Droopystop,
Happily.
I suppose I would need to justify LF first:
1. Survival:
In all aspects of military aviation, and especially in todays Op theaters, someone is eventually going to try and kill you. Thats what you need to plan on, then anything less is a bonus.
Ask across the range of fleets from Lybia to Afghanistan, being low or very high reduces your exposure to low level engagement types. This is a
pr oven fact and is deep seated in our Tactics. High level flying is clearly not as demanding and not as controversial.
When the time comes to be shot at, given the option I would rather be in the engagement area for 5 seconds@ 100' or 10 seconds at 300' (SWAG)
The US forces have learned the hard way that pattern setting and flight "in the threat band" gets you killed. Not my cup of tea!
2. It is a perishable skill.
As a singleton of any disciple, LF is demanding and if you don't practice, the ground will always win!
Day singleton, Night singleton, Day formation, Night formation, Night no lights formation, it all becomes increasingly complex as the layers get added.
This is without any tactical scenario being played. Once the tactical scenario comes into play, the LF is no more than a basic skill, aircrew would be then concentrating on watching their playmate for a jet tipping in, people on the flight path with weapons, monitoring RWR indications and reacting to a threat when it manifests itself.
Why in busy airspace?
1. Firstly the classes of airspace in the UK protect against this, we have A-G airspace, ATZ, MATZ, Avoidance Areas, Flow arrows etc. Believe me my eyes are on stalks when we fly, and things are so much more quieter these days with no aircraft in the UK! Low flying is very tightly controlled and monitored, both by the Low Flying Booking Cell and the RAF Police using mobile radar systems.
2. Having congested airspace makes for realistic and demanding training. Planning a 200NM ingress @ 100' to get a time on target and then egress becomes quite difficult in the UK (Just like a battlefield, people own different areas of the sky, straying into that could get you shot down!) So we stay away from airfields where we can, if we fly nearby, we should talk to the relevant agency.
3. Money means that around each base, LF has to be easily accessible. This a daily utilized skill set. Taxpayers would not countenance us deploying to Scotland and using valuable transit hours to keep a core skill polished.
4. I can only speak for RW, but when as a formation we transit and spot GAT, you are called as a threat. You will be observed and we will move accordingly, its good practice, there are many eyes looking out practicing spotting the little bastard with a gun.
Peter,
I would not for a second say that there is anything wrong with encountering LF aircraft when landing or taking off. A good lookout is the crux of solid Airmanship. Thats just one of those things I suppose, we all share very busy airspace.
At least here in the UK we have very good ATC services, not so in other parts of the world where population density is much less, there it is a maxim of "Big Sky, small plane.......keep your eyes out!"
Jayteeto,
An authorisation is a third party sanity check to ensure that the flight is planned correctly, has taken into account weather, airspace,crew fatigue,qualification, currency on skill sets etc. Clearly people can break an Authorisation after they lift, but it ensures that there is a sensible eye cast over the plan.
In an Op context it can prevent a crew trying to prosecute a task when actually not necessary in the big picture (trying to lift in Fog to drop a passenger to a location, when they could either go be road, or be moved later)
It separates the Tactical picture from the Strategic.