cost effective to provide the riders with larger helmets thus saving on dayglo jackets and a disruption to low level flying?

[Above Datums]

It is sad that people die as a result of military training, both military and civilian, however; it does seem to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. When the story broke in my neck of the woods the first thing I heard from a female friend of mine was "That poor girl has died as a result of the pilot showing off" I spent a while trying to convince her otherwise.

I am sure that many other civies belive this to be the case. The catch 22 is when we cut back on low flying and (god forbid) more of our crews come home in body bags it is the RAF's fault for not allowing us to train enough?!

Someone needs to show the masses that we aren't just a bunch of idiots gallivanting around the sky, that low flying has a very real purpose and that 50ft or 100ft if a Chinook fly over a horse chances are it will be scared, hell even a gazzell at 200ft scares the stupid creatures!

:*

[Scud-U-Like]

It is neither a knee-jerk nor an OTT response. Anything that promotes better understanding between those who conduct military low flying and those whom it affects, is a positive development.

[Role1a]

How many horse riders are killed on the roads each year?

Answer: Roughly 7 (Maybe more)

is the DOT penalising drivers?

Answer: No

Total Over reaction.

[Pilot Pacifier]

Unless I am mistaken, 49 horse riders died in accidents last year. This figure was quoted to us in a brief to us on the new low flying policy.

Announcing the reviews findings on Wednesday, Air Commodore Dick Garwood said: "Any death is completely unacceptable and that is the bottom line.

Whilst I completely agree that any death is unacceptable, if we are forced to fly higher and lose the skills that we have in low flying, how long will it be before we lose a Chinook (or Puma, Sea King, Merlin) that is full of troops? The Chinook alone on Ops can easily handle 60 (or more) troops, God forbid should we lose one. How many deaths then is "Unacceptable?"

Just look at the American statistics of their loss of helicopters and their crews in Iraq and Afghanistan (this figure was quoted to us but alas I cannot remember except to say that it is in the hundreds). There policy is that they would lose more crews in teaching them to low fly on Ops that it does flying around at (helicopter) medium level. Really? How many aircraft have the UK lost then (proportionally less aircraft in theatre accepted)? Of course there have been a number of British aircraft that have returned with bullet holes in them, but the one outstanding fact is that we have lost NONE to enemy action.

Soon I will be returning to Ops and the one thing I will be urging the handling pilot to do is to fly low level. If he/she has skill fade because of some of the public's view on what we do, then I very much hope that those who complain may sleep well at night should the worst happen...

Pilot Pacifier...

[Safeware]

So The inquest into Mrs Bells' death found that the MoD's low flying policy was "insufficient". What was insufficient then?

I hate it when people jump on this 'Any death is completely unacceptable' bandwaggon. It is really 'Any death is unfortunate' but life has to reflect the risks. Even if the chances of something happening are one in a million, it will happen - people do win the lottery.

sw

[Bing]

Until recently I may have said the horse rider had a point. However last week I drove past two of them (on a horse) at 45 in a 60 zone. Both of the dears were waving at me to slow down at which point I thought f*** it if you can't control a horse when cars are doing the speed limit, don't ride it on the public highway.
And ultimately if you can't control the horse don't sit on it, don't blame someone else for your inability. The problem is, most horse riders don't seem willing to accept responsibility for their actions, weather it's a car driving by or a chinook, ultimately big loud things will come near you if you don't think you'll stay on the horse, get a new hobby.

[oldfella]

A mixed Herc crew (Marshalls and RAF) were involved in an inquest to a horse rider's death fairly recently. One of the questions posed was the minimum height that had been flown during the sortie - msd was 250ft. One of the points raised was that if msd was 250ft there is never a legal i.e. authorised reason to be below 250ft. As a result Marshalls were considering raising their planned minimum height to fly e.g. 350ft with radalt at 300 and msd 250.

Legalese but that's the times we live in.

[Talk Split]

Going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here...

Remember that SH low fly in accordance with an AGL (above ground level) and MSC (seperation clearance), so an MSD is irrelevant.

Quite frankly, there is no tactical reason to transit low-fly at 50' as opposed to 100'. The small arms threat poses no greater threat at the higher height, and the DAS systems fitted to RAF and RN SH all need space below the aircraft to operate effectively. The tactical argument doesn't hold up.

Before you all launch at me, I do know what I am talking about because I am a QHI on an SH OCU.

[Tourist]

And what about the gazelle and lynx talk split?
Do you think they have no reason to be at 10 ft for most of the time?

[Vox Populi]

Remember the MOD is playing catch up. They decided not to take the original inquest seriously and failed to send anyone. The coroner took a dim view and lambasted them...so the MOD has been on the backfoot ever since.

Role1a wrote:
How many horse riders are killed on the roads each year? is the DOT penalising drivers? Answer No.

Er...yes. Penalties range from fines for speeding to 8 years for causing death by dangerous driving.

[Hueymeister]

I'm with you Talksplit, however, we need the ability and realestate to train as we mean to fight...we need to maintain our ability and skill to operate in the weeds/NOE for those parts of the mission that aren't 'Transit'. Why not deploy us and all our customers to Northern Scotland where we can't annoy/kill as many innocent civvies? I know, cost, logistics, etc, etc. but just a thought.

[Role1a]

What does a horse rider get for dangerous riding or being in charge of a uncontrollable horse when it damages a car or worse still, causes an accident.

Horse riders- never had an accident, but seen loads!!!!

R1a

[Norman Nimrod]

Agree with Hueymeister reference training in Northern Scotland .. hailing from the frozen north myself I have never encountered anyone there hostile to low flying indeed during my time as an Ops Clerk (Sorry Aircrew .. your forum is more interesting than the ops one!!) whenever I went home people were understanding when the jets and helos went whizzing over. In fact my daughter got time out from school recently to visit the airport to see someHawks that were at Wick airport for low flying training. Many thanks to the pilots involved .. duaghter was well impressed.

But certain horsey types are living proof that brain death isnt fatal .. one example being the women who moved to the North of Scotland some years back to open a horse riding centre .. and built it between Lossie and Kinloss .. and then complained that wthe Nimrods were disturbing her animals.

And if the helo community do head north en masse please try not to disturb the haggis .. its breeding season !!

[southside]

Seems like a sensible and proper approach to me. For far too long military aircrew have been whazzing around the skies at extreme low level without a care in the world. About time this scandalous cowboy attitude was curtailed.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Southside,

your previous posts suggest that you're in the FAA. If you try to remember back to your time at Shawbury, you may recall that it was not all cowboy wazzing 'without a care in the world' - it was actually very strictly controlled and was quite a discipline. I guess being a fish-head type you haven't done much overland helicopter flying around such places as southern Iraq. If you did you would know very well why it is essential to maintain low flying skills.

I suspect that for reasons unknown, you are trolling and I really can't be arsed to type out the pro-LL argument once again, when it has already been flogged to death on Prune. Do a search here for Heather Bell and READ what has been written before.

A helicopter's natural environment is as close to ground level as possible without hitting anything. That's why 50ft is the usual safe figure. Horses will still be upset by Chinooks etc at 500ft.

Where do you draw the line?

Why should we degrade our operational capability to protect riders when many (such as Heather Bell) are not prepared protect themselves by wearing helmet or take personal responsibility for accepting the risks of the dangerous sport in which they choose to participate?

[OKOC]

Rock on Southside.

I have 3 horses and 1200 hrs Chinook-so what you may say. "Operational Blah, Blah, Blah, we need to train".

Ok 100ft now's the min; be very careful cos one more Helo/FJ vs pipeline inspector/ horse/ 737 and it'll be 2000 feet. An old mate bragged recently he did 1 and a half hours at 50feet. WHY? Why cos it's FUN.

Are you surprised the general public are getting pissed off because I am not. And don't give me the sh*t that Mrs Bell was not wearing a riding hat and should not take part in a dangerous sport: her hat would not have saved her and why on earth shouldn't people ride horses.

The MOD has had to finally take steps to try and prevent this happening again cos it's high profile and I'm in full agreement.

Ducking now!

[Fg Off Max Stout]

I will not deny that low level is fun. It is probably the most exciting flying that a pilot can do and can often be quite demanding, not least in ensuring that the low flying is conducted legally, in accordance with the auth, bookings, regulations, avoids, etc. It may be fun to do but that is not why we do it.

Low flying, like it or not, is an operational necessity and therefore a necessary part of peacetime training. This amendment to the rules is quite simply a pointless exercise to placate the antis, which include the Lincs Coroner, elements of the media etc. It will have little beneficial effect for the complainants (a Chinny is just as loud at 100ft as 50, but spreads the noise over a larger area for a longer time).

I truly believe that this was an occassion where the Govt should have stuck up for the Armed Forces, but predictably it has not. It is plain to see how much the Government and Nation has depended on the RAF, FAA and AAC over the last few years (believe me, the Boscastle rescues were not flown from medium level) and unfortunately equally clear where we lie on the list of priorities ie well below recreational passtimes.

Increased commitment, reduced funding in real terms, reduced numbers of personnel, aircraft, regiments and now reduced training.

God forbid an accident of the Sea Knight on night 1 of Telic sort or like the US Chinook shootdowns in the Stan recently and Iraq 2 yrs ago, but if it happens, I'm sure the Govt and all the antis will be wringing their hands with grief and sympathy. Too little too late. Maybe if their sons were squaddies down the back of Support Helos they'd think differently.

Happy Flying/Riding,

Stout

[Lafyar Cokov]

50' transits are still permitted by the way - where the training is justified.

Quite frankly, there is no tactical reason to transit low-fly at 50' as opposed to 100'. The small arms threat poses no greater threat at the higher height, and the DAS systems fitted to RAF and RN SH all need space below the aircraft to operate effectively. The tactical argument doesn't hold up.

Torque Split:

One word - Stinger
Another - SA18
A few more - Both systems min target hts are (believed to be) about 50-75ft! Having flown in flat open areas with a particularly high threat, I can tell you that the extra 50' makes a whole world of difference. Basic geometary tells you that it halves the time for aquisition, tracking and targetting of any system from an AK-47 to a Manpad. Please don't tell me that there is no tactical advantage to flying lower. If you are going to do so - come with me on my next Det and explain in to me over there. I'll be the one in the weeds!


Before you all launch at me, I do know what I am talking about because I am a QHI on an SH OCU

You are also an ar5e who should not shoot his mouth off, supporting the detractors who have no idea about issues involving the tactics and safety of fellow aviators. (Surely you are on an OCF not an OCU anyway!!!)
Trying to raise the min ht of low flying training and then expect us to fly on ops is a bit like saying we can practice IF with one eye on the horizon outside - the benefit will be minimal.

[Talk Split]

Hit a nerve here obviously. Very mature to try and slag me off i'm sure...

Read what I said. There are areas in the UK where we can fly 'in the weeds', as you so put it. I am not denying that the skill is worthwhile.

I stand by what I said with regards to the threat and DAS systems. I am not going to get into a slagging match about what I know or what I do, but I would say that transit flying over the rolling hills of the UK at 50' doesn't prepare you for 50' over the desert at night anyway, even if there was tactical reasons to do so.

[Kim Il Jong]

Train hard, fight easy that's what I say.

A DAS between you and a SAM system = fairly effective
A DAS between you and a raghead+AK47 = totaly ineffective.
Large range between you and raghead+ AK47= very effective
Lumps of rock between you and almost all sytems = 100% effective.

Take your pick.

The thing that pisses me off is that the voracity of the general public's anti LF sentiment is inversely proportional to their lattitude. 65 years ago i suggest the opposite would have been true.

The UK enjoys a feedom and economic well-being that it could be argued is a direct result of the training and therefore ability of all of our armed forces. A little bit of noise is such a small price to pay.

[Above Datums]

The thing that pisses me off is that the voracity of the general public's anti LF sentiment is inversely proportional to their lattitude. 65 years ago i suggest the opposite would have been true.

Reminds me of a story a mate of mine told us.

In the 70's said mate was working as low flying complaints biatch. Irate old woman calls to complain about jets scaring her and flying too low. Mate replies with "could you see the markings on the aircraft?"

Old woman: "Yes i could even make out the pilots"
Mate: "Were the markings red stars?"
Old woman "No they were not!"
Mate: "Well think yourself lucky" puts phone down!

:} If only things were that simple nowadays!

[The Helpful Stacker]

It is was unfortunate that someone was allegedly killed by their horse bolting due to a low flying Chinook. I say allegedly as I am someone who has seen horses spooked by something as simple as a crisp packet fluttering in the hedge line.

Lets be honest, a half ton of simple minded animal trotting around the countryside can and will do what ever it wants, no matter how much 'in control' the rider seems to think they are. A 9 stone woman is never really in control of such a beast, just getting along as best they can.

Its a shame the knee jerk reaction has led to this restriction placed on training that is more than ever important to the safety and operational effectiveness of the RAF and other aviation units.

[A and C]

Issues vital to the defence of the State should not be subject to approval by minority interest groups who engage in dangerous sports.

However as a tax payer I expect the MOD to have to foot the bill to compensate when a tragic accident like this one happens.

It is my opinion that in the long run realistic low flying training is the cheapest option in terms of money and lives but I don't think that my opinion would have much sway with the readers of Horse & Hound !

[Lafyar Cokov]

So when the next horse is spooked by a Chinook at 100ft, do we then move up to 250'? 500'? When does it end - I am vehemently against this reduction in capability.

a) 50' transit trg IS relevent - whatever theatre a crew is practicing for (Despite what some may say on here).

b) As has been previously stated, the tactics of the Military should not be dictated by the whims of a minority dangerous-sports society.

c) Just as many horses will continue to be spooked by cars, kites, clouds, balloons or crisp packets as well as ac operating at 100ft.

If we are not careful we will end up like the Americans where low flying is a 'Special Ops' skill only and all their standard mates have been flying round Iraq at 500' getting their asses shot off.

(Sorry if I'm not mature enough for PPRUNE)

[serf]

there is a need for low flying - getting the time and place right is the key thing. low flying in the south of england and other areas where there are lots of people is probably not going to get too many votes from joe public - likewise night flying training in the middle of summer past 2200hrs is not too clever either.

low flying - north of scotland

night flying - winter

[iPodder]

People who tow their horses to events in cars don't ask for cars to be banned from roads in the event of a car v horse incident. As a country boy and an SH mate I know that horse owners will blame anything or anyone except themselves, it's human nature. And by the way, why should the Jocks and the Taffs have to bear the brunt of jet noise. If low flying is an essential part of our military doctrine and therefore foreign policy on operations, and is of benefit to the UK and her allies, the people of the UK should share the burden; not just those on low wages who can't afford horses and parlimentary questions.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

How times change. Remember the Jag mid air collision with a light aircraft over Mid Wales in the early 90's? Bits of turbine landing in the primary school playground etc. Whilst there was some fringe grumbling from the usual suspects I recall nearly all the locals seeing very much the RAF point of view. Bits of high speed aluminium landing on the village was much the preferable option to not having an effective armed forces.

People are softer now, expect more compensation and the lawyers and courts are all geared up for it.

Whilst doing nothing positive for recruitment or retention is a move towards remoter parts of the world on the cards for everything that needs to fly low?

WWW

[southside]

If we need to Low fly in an operational environment (and I agree that we do) then we should train for that environment. Wazzing across the yorkshire moors at low level will not help you train to insert a bunch of booties in Iraq.

There is no operational or training benefit from wazzing around at 50' in the UK.

[incubus]

Last time I looked, there wasn't a whole lot of sand in the balkans.

Not everything the RAF do will be based in a sand pit.

[southside]

Ah, so its for Operations in the Balkans we are training for is it?

And to prepare for Operations in the Balkans we'll go wazzing over Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Hmmmm !!!

[iPodder]

So Southside, where is this magical place that'll provide us with all of our training needs for all of the places that we could deploy in the next few years. Prehaps we could continue what we do at the moment and do our best with what we've got. Post solutions not problems.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well perhaps if we call it preparation for a Civil War we can continue to go wazzing over Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

Of course we could always ask future aggressors to give us 18 months warning in writing minimum so that we could find ourselves a training area in a country suitable in conditions to the one we will be operating in. Or we could just go on doing what we are doing, after all the fundamentals of low flying are the same, just the terrain over which it is flown varies, of course in my humble opinion as a 'mere' stacker.

[Amateur Aviator]

Having been away for a while, my initial take on this whole thread is one of 2 options:

1. Either some people are out big game fishing (and winning)

OR

2. There are some complete and utter ar5es out there who subscribe to the whole anti-forces-doing their-job thing.

I know where my thoughts lie. So leave us alone so that we can do our job.

To avoid the inevitable grief coming my way, I'll go back to the GAFA to make up my 6 months of the year away, because as we all know, we are stretched almost to breaking point, but we still keep going. All it needs is somone to admit it, but I'll save that for another thread............

Good Day!

AA

[truckiebloke]

well, im still one of those that enjoys seeing an aircraft buzz over the top of me at a low height!!!

im sure most of the public fel the same. In these PC times we over look some amazingly obvious facts when an occasional death occurs.... for instance...

Ban cigarettes? thousands die a year..
Ban cars?again, thousands...
Alcohol?licensed guns?jet skis?Boats?

the list is endless... i would rather our guys trained to fly low and be good at it so when needed they can rely on going as low as they need to operationally...

[SASless]

Why not position some aircraft in a friendly country that has vast amounts of wide open vacant spaces and send aircrew there on short term postings....do yer cowboying and come home when yer done. Canada has lots of room for you...even the USA with a small place called West Texas...Nevada....Alaska has room for you. What about Africa....what government down there gives a hoot what the indigenous residents has to say. Think outside the box here guys....there are simple solutions...and still do the training. Better yet...go to Iraq....do it in real time conditions....would be very realistic training now wouldn't it.

[truckiebloke]

''Better yet...go to Iraq....do it in real time conditions....would be very realistic training now wouldn't it.''

yessss, that would work wouldnt it sasless!!!???!!!!

[Role1a]

So what you’re saying SASLESS is that it’s ok to kill foreigners on low flying exercises but not our own, especially in Africa. UNBELIEVABLE

Anyway I’m sure Sir Bob Geldof would have something to say about it!!!!!

R1a

[southside]

No, no... SASLess has a good point here.

There is little or no training benefit from training at Low level in the UK. Too many built up areas, too many restricted areas and too many tax payers moaning. So, lets find a training area in the USA which could include all environments we could possibly be sent too and build a Low Flying training school there.

[BN Boy]

No. SASless does not have a point. Training oversees in areas like the US or Canada is not cost efficient. I'm sure you have all heard of this 'leaning' process, eh?

It was hard enough scraping together enough pennies for an EX in Morocco recently. Which was, by the way, essential training. We were limited to carrying only 20kgs of kit because we had to travel with a no frills, budget airline. I don't know about you but for a two week det my flying kit alone weighs more then 20kgs.

By the way, the locals woudn't allow us to low fly (gives the camels the hump!). Hmm, guess the only place to do it is in good ol' Blighty.

[southside]

Of course it would be cost effecient. The cost to human lifes isnt quantifiable.

Nope, the UK does not fit the requirement. The terrain is wrong, the weather precludes LF for the most part and there are too many innocent tax payers going about their daily business who tend to get in the way.

So, where shall we go? someone has already mentioned the USA / Canada. Any other suggestions? Northern Spain would be good. I did an Ex based at Zarragozza a few years ago - gotta be the longest runway in NATO there.

[Chinny Crewman]

"The cost to human lifes isnt quantifiable"

You and I may not think so however the treasury I suspect has other ideas. The cost of a permenant training detachment overseas precludes it as a viable option. In order to maintain an overseas det and carry out our commitment to the UK/NATO defence requirement we would have to purchase new aircraft, employ more people etc.... I suspect that despite the training benefits of flying abroad (or not) it will never happen as it is more cost effective to pay compensation to the British public for damage caused than to fund a permenant overseas det.
Incidentally I believe we have a reciprocal agreement with other NATO countries that allows them to Low Fly here if we do so in their country so that would rule that out.

[Above Datums]

Going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here. :E

How about moving more ac types to the Falklands and conduct low flying training there? Of course this will mean a great reduction in our capability as crews will only be able to fly above 500' in the UK but at least we won't upset the public. No more low fly bookings, no need for LFA's and think of how much money you will save. I mean with being down south for a couple of months at a time and then being on det for a wee while you won't have any chance to spend any of your hard earned cash. Oh and think of how many frequent flyer miles you will earn!!!

Cat inserted, pigeons flapping, AD taking cover! :E

[morcaleb]

You all seem to be quoting the new 100ft limit from the press reports. Wait til rules are actually published through MOD Docs. I assure you that the press have not got it quite right!! surprise. Flying below 100ft is permitted for Specific exercises - read that as specific trg objectives. But you will all have to preplan your very low flying more.

[Gainesy]

Not all civvies are against LF, me for one.

Also, when I explained to some folk in my local just why the Chinooks were flying so low in this area, there was a general (if grudging and not 100%) acceptnce of the need. The general public really do not have any idea of why it is done and just see it as "playing about" until its explained.

Maybe a bit of money spent on a TV ad would be a better bet in getting the public more on-side than all the free LF videos moldering an a MoD filing cabinet?

[southside]

The new rules are out fella. A series of Training Areas have been established and are soon to be up and running. The new Low Flying areas and rules come into force 3 Oct 2005.

whilst we are discussing it, can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.

[Above Datums]

can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.

Couple of things Southside.

First off I thought the whole point of helo low flying was to get pax to somewhere where they can do their thing. If the first time said troops low fly is on a live op and they get airsick then they aren't going to be very combat effective. Therefore low flying with pax in this country is worthwhile as it gives the lads a chance to get used to what is a weird sensation as a pax.

Secondly whom were you refering to as pax? If it was cadets etc then I agree there is no need to do it

[Twinact]

can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.

Southside is correct, as a result of the Mull of Kintyre crash in 1994, the rules were tightened up. However, troops by defininition are not passengers. There are a few caveats which allow low flying with pax, such as if it is the purpose of the sortie or they are required to service the ac after the sortie.

Not sure why he maintains "Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous", if it were dangerous surely no one would be allowed to do it. It amounts to an increased risk compared to flying higher.

[iPodder]

I am seriously considering my future as a member of pprune at the moment. Southside, where is this information of yours coming from, why are you privvy to rules that Chinook operators aren't, please give reference to your opinion, where does it say that passenger flying at low level is illegal, do you mean all flying or just some?. I am a member of a Chinook Sqn and I would not fly passengers of any kind if it were illegal or dangerous(operations excepted). We do not go about or business deliberately crashing into the ground or scaring horses for fun. We do our level best to work within JHC constraints and MOD low flying policy whilst providing a top rate service to the Army and Royal Marines. I do hope that this thread becomes a touch more sensible with posters backing up inflamitory and irresponsiple posts.

[southside]

JSP 550 - Passenger flying regs.

Maybe I was a bit harsh with the dangerous bit....apologies.


Good point mad eby above datum though.... seems like a sensible option to me. We already have the infrastructure to support that level of training. So, why not?

No excuses of ...its too cold/Far away/Miserable/No 5* hotels etc etc...

[southside]

who/what is totalwar?

[PTT]

Low flying does have tactical benefit. The US helos in Iraq get shot at more because of the height they fly at. The principle applies over all terrain types, not just the desert, therefore we should train over all terrain types, including Lincolnshire and Norfolk (Sun Tzu - He who aspires for peace should prepare for war). Banning low flying is therefore not an option.

Low flying is not easy - if it was, everyone would do it. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean we should stop doing it though; it merely means we should train better and more for it.

Low flying is an annoyance. People who live near airfields (I know, they should have looked before they bought) will be annoyed by a consant stream of low flying helicopters leaving the area.

Given then, that this is a difficult skill but is a requirement then I can see no reason not to keep on training it in a sensible manner which spreads the annoyance. I, for one, have been authorising to 100'/30' for transit to a sector of my route from which point I will be authorised to 50'/30' until the transit back to base. A part of the sortie is therefore dedicated to that particular skill set within a realistic tactical scenario. Another option is an IF transit to a low-level let-down point for a sector which is to be flown at low level, thereby combining skill sets and helping to expand capacity and improve cockpit organisation.

Those who would have us transit to northern Scotland every time we want to low fly should be prepared to foot the bill for the extra aircraft hours required with minimal training benefit. "It's too far away" seems like a fairly reasonable rebuttal.

Not convinced about the illegality of LF with pax - I'll need to check the 550 for that - but I do know that the JHCFOB allows it under certain circumstances. I realise that the 550 would take precedence, but it seems like a fairly huge error on someone's part to have such a contradiction.

[southside]

PTT - Check your PM's

[Lafyar Cokov]

Exporting low flying sounds so amazingly easy to do - but it is completely unworkable for a vast variety of reasons.

1. We are the Royal Air Force (or Royal Navy or British Army - ie UK Sovereign Forces based in the UK) - for those unaware of recent events, our influence over the commonwealth has vastly reduced in the past few decades. Hence, should our lords and masters instruct the prospective governments of host nations of our newly exported low flying that they are to allow us to low fly at will, they are highly likely to be met with a 'f**k off your Britannic Majesties!'

2. The setting up of engineering, operations, legal framework, ac and personnel accomodation etc etc would be prohibitively high.

3. As current SH operators, many of us (me included) are already spending more than half the year deployed on ops. To be told that prior to every op deployment we have to spend a suitable time deployed in some god-forsaken part of the world, working back down to operational low flying heights, would be completely unnaceptable and would lead to an even bigger exodus than the Heli forces have faced over the past few years.

4. Low flying is such a perishable skill that it needs to be constantly practised to be effectively employed on ops - remember that we have not always had the luxury of 1-2 months warning for many of the ops that have been carried out in the past few years.

5. Low flying over any terrain involves a constant level of vigilance and concentration that can be improved by practice. The fact that you are flying over undulating grassland in practice and flat desert on ops only makes the handling task easier leaving more capacity for other tasks at hand.

As I've stated before, if we don't keep practicing it - the skill will fade and we will suffer more casualties as a result of CFIT.

[WorkingHard]

Why don't the RAF, AFC etc have a helicopter training base in the north of Scotland for example where the population is minimal. Almost no conflicts with anyone then. Would that not be realistic from a terrain point of view?

[Lafyar Cokov]

WorkingHard...

The North of Scotland is very sparsely populated - because not many people want to live there. There are few jobs for wives/husbands and not many schools - hence quality of life for our families, if we were based there, would not be great.

If we just deployed there to do the exceptionally frequent training that would be required it would mean even more time away from our currently very pissed off families.

The Army (who SH generally work closely with) are mainly based in the south (Salisbury/Wilton/London/Hereford) so to work effectively with them we need to be based reasonably close.

Those who earn the most are benefiting most from the freedom won and maintained by the armed forces, why the f**k shouldn't they put up with a little helicopter noise from LL ac once in a while?

[serf]

its not every now and again though is it ?

every night monday-thursday until after midnight is a bit much.

[southside]

Hey, good thread from Lafyar Cokov.....he made 5 valid and reasonable points but there may be an asnwer to his problem.


Point 1 - The Falkland Islands
Point 2 - The Falkland Island
Point 3 - Youre in the miltary - get used to it. (and 6 months - get real for gawds sake. Half my oppos would dream of six months in the UK)
Point 4 - Falkland Islands
Point 5 - Falkland Islands.

Comments please.

[WorkingHard]

Deliverance - if your command of the english language is epitomised by your response to a simple question then God forbid that you make any command decisions. I did not express any opinion but asked a simple straight forward question that perhaps even you could grasp. Yes I pay my taxes like everyone else and expect good value for money, I also expect those in service to provide a service for their Lords and Masters - the taxpayer. Yes deliverance, sad really, but you actually work for us.

[WorkingHard]

Deliverance you need to have a better understanding of the British "constitution".
I am sorry to tell you that the Queen is a constitional Head of Stae with very restricted roles. The power lies in the hands of parliament. You may have been given a Queens commission, as did a great many of us, but it is the taxpayer who pays you and it is parliament which decides your fate as a military serving man.
Now as I was not arguing but asking a simple question, to which some have responded with argued reason, it is not I that was picking holes but yourself. Why not come off your righteous perch and get into the real world?

[Tourist]

Some people have a very serious misunderstanding about not just low flying, but about life itself.

1. Low flying is a very perishable skill. It requires constant training to be good and safe. The majority is best carried out within range your home base for obvious reasons. Fast jets may be capable of zooming off to the north of Scotland on a daily basis to fly low, but Helos and Hercs etc just cannot.

2. This basic level of low level training is supplemented by focused training throughout the year. In the Navy's case this consists of exercises well north of the arctic circle for Arctic training (clockwork) Saif Serea for Desert training and so on. By doing this we remain current in the various theatres in which we may be expected to fight.

3. Nobody complains about these exercises, as we recognise the need, just as we don't complain about being sent to the Falklands/Iraq/Sierra Leone/Afghanistan/ to fight a war.

4. However, the idea that we should all live in the Falklands just so you do not have to occasionally hear the oh so distressing sound of an aircraft is frankly laughable.

5. Whilst it is unfortunate that a horse rider died, I have to be frank and say that the responsibility is 100% on the rider who decides to take up a dangerous sport, and quite frankly I would be prepared to sacrifice a great many more riders in the interests of keeping alive more of my mates during war.

6. A Chinook is just as noisy at 100ft as at 50ft, or even 300ft

7. We have retention and recruitment problems as it is. Do you think moving the entire aviation department of the military to the @rse end of the back of beyond will help?

[Toxteth O'Grady]

A Chinook is just as noisy at 100ft as at 50ft, or even 300ft

In fact it can be worse because your acoustic footprint covers a wider area; just ask a submariner.

:cool:

TOG

[Lee Jung]

Some valid points from all, but I really do hope Total Wa(n*e)r hasn't returned.

As an HWI/EWI/QHTI I agree that the benefit of flying at 50' as opposed to 100' is minimal over most terrain, but those who need to know that sometimes you're glad of any granite/treeline you can get.

Open source suggests that the latest seekers do not mind whether you at 50' as opposed to 100' anyway and Abdul is unlikely to spot you that much earlier, the threat band analysis supports this.

Flying at 50', whilst significantly reducing safety margins and reaction times in the event of a system failure, can offer tactical benefit and should be practiced, but not in my opinion in what could be termed 'transit flying'.

I was appalled to see SH mates on a cross country straight line Nav at 50', planned and flown on a 1/4 mil map. Little regard given to settlements and no reaction time to alot that wasn't marked on the map (and in reality would you blindly fly near settlements in potentially hostile terrain?). Lazy and highly counter productive in my opinion.

There is a time and a place (plenty of it - the plain, exmoor, dartmoor, SW peninsula etc, etc, etc

We can aid ourselves with a well thought out and pragmatic approach, reducing the chance of upset to Maj Farquarharson and his fat black lab AND giving us the most tactically realistic LL training we can.

[HEDP]

As far as general low flying is concerned there is a defined need for it and, as the number of aircraft reduce in the fleets the burden of inconvenience will also reduce. It is important however that restrictions on when and where low flying occurs are kept to a minimum so as to spread the burden as wide as possible.

As for night flying the same rational applies. The one thing I haven't picked up on throughout the thread, and I apologise if it has been mentioned, is that as much as it can be inconvenient to the local populace, it is just so to the air and ground crews involved. I would challenge anyone to find many servicemen or women who would choose to do this on a regular basis given that they will probably have their own families sat at home waiting for them. It remains the case however that these people will continue to maintain their proffesionalism and skill sets to ensure they are able to carry out their duties when their country (and the local populace) requires them so to do.

Given that flying hours are reducing it is important to squeeze every ounce of training benefit from every hour available so if that means that low level is achieved during a transit then it should happen. If it does not then the tax payer is not achieving maximum value for the pounds he or she is already spending for the transit. If it is not achieved during that transit then a further sortie will have to be scheduled for those aims at additional cost. That said it requires sufficient planning and attention to detail in order to achieve that benefit!

all IMHO

HEDP

[southside]

Some sound points from HEDP. Not quite sure about the Night Flying bit. Down here in Kernew, we Night fly Mondays and Tuesdays and then get the other 5 nights at home with the family - seems to suit everyone.

And I thought that Flying hours were being Increased, not reduced. In fact we have had our Flying rate increased by some 18% from last year.

Good point about the transit though. We need to gain maximum training benefit from every minute of our flying hours.

[[email protected]]

So, to recap -
1. an unfortunate incident occurs and a woman is thrown from her horse after it is spooked by a helicopter.

2. The coroner (not an aviator or in the military) makes a series of criticisms about MOD LF policy.

3. Instead of being robust in defence of LF, MOD rolls over and initially looks at all sorts of ridiculous ways of making horses more conspicuous to heli crews (including avalanche transmitters which have a range of about 30').

4. Then since none of the ideas are vaguely viable, a system of filing post flight route maps for helicopters is trialled and again proves unworkable and utterly pointless (except as a means to hang a guilty crew in the event of another horse-spooking).

5. So, some bright spark comes up with Helicopter Training Areas (HTAs) around the country where helis can low fly without submitting map traces (there are still lots of horse riders inside the HTAs so this doesn't help the potential conflict). So a heli crew must now get an LFA booking and an HTA booking (and an MFTA booking if in Snowdonia) and none of these will prevent another horse-riding accident.

6. And, because this is so high profile and important, the rules (MIL AIP) are changed and the coordinates of the HTAs promulgated in CALF but in the new section in the AIP, no-one could be bothered to put in a map (not even a simple graphic outline) of the HTAs. The HTA boundaries are all but invisible on the LFC and calfing the SACs makes them almost illegible and unuseable.

What a feat of @rse and a pointless waste of time. I believe the appropriate staffspeak description would be 'nugatory effort'.

[Role1a]

To be fair crab, the HTA's are marked on the LFC but are very difficult to see.

There is a map on the LFBC Web site of all the HTAs

Other than that I concur

R1a

[[email protected]]

R1a, thanks, I was amending my post as you sent yours.

[Bluntend]

Whilst it is unfortunate that a horse rider died, I have to be frank and say that the responsibility is 100% on the rider who decides to take up a dangerous sport, and quite frankly I would be prepared to sacrifice a great many more riders in the interests of keeping alive more of my mates during war.

Sorry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious and since the only item of hi-tech MOD kit I 'fly' is a desk, I may be way off the mark on some of the flying specifics, but I really can't grasp how this case even got to court.

Surely if the rider was in Lincolnshire, she would have been aware of the increased liklihood of aircraft activity in that region. Nevertheless the liklihood of a horse being spooked by an ac, the rider being thrown and then the rider dieing as a result of their injuries must be extremely small. For the MOD to consider adjusting its practices to mitigate against an event, the odds of which with are so small, just seems absurd. Would the best approach be to continue as we were but incourage the horse riding community to become more aware of low flying ac?

Would BA or Virgin or any other civilian operator adjust the way they approach airports if a similar incident were to occur under the flight path to Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted for example?

Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, however, it strikes me as another occasion where the Military is being hammered because the general public can't grasp why what we do is important.

[ProfessionalStudent]

... the same as it ever was.

The Mod has issued guidance to horse riders re low-flying ac and advised that they should wear hi-viz vests. You can't move round our place for hi-viz vest wearing riders. Oh no, wait a minute...

IMHO, this won't actually affect the price of fish a great deal. Our LF habits won't actually change that much (as has been alluded to, most heli flying is done at or above 100' anyway) and the addition of putting in our route WPs to LFBC is little more than a pain in the backside.

The whole thing smacks of the MoD having to be seen to do something to minimise the risk to riders. The "Hotline" is a classic case of this. Mrs Miggins plans a ride at 1100 and calls the Hotline at 0900 to be told there's nothing to affect in the area. She then goes riding, safe in the knowledge that there's no risk, and lo, she gets frightened fartless by the 4-bag of Chinooks going over the top that booked in at 0930. How do you spell "futile" again? AND, despite checking, a horse is no less frightened by a diverted or (perish the thought) lost ac...

Once the dust has settled, I think we will barely remember how we used to do it. The alarming thing is, however, the intent of it all. Undoubtedly (and of course, sadly) other riders will be thrown by horses spooked by LF ac in the future. What's the next step? I'll let you draw your own conclusions...

Fact: 31 riders have been killed as a direct result of road traffic in the past 4 years... I didn't see a new "car booking procedure" in the Highway Code, or even a "Badly Driven Car" Hotline...:*

Link: http://www.horseawareness.co.uk/rdinc.htm

[JNo]

In the current state of Government popularity, the MoD has to be seen to be doing everything to help out the public. Hopefully the new rules won't affect our flying too much - just how many people do we actually think are going to ring the "hover horse hotline"? (I'm copyrighting that)

[oldfella]

Go back 20 years or so and the country had lots of separate low flying areas. There was a main route going round the country and link routes into the low flying areas.

Lots of nuisance etc for those living in each of the areas, main and link routes. The system changed to effectively cover the country with areas thus spreading the load and established OLF areas in sparsely populated areas.

Designate separate areas for heli type OLF flying and, apart from transit times, I wonder how long before the number of complaints rise in those areas requiring another shift of area?

[Toxteth O'Grady]

One thing that's bugging me is that the overwhelming majority of us firmly believe in the importance and benefits of LL training but the Americans seem to differ. An earlier post stated:
If we are not careful we will end up like the Americans where low flying is a 'Special Ops' skill only

We fly in the same theatres against the same threats as the US. Why do they not train for it? It can't be the nuisance factor as they have massive amounts of training acreage in their own back yard. I would find it hard to believe they don't do it on cost grounds. Perhaps they place too much faith in their overwhelming firepower and airspace denial capabilities, to the extent that they do not consider NOE tactically necessary. Or maybe they see their losses as an acceptable risk that does not require investment in additional training hours to reduce.

Discuss.

:cool:

TOG

[Pontius Navigator]

Bluntend

<<I may be way off the mark on some of the flying specifics, but I really can't grasp how this case even got to court.>>

Coroner's court Sir. No question that a sudden death has to be heard in a coroner's court.

[southside]

The Americans conducted a study into Low Flying in the Late 70's and (quite rightly) concluded that the expense of conducting Low Flying traing didn't justify the means.

Its cheaper to accept the loss of a few aircraft and crews than to train everyone with a skill which quite frankly doesn't work.

Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').

The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.

[Pontius Navigator]

Southside, see PM

[ProfessionalStudent]

Southside

Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').

and


The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.

To use your word - TOSH. In a helicopter, it's bloody vital. Terrain, trees,etc are the ultimate jammer. It's not rocket science (pun intended). I'm sure those that fly FJ would agree, but they can also fly high enough to evade stuff - we can't.

Yes, low flying happens to be fun, but it's also a vital and perishable skill. Ask anyone who's flown sausage side. Just why is it do you think that the Yanks have so many shot down?

[bowly]

Southside,

Utter Utter rot. I don't know what you do, but you are very misinformed and obviously have little understanding of operational aviation.

[southside]

Thats why the Americans canned it. The attrition rate was cheaper than the millions spent on LF practice.

Ive been involved in many operations since I joined in 1980. Ive been shot at (hit once - Small arms (should have been higher))

In GW1 we lost most aircraft whilst they were below 500'. In the FI's all the aircraft we lost were at low level. Those aircraft flying high were safe.

So, why do we need to low fly and in particular, why practice LF in the UK?

[[email protected]]

That's great southside - 'Off you go to war boys, some won't be coming back because we can't be arsed to train you properly'.
Attrition rates might be 'acceptable' when you are sat in a comfy office far from the front line but not when you are sent off to become one of the statistics.

If you can fly really high and fast then I agree you are safer but helicopters have to do their job close to the ground - strangely the troops don't want to get out at 500' !

[JNo]

Shawbury has 1 dedicated low-level training sortie then straight back into the Nav - which is mixed but mostly done at low-level, but at the end of the day is used as navigation training as opposed to LL flying. Worst case?? £10K per pilot.

The airframe cost alone to the Americans of being shot down (not running out of ability) of Iraq and Afghan runs into hundreds of millions of pounds (not dollars!). PM me for details if you'd like...

Southside you're talking out of your ar5e.

[OKOC]

Deliverance!

Quote: Aunty Betty owns the land we fly over.

Oh really, she owns all the land in UK does she-I don't think so-oh and by the way, can you fly over her houses at 50'; no cos they've got red blobs on them have they not.

[Pontius Navigator]

While you are all flaming Southside, he possibly picked up the wrong end as helicopter low flying is what the thread is really about.

And on that note the low flying comlaint issue we were discussing yesterday in a nature reserve was not about Aunty Betty's toys anyway but Uncle Sams.

[WorkingHard]

Keep it up Southside it stops me getting all the flak!

[Pontius Navigator]

Deliverance,

I would hazard a guess that the millions southside is talking about start with the additional wear and tear hence reduced airframe life and greater maintenance and replacement costs.

Then you get the cost arising from low level accidents, thankfully fewer and less life threatening than in the 60s and 70s. During the cold war with virtually no combat flying all the costs fell during training and none during operations - except in Vietnam.

That is where the US switched their game. They were taking SAC pilots, converting them to FJ and sending them to war. Although they had flown at LL there was no way you would have considered them LL Operational to the same extent as a modern mud sqn training for war. I am not denigrating the SAC pilots, simply suggesting that the USAF increased the size of their aircrew pool to such an extent that giving them all low level training was too expensive when the better option was a SEAD package.

[southside]

Shall I explain the money bit? Well, last year in just LFA 1,2 and 3 the MOD used 23,726 flying hours. Yep, thats right, 23,726 hours and thats just LFA 1,2 and 3.

Now Im not sure how much it is an hour to fly a Chinook or a Lynx but I know how much it costs to fly a Merlin and a Seaking and so as a rough guess I reckon the tax payer forked out the tune of well over £10 million. Thats just LFA 1,2 and 3. I haven't got the time to try and work out the rest.

Now those hours are hours booked, not hours flown and so letssay that the utilisation was only 50%....thats still a hefty £5,000,000.

At the moment the entire UK is available as a low flying training area ( with a few exceptions). Why don't we go back to the routines we had prior to 1979 (for those of yu who remember - Beagle will, I'm sure)

Prior to 1979 you could only LF in certain, designated areas. Only the Sqdn hierarchy could authorise LF. Consequently Low Flying was taken much more seriously then than it is now. Now, just about anyone can authorise Low Flying and you can Low fly just about anywhere you want to. If Low flying is such an important skill (as many of you are suggesting) then we need to take it more seriously.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Southside.

You are absolutely clueless. The Spams lose helis because they are shot down by flying IN the threat band for EVERYTHING, not because they're at low level... because they're NOT at low level.

Our helis try and fly BELOW the threat band for everything they can. And, generally, it works.

It's people like you who think tactics are little white mints.

In my career, I've lost arond 12 colleagues in flying related accidents. NOT ONE, count them, has died as a direct (or indirect) result of low flying.

Luck? Maybe.

Because we're practiced and current. More than likely. If you can go at FL nosebleed and warp-factor snot, then all fine and dandy. For us rotary mates who can't, then LL flying is THE ONLY way, apart from technical wizardry, we can avoid being shot down.

Low flying in helicopters has a very low attrition rate because we practice it regularly. Stop that practice, apart from pre-op training, and I'd put money on it increasing...

[JTIDS]

Can't comment on the difference between 50' and 100' as am only a humble SAR boy... but do think it should be pointed out that this new system with the amount of time it takes to sort out a low level booking now, does seem to encourage people to go up in the sort of areas ( above 500ft, below the zero degree isotherm when like me you've got bugger all icing clearance) where your a lot more likely to bump into a lot more traffic (our fast jet brethren for a start)

Once again just a thought, and of course on actual SAR ops all low level bookings can be done retrospectively.

[Lafyar Cokov]

Southside - I assume you are now just trying to provoke a reaction to you utter tosh (I believe the youths on these new-fangled interweb thingy chat houses call it 'Flaming' - so check out my lingo.....).

Just in case you aren't I would suggest you read some of your own posts and try to work out the logic in them.

Are you truly saying that if 'Low Flying was taken more seriously' then there would be less of it??? Surely if it was taken more seriously there should be more - it is such and important skill (to SH/AH anyway - obviously not to pingers, baggers and SAR like yourself!) that in needs (yes NEEDS!!) to be perfected to such a level where it is not a novelty, where the whole crew feel natural at operating at that environment and where mission details can be concentrated on - not worrying about whether you are going to hit wires, trees, masts etc. Only constant exposure to the environment can breed this familiarity.

Seondly you state that low flying cost £5,000,000 last year. The only logical upshot of your argument is that if low flying was more restricted then that figure would be saved. More tosh - the flying would have to be done anyway - last year most aircrew flew below their NATO standard 15 hours a month. This flying has to take place - it would just move higher, we would have more collisions with our fj bretheren and the training would be worth less.

When low-flying was restricted to certain routes its value was limited - there was no real development in navigation as the routes soon became known and the navigation part of the exercise was easy - hence the capacity of those operating at low level was not being expanded as it should. Also - if a person happened to be living under one of those low level routes then they would experience much more than their fair share of noise - surly it is better to spread the effects more thinly throughout the countryside rather than always annoy the same houses.

I'm glad you finally agree in your last paragraph that low flying IS such an important skill - but so is landing. It is fundamental to our day to day operations. Why therefore should it only be authorised by the Sqn hierachy. I agree that we have to be careful that we do not APPEAR to be abusing the low flying system (I say appear because I don't believe that anybody abuses it - however, the bad press put out by detractors from our primary task, like yourself, sometimes try to paint a picture of the military aircrew who have to practice this essential skill, as mavericks), and each low flying sortie must be justifiable and planned to ensure that the maximum training benefit is exuded from it.

Now call the fire-brigade to put out the flames!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Lafyar Cokov

I guess 'flaming' is very appropriate on this Mil section as in 'shot down in flames.'