2013/14 compensation payments arising out of low flying.

[Al R]

Some interesting ones in there. I wonder what bird was worth in excess of £2000? And I wonder how the puppy copped it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/402916/Attachment_FOI_2014_07634_LF_Dec14.pdf

Edit: An answer (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334821/Parrot-owner-handed-2-000-bird-killed-noise-low-flying-RAF-jet.html)!

[Kitbag]

Or how a Tornado damaged a boat to the tune of £12.5k? I do hope these claims are scrutinised thoroughly, and where reasonable doubt exists they should be refused.

[Torque Tonight]

I think where any doubt exists the claims are paid just to make the problem go away. Unfortunately, many of the claims are highly dubious and I'm sure some people make an income stream out of this.

I was once interviewed by the snowdrops regarding a claim that my big green helicopter flying at 50ft at cruising speed kicked up stones that smashed a car windscreen. From a low hover it's not impossible, straight and level, 50ft, ~150kts - no way. Perhaps it's more likely that it was the car in front. I suspect the claimant was paid off anyway.:mad:

[Wander00]

How on earth does a Chinook cause £25k damage to the ground!

[Pontius Navigator]

Once, after the Reds departed Coningsby on a non-standard route, I fielded a call from a horse owner about the injuries sustained by her prize show horse.

Eliciting her location I suddenly remembered, "Oh yes, I remember, your husband repaired my wrought iron gates".

She went deep and silent and we heard no more about it. Clearly her husband's disability allowance was worth more than her expected compensation.

[Flying Lawyer]

I'm surprised the Grob fatal near Porthcawl (£118,600) is included in the list of 'Low Flying' compensation payments.
The two aircraft collided at about 3000 ft agl. (Feb 2009)
Also, if the Grob fatal at Abingdon (£85,000) refers to the mid-air with a glider in June 2009, then the aircraft were at about 4000 ft amsl.

I have a vague recollection, which may be inaccurate, that the MoD regard low flying as <2000' (fixed wing) and <500' (helicopters).



Torque Tonight I think where any doubt exists the claims are paid just to make the problem go away.
You may well be right.
In the civilian world, it's not unusual for insurers to balance the cost of settling a claim against the cost of contesting it (in personnel time as well as legal costs) and take the least costly option.

Where the MoD is involved, potential adverse publicity is understandably a factor to be considered.
This can be, and to my knowledge has been, used by claimants and/or disreputable lawyers to generate unjustified 'David v Goliath' stories in the press with the objective of embarrassing the MoD into settling instead of contesting a dubious claim.

I'm sure some people make an income stream out of this.
A long time ago, but interesting reading: MoD paid vet millions for fake post mortems (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385446/MoD-paid-vet-millions-for-fake-post-mortems.html)

Between 1993 and 1995 the MoD paid out more than £15 million, almost all to farmers in South Armagh.
As soon as the police investigation, Operation Saddle, began, the figure for 1996 fell to just over £2 million and this year the payout will be around £300,000.

[2 TWU]

Years ago, I was involved with 2 claims, both fraudulent.

There used to be a woman farmer who was on the SW corner of the Dartmoor danger area and yes, there was a choke point between Dartmoor and Plymouth but she was claiming millions. The cops investigated and asked her to log all overflights in a weeks period, they did the same from down the road. When she presented her figures, she had exaggerated the number of overflights by a factor of 10---case dismissed.

Leading a pair of F4s descending to low level, a claim was made against us that we had upset a horse pulling a cart, horse bolted, 2 girls thrown out, one with a broken arm. We were there but estimated we flew over the site at @1500ft as we descended and luckily still had our maps to show our plan. Again the cops investigated and discovered the truth. The lasses had lost control of the horse a couple of minutes before we flew over and as you would expect, as we were descending we were throttled back not really making any noise. They also took film of the 'broken arm' girl shovelling horse manure just a couple of weeks after the supposed instance.

So from me, full marks to the cops for sorting things out. I understand that in the second instance they got their info from buying beer for some locals in the pub!

As an aside, the National Farmers Union used to produce a pack of how to claim against the MoD, don't know if that's still the case

[MG]

How on earth does a Chinook cause £25k damage to the ground!
Easily! We blew the roof off of a barracks' medical centre in Malawi once. It was corrugated steel and just rolled up like a sardine tin. Not something that we were proud of but once it had started there was no stopping.
I've also blown out the back window of a brigadier's Mondeo.

[FantomZorbin]

A great many years ago, a lorry driver claimed that his lorry was blown off a ramp by a low flying aircraft*.
We were told that, because it was his first claim, the driver would get the compensation; only subsequent claims would be investigated!




* The aircraft was a USAF 8-jet ... perhaps the driver was gawping at the airborne menace rather than driving his lorry:=

[Pontius Navigator]

Shucks, I could have had a new car

or perhaps MOD employees would not claim against the MOD in those days.

I was driving up the A1 past Wittering. A very grey day, 50 shades of murk.

Suddenly, no noise, rose this looming shape. I thought at first it was a Bloodhound but it was actually a Victor 2. I had never seen one before with its underwing jugs and over wing chaff dispensers. It was awesome.

I should have pranged my car and claimed a new one :)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

By virtue of living way off base in the Dales, I did once meet a guy down the pub who'd fallen off a rock face when scared ****less by a low-flying jet that morning. And we worked out that it was in fact me who had been the pilot. I'd been pulling a tight turn round a valley corner, approx. level with him, 250' MSD, so he could see the aircrew. He'd been roped up (obviously ;)), and I bought him a pint, so we had a laugh about it.
It was quite a revelation because of course we are used to looking for jets, and Joe Public isn't, so I didn't realise just how shocking it could be. Equally, living in the country, I could see how horses especially could be bothered, but also saw and was told that sheep aren't bothered a bit. Big Noise, they look up, they can't see anything 'cos the jets already gone, back to grass-munching (exception - Falklands; remember SheepTAMs?). Sheep get bothered by hot-air balloons, because there's the burner noise and there is a big ball in the sky when they look up.

[ShotOne]

The complaints culture is all a bit annoying but for anyone thinking of moving on to airline flying, it gets worse. An orbit over a friends BBQ at 2000' in a 757 was enough to trigger a low flying complaint which cost the pilot his job.

I wonder if the way the complaints system for govt aircraft has been (generously) monetised is responsible for some of the nonsense we have to field from individuals after a quick buck?

[rlsbutler]

I was, for a couple of years in the mid 1970s, half of the air staff general purposes cell in HQSTC called "Ops Nav & Wpns". We were lightly involved in low flying complaints, although the real paperwork was done in London.

Fox3WMB (#11) is no doubt right about sheep while Flying Lawyer (#6) touches on the subject of farmers a long way from London.

In my day perhaps 75% of the claims were for dead sheep in South Wales, I seem to remember mostly littering the Brecon Beacons. Virtually none now.

[NutLoose]

Those fatality payments are a pittance of what I feel they should have got.

[Courtney Mil]

One Day:

Ooh, our brave boys in [insert conflict]. It's digraceful they don't get the equipment or the training they should have. The government should give them the money they need.

Another Day:

Why do those bastards have to fly over my patch? Two flew over my house today and caused my 90 year old horse to have a heart attack. I want a million pounds.

God help the UK.

[Rhino power]

Not a low flying related compensation claim, but nonetheless, an interesting break down of the clean up costs after the F-15D crash near Spalding in October last year...

BBC News - US Lakenheath fighter jet crash in Lincolnshire cost revealed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31459574)

-RP

[diginagain]

A huge amount of effort went into Op Saddle, as I recall. Most days JATOC lost two SAC AATC to the cause, although they were ably assisted in their diligent research by some very friendly LEC.

[Kitbag]

Interesting to see that it cost more than £1/4mil to put the contaminated soil from the Lakenheath jet into landfill, theres got to be something wrong with that figure

[Rhino power]

Removing contaminated topsoil (and more than likely the subsoil as well) is a little bit more involved than just dumping it in a landfill site...

-RP

[bill2b]

I wish to claim a few million because I have not seen an AWACs (or anything else) for ages, they used to fly over my house but since that bloke in charge at Waddington decided he needed more concrete its all gone

[kenparry]

The complaints culture is all a bit annoying but for anyone thinking of moving on to airline flying, it gets worse. An orbit over a friends BBQ at 2000' in a 757 was enough to trigger a low flying complaint which cost the pilot his job.
The one instance of this that I know of, some 20 years ago, in your part of the world, did not play out as you describe. It was referred to the CAA, who took no action; they said no law or regulation had been broken. The company took action, effectively for misuse of company property, and the pilot was dismissed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Fox3, when they were building Bough Bridge power station which was on the main low level route, they were upset by the Vulcans thundering passed at a similar height, and avoid was put in place.

[Al R]

Shot one: The complaints culture is all a bit annoying but for anyone thinking of moving on to airline flying, it gets worse. An orbit over a friends BBQ at 2000' in a 757 was enough to trigger a low flying complaint which cost the pilot his job.

'Gets worse'? :confused:

Without knowing the details, getting sacked for doing seems fair - regardless of any complaint being submitted.

[ShotOne]

"Did not play out as you describe"? I agree with your account, Ken; in what way does it contradict what I said?

"Getting sacked for doing seems fair" ? He cost his company two minutes worth of fuel so they were entitled to take some action. But does your zero tolerance apply to every jolly and flyby in the military world too? If not why not?

[Al R]

I didn't suggest zero tolerance - you did. That aside, I imagine there's a bit of a difference between an airliner orbiting at 2000 feet and a fighter beating up an airfield (where, presumably, it has business being anyway). I wouldn't mind a fighter pilot beating up a hanger; after all, it's what they do. We want fighter pilots who have a dab of flair.. within limits.

However, I wouldn't want to fly somewhere in the hands of someone who thinks he can throw an airliner about at 2000 feet in much the same way that I wouldn't mind a few minutes going sideways on ice or gravel with a rally pro but wouldn't fancy being driven into town by a bendy bus driver who fantasises about chucking it around a roundabout on its mirrors at 50 mph.

It's not so much what he did or what skilful flying that he's capable of; rather, what (deep down) his cavalier attitude towards regulation and his employer are like. I might like him as a bloke and I might want to have a beer with him because he's not vanilla in a magnolia world. But would I put him in a position of trust where lives are at stake and I am responsible for them? Probably not.

[ShotOne]

If we're talking generalities you're of course entitled to your opinion but when describing an actual event you can't accuse an individual of "throwing around" an airliner when there was never any suggestion that he did so. That said, I agree he shouldn't have done what he did. Whether the subsequent action was proportionate we could discuss till the cows came home. He certainly wasn't guilty of illegal low flying which was the original complaint against him.

[Al R]

If we're talking generalities you're of course entitled to your opinion.


Anyone describing people who've had their pensions wiped out as "experiencing fluctuating values" could only work in the financial services industry!

Indeed, as are you. And I agree, no, we don't know but yes, I took shameful liberties with my verbiage. ;)

[Sandy Parts]

MG said - "I've also blown out the back window of a brigadier's Mondeo."
I did get a snog from a WRAF in an MT Corsa once but I think you've trumped me there!
....I know, I'll get my coat....:}

[kenparry]

"Did not play out as you describe"? I agree with your account, Ken; in what way does it contradict what I said?

It's a long time ago, but to the best of my recollection there was no complaint about low flying. What I am sure of is that is that the CAA concluded that there was no flying offence.

For Al R, it's worth noting that there were no passengers on board, and there was no suggestion of the aircraft being "thrown around".

As to proportionality, you are right, it could be argued for ever.

[ShotOne]

It's worth debating the merits of a policy of making payouts with a low burden of proof. I fully understand why this is done; the insurance industry often do it even when they have strong suspicions over a claim simply because contesting it would cost more than paying out. The trouble is, does this generate more claims from chancers chasing the scent of easy money?

[Al R]

S1,

Insurance companies certainly don't do it as much or as often as you'd imagine. The money that is redeemed to chancers still has to come from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is by raising the premiums for everyone else. Insurers don't like to cross subsidise their policy holders because it makes them uncompetitive.

The only saving grace is that a rising tide raises all boats - they all have to engage in it and insurance is cheaper than it has ever been - to those who are squeeky clean in terms of risk. Some moron wiped me out on the A14 nearly 6 months ago. The oversight from the guilty b*$tard's insurer into my injuries and even my adherence to my rehab and physio has been scrupulous.