Deliverance - I was merely asking questions that have ellicited some surprising answers. Some of course are just plain stupid as one always gets on these sites but others do try and take the question(s) seriously. There are many pilots of all experiences who would like to know some of these things. I have made it clear that I dislike the effects of FJ low flying but am willing to learn and understand why it is necessary. The following responses do not help your cause and would be latched onto by many. The contributors by and large list themselves as mil pilots in their profiles. So it is not I that is necessarily in need of convincing but others who may get a different view on things.
"all flying is done with sole visual reference to the ground
no pilot would ever pay too much attention to what the
altimeter says anyway
We need to do low flying, simple
very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'
We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!
We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints
Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!"
Piss off joe public too much and you know the result.
WH