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!!!