Turnbull.
On many of the ac I have been on, and this excludes helos and tooms, we had set out basic training requirements. If this included 10 low level attacks in a given period then that dictated our need for low level training, we did not have to do X low level sorties. We did need a specific number of low level sories to accomplish TFR and fighter evasion but these were not mutually exclusive.
Then we had a limited number of flying hours in which to accomplish these evolutions. The more experienced we were judged the number of events required was reduced and the performance target was increased. We were typical allocated 20% less hours than the new crew. Not only that we picked up more overseas sorties where the high level transits ate into our reduced amount of flying hours. We had to train harder when we could.
Gash low level transits were denied partly from the fact we were limited to specific routes but also we needed to conserve fuel and fatigue.
In Beags case, dashing at low level across the UK was probably not good training whereas the fuel saved with a mdeium level transit may well have permitted more training in the play area.
Helo transits OTOH are probably a waste of flying time if the crew could otherwise be honing its cooperation skills.
True, in a very good simulator, the realism may well giev the pilot a first class training experience but what about the crew members? Will the door gunner also have a synchronised TV screen? Can the loadie peer out of one of the side windows to for a visual scan? Can the crew members talk the pilot through an evasive manoeuvre from a blind, to the pilot, threat?
We had a first class simulator in the Nimrod and it could shake it we did something wrong but you could never simulate the following intercom call:
"Captain, port beam, snort, 3 o'clock, two miles."
"Port beam you mean 9 o'clock."
"Captain negative, 3 o'clock, I'm looking out through the starboard beam window from the port beam seat."
Bboom!