Valley Hawks in Northolt

[CHINOOKER]

Over the last few months,i have seen an increase in the use of Northolt by Hawks from RAF Valley! Whilst these are a most welcome sight in these parts,could someone,(with the usual caveats),give a reason as to why?
Do fast jet trainees have to "experience" flying within a TMA as part of thier training or are these flights just for navigational training etc?

[ZH875]

They are probably Prince Williams Taxi service.

[green granite]

There used to be an annotation in BINA that single engine aircraft were not accepted, (early 90's) when did this change?:confused:

[CHINOOKER]

I thought the single engined a/c ban was for everyone except the RAF, as i can remember some years back the French being refused permission to operate a single engined comms a/c into Northolt!. If it,s of any interest we also get occassional visits by Tucanos from Linton?,(LOP callsign),but the Hawks have become more regular visitors.....Now more likely to see one of those than a RAF Herk at Northolt.....How times have changed!!

[Liam Gallagher]

Should the donk on a Hawk decide to stop when turning short finals and Ms Miggins and her family of 7 in a Council Estate in West Ruislip receive the "good news" through their roof, the entire World Media wont go into a frenzy calling for heads on spikes because........

OC Ops is a "good egg" and besides do the "great unwashed" not realise Northolt is only a 45 min tube ride from a good nitestop...:rolleyes:

Common Sense innit?:ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Should've gone RW, then you could land away at Chelsea Barracks - much closer to Sloane Square :E

[VARIABLE_KNIFE]

A bit tricky now that Chelsea Barracks has close! :ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Indeed, but there's a marked H spot at Regent's Park Barracks :ok:

[Liam Gallagher]

The BA777 is designed, maintained and operated such that the loss of one critical power unit does not result in the loss of the aircraft (and the subsequent collateral damage on the ground). The Hawk, however is designed, maintained and operated such that the loss of the critical power unit will result in aircraft being lost (with the subsequent collateral damage on the ground). Such is the way for both aircraft for good reason and I do not challenge that.

Indeed, the BA777 can suffer a multiple system failure and fall upon us; we as society choose to wear that risk in return for joy of air travel. Equally, we as a society choose to wear the risk of a military jet falling upon in the interest on National Security.

Rightly or wrongly, London has special rules regarding Single Engined Aircraft and OC Ops has some discretion on that. It's not for him, you or me to challenge those rules; but two questions for you;

1. Does a Hawk coming into Northolt enhance National Security?
2. OC Ops has to weigh up his career/ possibly his personal liberty against the strength of an Adour fan blade.... how strong is that blade?

So "old chap" it comes down to risk and return.... OC Ops seems to be wearing a lot of risk for not a lot of return...

[CHINOOKER]

Have to agree with "The Equivocator" here....we are not wall to wall housing,(yet) here in good old west London.....plenty of green open space and parkland available!!
As for single engined aircraft using the skies above us,well i dont mind one bit as there is more chance,(where i live),of a 747/777/A380 coming through your bedroom window in the early hours than a Hawk/Tucano etc,so from a personal point of view,"hats off" to the relevent OC ops involved for organising it all,(even if it's for a jolly!!),and long may it continue!!

[BEagle]

Back in the days when the RAF could still afford proper UAS flying, we once did an event for charedeee, mates, not 'alf. This involved bringing the Beaujolias Nouveau back from France, which our students would then rush to a function in town.

The idea was that ULOTC would drive the filthy stuff to Calais, URNU would transfer it to their boat and bring it across to Ramsagte or somewhere, then ULOTC would transfer custody to 3 of our students who we would then fly in formation to Northolt before it was transferred to 'butcher's boy' bikes and delivered to the function.

The OTC did their bit, but the Channel was too rough for the URNU boat, so it came over by ferry. I'd led the 3 of us from Benson to Manston via the usual BNN - LAM - DET - Manston route (Capital's 'Eye in the Sky' saw us and said that it looked 'cool'...:hmm:). Then we tied the plonk behind the seats and flew back via DET and LAM to Northolt. The interesting bit was descending down to 1000 ft QNH after Watford, then leading everyone on rather a weaving route along the green bits east of Denham to remain legal before joining right hand downwind for RW25.

All went fine, the students pedalled off to town and the '92 BeaujULAS' Nouveau' was gratefully received. Then time to crank up and head back to Benson - best bit on that leg was flying over STC watching the ground-pounders trudging along in their blunty blue like something out of a Lawry painting.

3 hours of slightly unusual flying - and an excellent training opportunity. Northolt had agreed to everything and were extremely helpful. So yes, it is indeed possible to take a SE aeroplane into Northolt if there's a good (?) reason and you've planned it all out in advance!

[Rigger1]

And exactly how many Adours have failed on finals over the last 30 years????

[Green Flash]

Indeed, but there's a marked H spot at Regent's Park Barracks

I would have thought that those naughty rotary boys would have been trying to find the G spot :E:E:E

[Elmlea]

There was that NFTC Hawk crash in April this year. I think it was close to finals, and the immediate suspicion was it was an LP turbine blade. Apparently it's happened a few times on that type.

Para 5 in this link:

Flight training set to return to normal at CFB Moose Jaw (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=d5e3e096-c5b1-4005-9460-8530cf1ddc1f)

[Lurking123]

I'm not overly sure that taking out a slice of Hillingdon would be a bad thing.

Tongue somewhat located in cheek.

[Monkey Madness]

Do fast jet trainees have to "experience" flying within a TMA as part of thier training or are these flights just for navigational training etc?

No, they dont have to experience it. The flights into Northolt are training flights, but the pilot decided on northolt instead of another fine establishment.


There used to be an annotation in BINA that single engine aircraft were not accepted, (early 90's) when did this change?

The BINA says: Single-engined fixed-wing aircraft are only permitted to land at Northolt under exceptional circumstances and are subject to the restrictions forSVFR flight within the London CTR.

No idea why it says "Exceptional circumstances" but all they have to do is comply with the following, and they can land at EGWU without any fuss....

1. The aircraft will be subject to a SVFR clearence.
2. The aircraft is strictly PPR if it wishes to use Northolt (this is where the OC Ops approval comes in)
3. The cloudbase is not less than 1200ft
4. In flight Vis is at least 10km/LHR Reported Vis of +10km
5. Where the flight is arr/dep Northolt, the max op alt will be 2000ft on the Norholt/London QNH within the confines of the Northolt RMA, and 1000ft London QNH within the rest of the LCTR.
6. Flights are to (where possible) fly IFR. aircraft unable to fly IFR will use the established flight lanes as laid down in AD 2-EGLL-3-1.


1. Does a Hawk coming into Northolt enhance National Security?

No, but at the end of the day it is a military base so why not - it's been here over 93 years, i think the locals are used to it! (even if it it usually looks like an extension to London City with all the civil aircraft)

2. OC Ops has to weigh up his career/ possibly his personal liberty against the strength of an Adour fan blade.... how strong is that blade?

OC Ops only approves the landing at Northolt - SE Flights in the LCTR do not need his authorisation. They only need to be issued a SVFR clearence by either Special/Thames Radar or Northolt Approach to enter controlled airspace (subject to the conditions listed above)


Personally I'd like to see more aircraft come in to Northolt! MM

[Fareastdriver]

LG

What's it got do with Cathy Pacific.

[Liam Gallagher]

I think it's important the great unwashed see military hardware; the faster, the lower, the better.... however, you have to deal with things the way they are; not how you wish them to be...

Our Lords and Masters have decided they want to limit, ie ban, Single Engine flights over London. Obviously, a blanket ban would remove flypasts, Royal/VIP jollies... err.. I mean flights of National Importance, and hence we have the somewhat vague but nonetheless all incompassing "Exceptional Circumstances" to give some wiggle factor to those who sit slightly below our Lords and Masters. Herein lies the problem, for as Rigger1 points out, when was the last time something went wrong?

Some poor Minion, in this case Northolt OC OPs, grants the "Exceptional Circumstances" and the dice are rolled one too many times and an incident occurs. The Minion would not be finding himself on the carpet with the AOC but in a dungstorm on a scale of the Meneze's shooting multiplied by each fatality. In sum, his defence of... but the boyz wanted a nitestop in Soho/ the Beaujolais was aging/ Northolt's a military airfield will be swept aside in the National desire to see a head on a spike.... being his.

Now I sure Oc Ops will be heartened that Beagle, Chinnooker and Equivacator will support him through his difficult times; however OC Ops may be wiser to read the Chinook thread at the top of Military Forum page to gauge the mountain he will face.

Like I said, lot of risk for not a lot of return....

PS fareastdriver... sorry.. where are you heading with your question?

[Rigger1]

There was that NFTC Hawk crash in April this year. I think it was close to finals, and the immediate suspicion was it was an LP turbine blade. Apparently it's happened a few times on that type.

Totally different type of blades and mark of engine - 871 compared to the good old Mk 151. However the new 128 or T2 has the Adour 951 a direct derivative of the 871. So don't let the new Hawks into Northolt.

[Liam Gallagher]

Sorry mate.... I was being a bit subtle when I said fan blade fail.... the point I was making... any minor problem way beyond the control of OC Ops Northolt could see him in severe do-do ... I was also highlightling to Equivacator that something as simple as a fan blade letting go on 777 should not result in the loss of the aircraft; whereas in the Hawk it may well result in the loss of an aircraft..... as I said before.. not a blight on either fine aircraft..

[Rigger1]

I certainly agree that it is way beyond the control of OC Ops, however i really can't see that single engine ops are a risk, especially when you look at all the hawk movements round Valley etc without major system (engine, fuel, hyd's etc) failure.

If there was any risk Hawk movements would be restricted to only 'out of the way' airfields ----- mmm, like Valley, Mona, Leeming etc (ok, do the powers at be know something we don’t?). And yet the mighty Hawk can fly into virtually anywhere, I don’t know of any Hawk pilot who gets nervous flying from Malta to Cyprus over all that ocean etc, etc.

But you are right, an incident at Northolt would not be good, but to ban single engines seems like a very short sighted and uneducated edict.

[Liam Gallagher]

Having had the privledge of flying over London many times; it is a magnificent sight. I can wholly understand that every pilot, military, civil, student/first solo? would love to do it. How do you legislate who can and who can't... because sooner of later something will happen; you have to limit it...

I believe the line was drawn at those who one engine cannot and multi-engine can. Equally, a blanket military are OK would cause an uproar amongst the civilian pilots and leave the military at peril should something unfortunate occur (irrespective of how remote you or I consider it to be).

Hence the situation we find ourselves in.

As aside, of my generation of Pilots I can think of 3 who were involved in incidents that resulted in the aircraft being lost whilst in the act of taking-off or landing... 2 Valley and 1 Chiv. Again, no disrepect to the pilots involved or the Hawk.... just a risk of operation......

I am glad to hear that your time with the Hawk has been so incident free.

[Rigger1]

I am glad to hear that your time with the Hawk has been so incident free

I wish it had, lost some fine pilots, several of whom were freinds. The only landing accidents i recall are the practice turnbacks at Valley (which i witnessed) and not long before at Chiv. The recent Mona ones well - mishandling etc. As for take off - well the xx164 incident is very close to my heart, so i won't go there. My point is that the Hawk when up and running is a remarkably trouble free jet.

I appreciate that you can't let all and sundry fly low over built up areas with nowhere to set down, but Northholt is military and as such i was suprised to hear that it was limited to military single engined as well as civvy.

[Monkey Madness]

any minor problem way beyond the control of OC Ops Northolt could see him in severe do-doAs I said above - OC Ops only approves the Landing or departure at/from Northolt. You could quite easily take an SE into Denham, White Waltham, Fairoaks, Brooklands, or even Heathrow (if you could get the landing permission!)

The actual clearence to bring a SE aircraft into the LCTR rests with the Controllers working "Special", "Thames Radar" or "Northolt Approach". As long as the criteria contained within the UK AIP AD-2-EGLL-1-2.22 and AD-2-EGLL-3-1

MM

[Liam Gallagher]

Freely admit civil GA flying is not my specialist subject....

Are you saying I could take a SE aircraft across London so long as I meet SVFR requirements?

[BEagle]

Remember that you must comply with Rule 5!

Even if absolved from the '1000 ft' aspect by an ATC requirement, you must always observe the 'glide clear' requirement. 'Green areas' in the middle of London (e.g. Hyde Park) don't count!

Met someone who once had an engine failure in a SE aeroplane over London - at night! But it was when airways didn't exist above 11000 ft and he managed to get his Attacker clear of London and relit the engine before scraping into Ford or somewhere.

[Geezers of Nazareth]

The 'locals' will probably be up in arms on Monday morning then (11th), as one of those 'nasty, noisy, black Hawk' things has landed this afternoon.

[A643]

We used to see a lot of Hawks down at RAF (now MoD) St Athan after going to the range for refuel and re-arm before going back to Valley via the range. They have now closed this detachment and also St Athan's runway (for re-surfacing).

Maybe this has a little to do with it?

[Monkey Madness]

Would you like a PM on its departure time?

[QWIN]

Interesting thread: so tell me why Hawks painted RED can fly wherever they chose, up the Mall, over HRH's head and house?Perhaps the Reds have twin engined Hawks.

[nice castle]

LG, OC Ops is dealing with things the way they are. Unlike your risk averse mentality which constrains thought processes. Sadly, you are not alone; many in the RAF are similarly afflicted by your 'Ooh, what would the papers say?' attitude, which is normally the first rebuff given to a plan which has any element of risk attached to it.

Bottom line? It's his decision as to whether the risks are worth the rewards, and evidently he has made his call. I agree with him, you do not.

Who would I want to work for/with, or go to war under/with? Simple.

[Magp1e]

The only restraint on SE (inc Hawks) arriving at NHT is that they can comply with relevant VFR and Rule 5. It is not OC Ops who accepts the risk; it is the pilot's responsibility to observe the rules! The original entry into the BINA was requested by a (very) previous OC Ops/Stn Cdr going the "extra mile" for safety's sake, not because he had to make the entry, and it's been there ever since!

[Lurking123]

Magp1e, nice try but since when was a military aircraft subject to Rule 5?

[Monkey Madness]

This will give away who I am.... but.....

I will instruct AIDU & the CAA to remove the line from the BINA/Mil AIP/Civ AIP when I get back into work (being as I am responsible for Northolt's entry into AIDU and CAA documents - hence I have to know what the rules are)

Like Magp1e and I have said... it is NOT OC Ops decision to permit SE into the LCTR, only to permit the landing/departure at/from Northolt. If you want to be picky the only military people that take the responsibility are the driver and the squadron Auth.

MM

[BEagle]

On the subject of daft BINA entries, does the one for Leeming still have the ridiculous "Inbound aircraft are to notify Stn Ops if an officer of Group Captain rank is on board" requirement in the RMKS section?

The 'Power Crazed Loonie' had it inserted in 1974-ish and it was still there around 25 years later......:\

[Fareastdriver]

That may have been me.

A day trip up to Otterburn to lift some guns to shoot and then back to Odiham. Picked up an AVM from Strike Command who wanted to see how we operated.

When we arrived at Leeming they had this stupid arrangent where jet aircraft were only allowed on one line and piston on the other. The WRAF controller thought that all helicopters had piston engines so she directed us to the Avgas line. We shut down and there then followed a long argument with some Flt Lt Groundacrat because he refused to let an Avtur bowser on the Avgas line.The AVM didn't have any combat clothing so I had lent him my jacket and he was watching the proceedings. It then got to the stage where this Flt Lt was insisting that we PUSH the aircraft to the Avtur line.

The AVM then took my jacket off.

[Monkey Madness]

Now there is a face I would have loved to have seen......:eek:

[blue monday]

That may have been me.

A day trip up to Sennybridge to lift some guns to shoot and then back to Odiham. Picked up an AVM from Strike Command who wanted to see how we operated.

When we arrived at Leeming they had this stupid arrangent where jet aircraft were only allowed on one line and piston on the other. The WRAF controller thought that all helicopters had piston engines so she directed us to the Avgas line. We shut down and there then followed a long argument with some Flt Lt Groundacrat because he refused to let an Avtur bowser on the Avgas line.The AVM didn't have any combat clothing so I had lent him my jacket and he was watching the proceedings. It then got to the stage where this Flt Lt was insisting that we PUSH the aitcraft to the Avgas line.

The AVM then took my jacket off.

PMSL, off the topic if the thread but great story n one the less, always like stories like that. I'll have a look in my BINA tomorrow see if that entry is still there.

[ACW599]

>I'll have a look in my BINA tomorrow see if that entry is still there.<

It is. Page 98 of the current version, No 12 in the RMKS section for Leeming states that "Operating authorities are to notify movements carrying pax of Gp Capt rank or above".

Being a writer and editor by trade, I've often thought that the BINA could do with rather more rigorous copy-editing than it seems to receive. And all that stuff in the ERS about fuelling contracts is at least a year out of date as well as being semi-literate at best.

[BEagle]

FFS - I can't believe that nonsense is still there, some 34 years after the PCL threw his teddies!

PCL was the Stn Cdr at the time who was in the same league of popularity as The Scottish Officer or Bastard Bill.... One of his endearing acts was to force the graduating student officers to act as beaters for the pheasant shooters he'd invited to the following day's graduation parade. He used to ponce about in a bright orange flying suit, so at least you could see him coming. Not whilst shooting pheasants though, I guess.

Leeming did use to ask though. On my 24th birthday, I flew up to Leeming from Cranwell with a QFI in a JP5 (XW307 for the spotters). Inbound query "Have you got any Group Captains on board?". QFI and I looked at each other in amused surprise, before he replied, quick as a flash "Hang on, we'll have a look around...... Nope, sorry, just the 2 of us, 1 Fg Off and 1 Flt Lt!".

So for the next 28 years or so, I always used to take the p*ss when calling up Leeming for a PD.."Leeming Approach, Tartan 33, 6 PoB and no Group Captains, on handover...".

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Sorry to bring us back to thread, but I don't have any stories half as good as the Leeming one...

This issue of SE aircraft going into Northolt compares favourably with the management of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, who have for some years near-enough banned helicopters (ie SAR and Air Amb) from using their helipad to prevent a crash. The occasional helicopter is still allowed in, if the casualty is really up the creek, but otherwise the cas/patient has to be dropped at the airport for a 20-min road trip. Many a time has an 'discussion' ensued while the aircraft is airborne, cas on board, as the crew tries to persuade the authorities that the cas really needs to go direct to the hospital...

I accept that the chances of a helicopter crash have been reduced by this measure, but if the Fates decide that sh!t is going to happen, it still can happen even with fewer movements. The LS at the ARI is one of the biggest at a UK hospital, and we're constantly reminded how scarce road ambulances are...it just seems perverse that this hospital has unilaterally decided, in the absence of any helo-related mishaps at hospitals in the UK, to effectively close their very fine helipad!

[Magp1e]

When they want to operate in LCTR Class A airspace :)

[Lurking123]

Is that the Northolt Radar Manouevring Area bit which allows RAF Northolt controllers and military aircraft to apply a completely different set of criteria? I'm thinking 500ft vertical separation between IFR traffic, visual separation between SVFR traffic on heliroutes, etc etc

Regardless, from the exemptions bit of Rule 5:

3 (c) Special VFR flight and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made other than at a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.

So, you can either apply the blanket 'Rule 5 doesn't apply to military aircraft' bit or just take the exemption above which applies to all aircraft.

[Monkey Madness]

The NRMA is there only to enable northolt radar controllers to get aircraft in and out without getting in the way of LHR Int Dir N & Fin Dir. the 500' Reduced Vertical Sep is to enable Northolt traffic to get in and out whilst maintaining seperation against (for example) Battersea/Brent Traffic.

Interesting to note that the Civil controllers at Terminal Control, give Northolt controllers traffic so that we can use the 500' rule to keep the aircraft moving.:}

As for the visual seperation on the helilanes.... as i understood it the SVFR controllers can also do that.:ok:

[Lurking123]

I thank you; it has been quite a few years. The SVFR bit was useful if the reported viz at Heathrow was less than a certain minima (6kms?)

[Magp1e]

Hi Lurking, you're right; the NRMA does allow NHT to provide certain "dispensations" from normal class A rules, the 500ft rule being one of them ( subject to criteria). However, any Mil zone "assumes the classification of airspace within which it lies". As for rule 5, my point is that the aircraft captain is responsible for the "land clear" element...If you're saying that Mil pilots are exempt Rule 5, I would suggest that he would have a hard time arguing it in a court of law in the event of an incident.

[Lurking123]

Magp1e, I had two points. Firstly, Rule 5 in itself doesn't apply to military aircraft (the JSP550 series does). I wouldn't disagree with you about the amount of muck that would be thrown if the military weren't able to glide clear, but that isn't the point.

Secondly, your comment about the LCTR Class A is completely misleading. The airspace classification has no bearing in this scenario.

[Magp1e]

Lurking, Is that the Northolt Radar Manoeuvring Area bit which allows RAF Northolt controllers and military aircraft to apply a completely different set of criteria? I'm afraid that the bit about "LCTR Class A" is not misleading. There are certain dispensations NHT can apply as granted by Air Cmd eg 500ft separation, but NHT controllers are bound by agreement to apply the rules relating to LCTR and class A airspace, as laid out in MATS pt2, the NRMA is not exempt.
I'm suprised that Mil ac are not required to observe the Rules of the Air. If rule 5 does not apply, how would that balance against ANO (Article 74) that states that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property?.....
p.s. Visual separation on the heli routes is a SVFR rule used by both civ/mil in accordance with MATS pt2

[BEagle]

I thought that the military was only allowed to operate outside the ANO where JSP550 makes specific provisions:

(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:

(a) for avoiding immediate danger;

(b) for complying with the law of any country other than the United Kingdom within which the aircraft then is; or

(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.

In other words, there is no such thing as the 'ANO doesn't apply to the military' idea. That is true only where there is specific provision for the activity within JSP550. So, if there is nothing in JSP550 saying that you can ignore the 'glide clear' element of Rule 5, then unless there is provision for specific authorisation in the JSP, you shall observe the ANO.

[The Adjutant]

Sorry if this seems a bit "anorackish" but as an outsider the reason single engine aircraft can't fly in certain areas (Northolt/over London/anywhere you like) is to do with risk. The people who make these rules dont seem to understand risk much, and it looks like the rules were put in place years ago when it could be argued the risk was much higher than today.
We can keep a few civil servants busy for a month or so collating how many flights are undertaken by single engine military aircraft per year. (Bound to be lots) Then how many of these have engine failures (not many I think) then work out the percentage risk of this happening (very small) Now even if an engine failure happens, how many result in crashes (i.e if you can dead stick it in somewhere, or do you jump out) this again reduces the figures. Even in the worst case, when an aircraft is abandoned and crashes, how often will this result in injury/loss of life to those below? When you add this all up I rather think you get a risk factor which is so small it is insignificant. So whats all the fuss about?? When you boil it all down, you will find that some senior bod somewhere thinks his career is on the line should it ever happen that somebody gets an aircraft through their roof. In fact the chances of this actually happening are so small you can ignore them. All part of risk management.- Ah yes but what if it does happen ???

[ProM]

Trouble is that if you look at Def-Stan-00-56

Defence Standard 0056 (http://www.rcm2.co.uk/safety%20&%20reliability/def-0056.htm)

then you will see that as an aircraft crashing in London is likely to cause more than 1 death, it would be classified as "Catastrophic".

That alone means that it must be signed off by the "Project Safety review Committee". They must ensure that the risk as been reduced to "As low As Reasonably Practicable".

Barring single engine flights (except where essentia etc) where they could not glide-out would certainly reduce the risk. It costs nothing and the impact on operational performance is....?

Unless there is something I am missing I would find it hard to justify to the safety committee. I think the person who made the decision was entirely correct within the current defence policies. Whether the policies are right I will leave to people cleverer than me

[The Adjutant]

"Reasonably practicable" is the term used by the H&S fraternity to allow a job to be done as safely as possible. Looking at the RAF approach, it seems that the best way to avoid the problem is not to allow single engine aircraft in the area. That in fact prevents the job being done in the first place. Now if you dont need to fly over London, there is no problem, but the chances of a single engine aircraft crashing elsewhere are the same no matter where you are, but it still dosen't seem to happen. If the air marshals choose not to let aircraft with one engine fly over built up areas, thats fine and dandy, but it is not a logical decision based on risk, it is a reaction based on likely consequence.
If the moon fell out of orbit and hit the earth it would kill all life on the planet (consequence) However is it ever going to happen? (risk). Well it might I suppose.

[caligula]

Adjutant

No wish to patronise or teach egg sucking - you may have experience in this area. Most common simple approach to risk management is a matrix which looks at both likelihood and consequence, since consequence is just as relevant. Top right hand corner - high chance / catastrophic impact - don't do it. Bottom left - low chance / low consequence - fill your boots.

The squares of the matrix are coloured red, amber, green according to risk which is a combination of likelihood and consequence. The challenge of course is the ambers - generally some degree of high/low combination, which is where judgement comes in. Your example re the moon - negligible chance / catastrophic consequence - still negligible risk - ignore. Hawk over London - probably green to amber combination. Down to judgement - common sense says if you don't need to, why would you?