(UK) Military 250kt limit

[Top Down]

I've heard that military jets will soon be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft in uncontrolled airspace iaw the 'See & Avoid' priciple. Is this true?

[WorkingHard]

Just hope you're right

[Neo]

I hope you're not.

Military fast jets have been flying at speeds of 420kt at low level in the UK for decades - it's essential to the way the RAF operate. Admittedly they have less requirement for it since the demise of the Warsaw Pact (remember them?), but it is still an essential skill.

Most strike aircraft will tool along quite happily at low level at various speeds from 420kt up to 700kt+ if allowed - 250kt is not far off stalling speed for some.

So no, I hope you're wrong. I think it's a small sacrifice to keep front line fighter pilots up to speed.

[hanger35]

I actually think its a good idea, look at those Tornado's that got shot down in the Gulf war, low level flying is pretty useless even against primative groundfire.

Stealth technology and long range missle capability have increased a lot of the years thats why the USAF don't dwell on the subject as much as the RAF and anyway the Americans call all the shots these days. If you can train Civilian Pilots on the latest Simulators why not Brylcreem boys ?

There are alot of problems low level fast jets cause such as killing livestock, making peoples life in the countryside even more ubearable and look at the cost to the taxpayer. Airspace over the UK is getting more congested and will get even more so especially over North Yorkshire and as the North East airports grow they create economic benifits including ex RAF pilots who are going to fly those planes.

There will always be people who say that we need to defend the freedoms and the rights that we have today but the same people will always find ways to justify there own existance by supplying a future enemy with weapons and starting a conflict,its just a vicious circle.

As Richard Crandell the ex boss of American Airlines said maybe we create a lot of noise and polution, but the more people travel and fly,the more world understanding we create and the less conflict we are going to have is not that a good thing?

[Wino]

More people equals more understanding? REALLY? EVERY body in England and America uses electricity, but try and build a power plant or even run a transmission line.

More people flying =s more objections not less

Cheers
Wino

[Civil Servant]

Hey Hangar 35,

We don't have anything remotely stealthy until Typhoon comes into service, and the very fact that there ARE people out there willing to supply anything to anybody, for a price, is reason enough to keep the RAF as well trained as possible.

Or perhaps we should just run down the RAF to the state it was during the Munich crisis and keep our fingers crossed?

The increasing commercial demands on our airspace just means that it must be better run, not embargoed to certain users.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Hanger35 - As one who flew a number of Tornado low-level missions during the first Gulf War I can assure you that your pereceptions are not accurate. "All those Tornados" that were shot down at low level was actually two! The RAF lost a total of 7 during the conflict plus a number in training prior to kick-off. Of the other five lost during the war itself, one had a control restriction after take-off, one crashed away from enemy fire during a recovery manoeuvre, one was shot down at medium level, one was believed to have had a software problem giving erroneous HUD readings resulting in a crash off the target and the last one was blown up by its own bombs at medium level due to a fusing error. Every one was regrettable but as I say only two were directly attributable to enemy fire at low level.

The arguments for low flying are certainly less clear than they were a decade ago. The reality is that the Americans were able to have the luxury of medium level operations because of their huge investment in jamming and anti-radar assets. As the poorer cousins we have not been quite so fortunate and traditionally had to go for the 'low and fast approach' with the assumption that we could hide behind hills and so forth to evade detection. Great fun it was too!

A number of big changes have occurred in the last few years. The first two have been the advent of precision weapons and the necessity of avoiding civilian caaualties. Both those requirements are greatly enhanced by the relative ease of weapon delivery at medium level in comparison with low level. A further factor of change has been the fact that we routinely operate very closely with the Americans and therefore get the benefit of their package protection, thereby obviating the need for low level operations. The final factor has been that it is increasingly politically unacceptable to lose aircraft and worst still have aircrew as prisoners because of the extremely adverse publicity it brings. Low level operations carry an intrinsically higher risk of being shot down and therefore are not really worth the risk except in exceptional circumstances.

It is worth noting that apart from Tornado recce aircraft, no manned fast jet aircraft operations at low level have taken place since the first few days of the first Gulf War including the Serbian conflict and the second Gulf War. Put simply - the risk was too high for the top brass to allow it. The Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 are magnificent platforms for low level operations with night vision goggles and forward looking infrared - not to mention the terrrain following radar of the Tornado. The reality is that they are too exposed at low level these days for the reasons I have given previously

The case for low flying is therefore nothing like it was. It is clear nevertheless that fast jets simply cannot function properly at 250 kts which is clearly a figure plucked from some politician's head. It is vital that the RAF maintains some degree of expertise in low flying because the one thing we all know is that you never know where the next conflict is coming from and what will be required to win it. What is absolutely certain is come it will and it is the duty of the armed services to be prepared.

[411A]

Really is about time the air force(s) wake up to the fact that modern day simulators do a rather good job of preparing pilots to fly complex aircraft.
If it works for major airlines in a cost effective way, why can it not work in a similar manner for the AirForce?
Or....does tradition die hard?:sad:

[Reichman]

411A

When was the last time you pulled +4G or more in a simulator? A simulator is fine to train an airline pilot to deal with a double oven failure after V1.

[NoseGunner]

I haven't read such a load of bollox for ages.
A limit of 250 kts would be totally unacceptable.
As already pointed out it isn't that far above most stall speeds and is certainly below the speed anyone would want to manoeuvre.
The topic so far has centred around bomber low level operations. For the same reason that we used to plan on low level, the bad guys now would be mad not to. So interceptor operations are more likely than ever to be low and I ain't doing an intercept at 250 kts, nor am I doing my first ever one outside the sim against a real bandit/bogey. Converting high to low is dangerous. It needs to be practiced and no sim currently used can simulate properly what it is like. We're not talking about procedural approaches to large airports or the odd visual circuit. What we do is fundamentally different.
Of course more training, particularly hi/med level, can and will be done in the sim with Typhoon.

Just out of interest where did this insane idea come from??

My own rule would be no-one allowed in uncontrolled airspace unless they have an air defence radar or are working with someone who does!!!!!!!!
:cool:

[Neo]

411a -

Well strangley enough the RAF and UK military have been using simulators for decades. And with the advent of secure broadband you can link many different types of sims together and have a great "virtual reality" battle. Excellent training indeed.

However, exercises like Red Flag are even better training, and short of actual war about the most realistic. Problem is they use real aeroplanes, and these sometimes have to be flown at low level and high speed. Now I certainly wouldn't want to go into one of these exercises without training in the skills required, let alone a real war. Now I agree that the most serious AA threat in recent conflicts has been small arms and AAA, but another war might see a different threat, such as dense SAMS (North Vietnam springs to mind). It'd be far too late to get some belated low flying training in if that sort of war kicks off.

I thought most military forces worth their pay had learnt this sort of lesson during the last century; let's hope they haven't forgotten it now.

[Fox3snapshot]

Its been so long since we have seen you post in this neck of the woods....but not long enough!
:}

Whilst there are some similar aspects to the Sim work required by the fighters compared to the airline training (Instrument approaches, procedures, emergency drills, systems manipulation), the similarities end quickly when it comes to the nuts and bolts of fighter and tactical aviation ops.

Formation flying, low flying, air-air refueling, weapons to name but a few cannot be completely represented to a credible extent with the use of simulators, lets face it, even the airlines have to have "line" training and well.....lets just say that low flying is one of the many aspects of military "line" training.



:hmm:

[Fg Off Max Stout]

A lot of people seem to be talking a lot of bollards here. Firstly the Tornado shot down recently in the Gulf was not shot down by 'primitive ground fire' because it was flying at low level as suggested

The RAF is one of the best low level operators in the world, and our LL ability is respected by the US. This ability comes with practice and continuous training in a real environment. As an SH driver I can say that we have a technically state of the art simulator setup (despite the fact that it's managed by monkeys) but even that is still not a patch on real low flying. Realistic training is essential.

LL training is done for a damn good reason, but the restrictions and beaurocracy involved in organising such sorties is not generally appreciated by the general public.

Also, just how much controlled airspace do civvy operators need below 2000'? And another thing, GA pilots who low fly ILLEGALLY should have their licences permanently revoked.

Rant over. Any questions?

[Training Risky]

Good points Max, You just beat me to it...

Coming from the helicopter world, anyone who thinks that simulators can play anything more than a minor part in our training is talking rubbish.

Sims are useful for checks, emergencies and basic/procedural IF, not much else.

Hovering, underslung loads, NVG and low-level tactical ops can only be properly learned in the aircraft itself. (Which unfortunately aggravates civpop a bit, but it MUST be done.)

(But posters here who fly nothing but procedural IF for a living wouldn't have a clue what we are on about!)

[Jackonicko]

The tactical need for low flying remains valid, though recent ops have been conducted in circumstances where medium level happens to have been preferred because of the nature of the threat. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that a number of operators have had to fly real-world low level ops on a number of occasions since the Gulf War.

The loss rate of RAF Tornados in Granby was lower than any informed observer expected, and the loss rate at low level (as has been said) was especially low, not least because those involved had practised tooling around at or below 250 ft at speeds considerably in excess of 250 kts.

The loss rate in peacetime low level training is miniscule nowadays, and damage to Farmer Bill's sheep, horses, chickens and the like is wildly exaggerated. Besides which the ****** needs something to moan on about, and some reason to get compensation.....

The idea that military low flying can be simulated effectively is a joke. Although I'm only a PPL, I've flown various military sims (brand new and steam age) and rigs, and have been fortunate enough to have famil. and orientation flights at low level in a number of fast jet types. It's inconceivable that operational status could be maintained without a great deal of real-world practise in this 'art'.

Not Working, 411A and Hanger 35, you clearly have no clue at all.

Following on from the 'Inspirational Jag Pilot' thread, I wonder what legitimate business civilian traffic has below 1,000 ft, anyway. Apart from take off and landing, PFLs, powerline inspections and crop-spraying (oops, they don't do that any more) we PPLs should be bimbling about at an altitude from which we have plenty of time to select our field if the donk quits, and to be able to 'alight clear' of built up areas and the like. It may be fun to fly low, but perhaps the solution should be to make civilian notification of flight at or below 1,000 ft, outside a given radius of licenced aerodromes mandatory, and to make all civilian flight below 500 ft illegal, except for the purposes of take off, landing and PFLs, if our low level airspace is really becoming that crowded and dangerous.

On the other hand, over land, and in the more congested areas of airspace, perhaps a speed restriction would be reasonable at higher altitudes (perhaps from 2-10,000 ft?) without being too operationally limiting. How fast do you chaps need to transit, for example?

How about the Jag boys? Can they get as fast as 250 kts on a hot day? ;)

[BEagle]

Ahhh-whatever happened to the glory days of getting airborne in full A/B and chasing after TACEVAL targets at 600 KIAS and a few hundred feet over Suffolk and its villages. Sitting half a mile behind a GAF 104 over Stowmarket at 450 KIAS with the acquisition 'winder growling happily. Or seeing transonic jump in Cumbria whilst chasing Jaguars towards Otterburn....

Regarding low level operation by civilian aircraft, I put forward a Rule 5 amendment proposal which would exempt civil pilots from the 500 ft rule only when conducting training exercises authorised by a Flight Instructor - e.g. PFLs. The other provisos of Rule 5 would still apply, except that the 'glide clear' rule should be retained and the 1500 ft clause amended to 1000 ft as in other ICAO states. Still waiting for the Belgrano to make its mind up...........

[Impiger]

Ah what nostalgia.....

And remember getting airborne from Wildenwrath and spending the whole sortie below 1500 AGL in Special VFR safe in the knowledge that all of the GAT puddle jumping bug smashers had to be 1500-5000 VFR. Only snag was the odd wizz over Nordhorn range chasing muds who happened to be on FRAs or splashing the odd Jaguar in the Bruggen pattern - still he wouldn't have been there if he wasn't looking for trouble.:D

[Fox3snapshot]

Re your Jag comment....better go back to the "Low Level Omani Jags" threads and see the video I have posted there, not only better than 250 kts but 25' AGL (at best) to boot! And lets face it here in the sandpit when isn't it a hot day!

:E

[reynoldsno1]

250 kts which is clearly a figure plucked from some politician's head

I have no wish to rush to any politician's defence, but this is an almost universal restriction for civil traffic below 10000ft... and an ICAO SARP, so it does have some basis in fact. This does not constitute an opinion on the subject matter :)

[Obs cop]

I can't believe some of the comments I have read on this thread so far.

Surely the air warfare arena is one where multiple tactics need to be offered as viable alternatives when faced with a credible opponent. If all you train for is the most successful techniques used in recent conflicts then the enemy knows exactly what to expect and how then to defend against it. That places the aircrew in a higher risk situation.

For most of the recent depolyments, our armed forces have had the benefit of air superiority and considerable electronic warfare measures. Without these, the medium level heavily laden bombers become little more than sitting ducks. We must have a workable alternative for dealing with or providing a deterrent to more advanced nations. Moreover, tactical movements of troops still need to take place at low level and at night to minimise the risk to the aircraft. Current simulators have yet to offer the detail in terms of visuals and movement to convincingly replicate this environment.

There is a popular but inaccurate idea amonst the public at large that stealth aircraft are totally invisible. This does little to help the cause, but people forget that the whole point of low flying is stealth of a sort, and Britain is not alone in training for it.

More concerning is the possibility that someone with power believes fast jets could operate safely and with no detriment to the training with a speed limit of 250kts below 10,000 feet!!!

What I find strange is that this issue has arisen when the number of our armed forces are dwindling. There are fewer jets to make noise than in days gone. There are fewer low flying aircraft in the whole system than previously and we have very tightly controlled airspace to minimise problems.

Light aircraft have no need to go below 1000 feet as all they are doing is placing themselves into danger if the engine fails (unless they are landing etc. obviously!)

Can someone please apply the common sense hammer to the head of whoever came up with this barmy speed limit.;)

[411A]

Don't believe a word of it.

You AirForce chappies just want to fly low so you can scare the cr@p out of sheep and cows.:p

[reynoldsno1]

I am reliably informed by cow, sheep, deer and llama farmers that the one thing that really scares the crap out of livestock is hot air balloons..... shhhhhh, sssshhhhhhh, ssshhhhh and then suddenly a huge WWWWWWUUUUUMMMMMPPPPPHHHH as the burner cuts in.....

[maxy101]

One thing that does concern me on this thread is the comment that civilian pilots have no business below 1000 ´in non controlled airspace. We already live in the most regulated, centrally planned state in the world. Let´s not overdo the red tape and restrictions. Last time I looked, it was a semi free country. i.e the politicos are supposed to be there for us, not the other way round

[BEagle]

I flew a Vulcan at 300 ft and 350 KIAS over a 'feed lot' in Kansas once, 411A - that got a few thousand cows galloping about!

Light ac have no reason not to fly below 1000 ft; it's those which operate below 500 ft who put themselves at significant risk from military low level activity.

However, mil aircraft operators should also accept that the levels between 1500 to 3000 ft a.g.l probably contain the greatest numbers of light GA aircraft - and hence pose the greatest collision risk.

[witchdoctor]

Might I further suggest that all military aircraft restrict themselves to flying airways and operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan, regardless of their position.

"Bonzo Dog Doodah 99, contact Baghdad Fire Control Radar on XXX.XX, bye."

"What the ####!!!!":eek:

Would this be the latest 'cuddly' policy from our touchy-feely PM?:rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

Apart from the usual 'personal freedom' nonsense espoused by the barmy far-right ultra conservative 'hate the state' anti-regulatory brigade, what legitimate reason do light aircraft have to legitimately fly below 1,000 ft?

And would making flight below 500 ft illegal, and between 500 ft and 1,000 ft subject to mandatory reporting, really represent such a savage attack on anyone's liberty?

[Fox3snapshot]

Hmmmm....can you clarify the point you are trying to make, I assume you are joking of course.

:confused:

[SixOfTheBest]

Awesome thread! Haven't chuckled so much in ages. Too often, the subject is tackled on the premise that 'we don't fight at low level anymore', which, whilst a fair point, is only the tip of the iceberg! Intercepts at low-level has already been mentioned. What about Close Air Support? Whatever a theatre commander has decreed as a hard deck is all very well, however, me thinks this would soon change to something lower if the pongoes were in direct contact and not doing so well, and the weather did not permit medium level support. What about night? Many threats (Older IR-type - of which we all know is the BIGGEST reason for operations at medium level - lots of 'em) become obsolete when flying low at night. Again, the environment, weather and situation on the ground (especially on the ground) will always dictate risk levels and hence hard decks. At the end of Op Allied Force, who did Wes want on stby to provide low-level (if required) CAS support should the troops have been sent in? British assets, no less. In addition, don't forget that low flying (and especially at night) hones the skills to such an extent that medium level ops often becomes a walk in the park.....(certainly for muds)

[Fox3snapshot]

Good stuff, constructive comment is very refreshing.

Of note in the latest Iraq campaign the RAAF Hornets after they were released from their tanker/AWAC escort duties, provided CAS for the Ozzy and coalition "troopers" and certainly were getting in amongst it. The Warthogs are another good example of the need to get down and get dirty and I am sure that any ground element in strife (a good example was Afghanistan when the Aussie SAS directed CAS for the US Forces that were ambushed) will appreciate the low flying skills of helo, transport and fast jet boys when the poop has hit the fan and CAS is paramount.

Imagine if all the above mentioned elements had done all their training at 250 KIAS, on the airway, with an IFR clearance.....not entirely sure we would be getting the results the guys and gals are able to achieve today.

:ooh:

PS And more to the point how will ATC be able to finish the crossword with all that extra IFR traffic on the frequency!!!

:E

[Amateur Aviator]

Why don't we go RNZAF and just stop flying aircraft. Then if there is a war, all we do is challenge people to go head to head in a sim somewhere, with the losers running away with their tails between their legs and thinking how to do it better next time. Playstation rules everyone!

Or why don't we just keep on doing what we do best and fly the ac.

I've been night flying recently, and it is a damn sight better in the real ac than in the sim. Yes, the sim is good at certain aspects of aviation training, but real hours are worth more than sim hours.

And as for noise complainants, well thats another story.

Shock revelation for a bloke who owns a mansion near a UK SH base- helicopters fly low level day AND night.

Sorry for going off at a tangent, but does defence of the realm and protection of all that is British mean nothing nowadays?

[Jackonicko]

"Shock revelation for a bloke who owns a mansion near a UK SH base- helicopters fly low level day AND night."

Very true, but equally, in peacetime, and in a democracy, it's common sense for the armed forces to minimise the nuisance it creates, and to reduce its impact upon its civilian neighbours. Scheduling the bulk of your night flying training for the shortest, hottest nights of the year may therefore be counter-productive, and trying to achieve more of it when it's dark at 7.00 PM (with a cut-off time of 1.00 am or midnight) and when people don't have to have their windows open might be seen as being a sensible step.

And if OC Puma OCF is reading this, I hope the b*gger takes heed! Otherwise I'll have to get Crumpington out in the grounds with an SA-13......

[Man-on-the-fence]

Jacko

For reference there have been Pumas AND Merlins up playing over the last few weeks. I for one have had no compaints and I live on a direct track between Benson and Abingdon. I can literally see the whites of their eyes.

Keep up the good work chaps.

[L J R]

As someone has mentioned earlier, flying above 250K while below 10000 contravenes ICAO. In the US you CANNOT fly a jet below 10000 greater than 250K UNLESS you are on a recognised IR or VR route. The point here is that the rule may come in someday [read - be enforced], but there are ways to manage the issue - I'm not suggesting that we go to the US low flying system, we will manage the rules by legislation.

Aside from that, there is some real cr^p being thrown around this thread - but then it has made me laugh at some of the ignorance!
.

[Jackonicko]

Yeah but 28's Merlins are much quieter in the hover, and seem to pi$$ off much more quickly to go and annoy you lot out in the bundu, while the Pumas seem to spend hours hovering at 10 or 12 ft at Benson..... driving me MAD!!!

[Man-on-the-fence]

Jacko

They obviously know where you live and do it on purpose.:rolleyes:

(See I resisted the tempation to ask if there was an airfield there when you moved in :O )

[Alf Aworna]

LJR
I think you'll find most US mil fast jets float around at 300 kts below 10k. You don't have to fly around at a slow speed if its unsafe for your airframe just cos the rules say so, there are specific exemptions for that with ICAO. If the UK starts going down this road then I agree though some intelligent management should minimise impact and ensure safety. Probably just need to ensure that theres a differentiation between tactical flying and transit flying and apply the limit only to transit flying. I don't have a problem with that.

[Fox3snapshot]

Don't start me on exemptions, the US have their very own policy for operating military aircraft around the world (Article 3 of the ICAO Convention of 1944).....where, when and how they please! Known as "Due Regard" it has caused no end of grief and continues to do so for us on a daily basis, and trust me we are talking serious risk to many civil airliners on a regular basis....don't challenge me on this as you will definately get an earfull.

So all very well them having some noddy policy back "home" in the States, but its certainly not the case for them in everyone elses backyard!

:*

[witchdoctor]

What's with all the hostlity to people like me being below 1000' doing aerial work? It's a multi crew op - I fly, he works. We get good info on the location of the FJ boys, and as he lost a colleague in a mid-air in Wales some years ago, he's rather keen to stay out of the way as far as poss.

I can understand the concern about meeting the kind of drooling moron who can't read a NOTAM about air displays, or even the aerial guys working single crew, but some of us do what we can to stay out of everybody else's way and operate within the law.

Oh, and if you are around Northumberland in your pointy jets and you see a little red & white cesspit with checkerboard markings, please pass down the starboard side so I can drool over your machine.:ok:

Fox3

If you need to ask if I'm joking, I hope you don't get too near anything that goes bang.;)

[NoseGunner]

Witchdoctor

I don't think anyone here has a problem with people being at any height if they have a good reason to be there (PFL, aerial photo, pipeline inspections etc) its those that tool around at 300-400 feet for no good reason then seem suprised when they get min sepped by a 4 ship of Jags doing 420 kts.
My own view is people can do whatever, wherever they like - just don't start whining about the consequences. I accept that what I'm doing has a certain risk and I accept that - sometimes **** happens. At least I've got a black and yellow handle!
:D

ps promise to try and miss you if I see you!:ok:

[waffles]

The RAF need the capability to practice at low level and at the high speeds involved.

Simulators are not a viable solution yet as not only are they restricted in terms of G forces but they are not up to a standard where the flight simulation and weapon delivery can be packaged in to one. I accept that they are fantastic for commercial training but the military is a completely different area.

Currently, I believe, the RAF is the only force worldwide that regularly participates in low flying training to an operational level and therefore are world leaders in the field. It is a required skill and this has been proved. Americans may have good medium level armorment but how many times has this gone wrong in comparison to the traditional shoot what you can see ? The americans come away from conflicts having lost more men to friendly fire that the enemy mainly due to technical faults with their high-tech weaponry.

The traditional low-flying must be kept and to limit it to 250kts is ridiculous, the manoeuvring speeds of these aircraft are too high, 250kts, although flyable, would not provide the required training.

[WorkingHard]

There does seem to be a them and us situation here for some reason. Let us just consider why the RAF seem to want GA kept above 1000 or 1500 or 2000 whatever. So that GA does not conflict with the LL operations? O.K. so what happens when the FJ pull a high energy manoeuvre straight up from 250ft. Where do you want GA to be then? I would not dream of flying around at anything less than 1000ft except for T/O and landing but what about the T/O and land? Are you going to avoid the known airfields and landing strips. If the answer is yes then please tell us all when this amazing change took place? We all make mistakes and we all must learn from them so please don't be so arrogant as to effectively tell GA to keep out of your way. You are there solely for the benefit of the people who pay your costs - us.
If the legislators in their wisdom decide on 250k max then hard luck, live with it. Before you try and "shoot me down", I dont think it sensible either but learn to live with the laws as written

[Fox3snapshot]

Quote " Currently, I believe, the RAF is the only force worldwide that regularly participates in low flying training to an operational level and therefore are world leaders in the field."

Unfortunately your belief is not founded. I could name 20+ Air Forces that use low flying as part of their operational doctrine, unfortunately not enough space or time to dwell on that point....might want to go to page 2 of the "low flying Omani Jags" or the "shocking examples of low flying" threads to get a sample of what I am talking about.

Some noteworthy low flying by the US occurs in Northern Australia with the B52's training, I used to stand on my roof watching the Buff's smoke around the back of my hometown at zot feet. Worthy of mention of course is the RAAF F111's which live off being at low level! Up until the recent demize of the RNZAF Air Attack Force, I think the Kiwi's would probably take the cake for operational low flying.....I think the RAN and RNZN certainly would vouch for that after the shipstrike waz ups. Made for great video too!

:E

[PlasticCabDriver]

Jackonicko, sorry about all that hovering, but we have to do it, as picking up an underslung load more than about 0.1 kts gets a bit sporty. And the Merlins are only quiet because there normally aren't any serviceable. And we don't do "the bulk" of our night flying training for the "shortest, hottest nights of the year", you only notice it more then, for the rest of the year we do start and finish earlier, because, believe me, we don't like flying at o-dark-hundred in the morning any more than you do!

LOL
PCD

[waffles]

statement retracted !!!

Thanks

[Training Risky]

Don't apologise PlasticCabDriver.

Anyone who buys a property near an active airfield has no right to complain. Anyone who isn't a nimby in his spare time would know this though!

[SirToppamHat]

Methinks Top Down (topic starter) may have been causing mischief with the original post!

I think we sometimes forget that there is only a very limited amount of airspace for us to fly at low level in the UK. A 250kt LL limit over most of the FIR would still need large areas of exemption to allow mil LL trg to continue.

The Americans have the distinct advantage of some of the largest military trg areas in the world, so limits outside these may not have much of an impact on their trg opportunities. Banning flying above 250kts LL over Northumberland/Wales/Scotland/The Lake District would have a considerable impact on ours!

[hanger35]

If anybody watched "crowded skies" a few weeks ago there was an incident where a fast jet nearly collided with a passenger aircraft that was flying from Newcastle Airport. I fthe number of near misses increases then there is bound to be a mid air collision and that probably one of the reasons for bringing the speed down to 250 kts.

It seems to me what people here are trying to say is that LL trg is far more important to the UK as a country than expanding regional airports and developing economic benifits to those areas that more civil aviation would create.

Would it not be easier if Military Jets that are carrying out LL trg were based around the areas they were practicing ie Scotland and the Lake District thereby not comnflicting with ciivilian flight paths by flying up from East Anglia or East Midlands. It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there.

[Jackonicko]

TR,

I moved here when it was nothing but the Queens Flight and some mysteriously inactive Andovers, and actually the noise doesn't often bother me (I'm a late bird and sleep the sleep of the just), so I'm not too fussed. You have to take things on balance, after all, and lower house prices are nice to have, in what is a lovely part of the world. But I do mind the neighbours whining on about it (and even Mrs JN.....)

And many people do move in next to active airfields and then bitch, whine, try to get them closed and then become very hostile to the RAF. I'm just suggesting that it may be worth doing a tad more to avoid giving them ammunition.


PCB,

Having to pick up underslung loads in the hover? Whatever next? You absolute poof! I'm going to be watching for you to prove yourself to be a 'real man' now, racing along the runway trying to snatch a load from the back of a speeding truck. Three times in a row and you've won a pint at the King Billy!

JN

[Liam Gallagher]

Way off topic (forgive me)

How is the King Billy? Understand it no longer run by the elderly gentleman with the Cart House and old guns???

[Training Risky]

Fair point there, JN.
---------------------------------------
Are you having a laugh or what, Hanger 35?

Are you not content with the extent we have gone to, to take FJ flying away from the public?:rolleyes: Valley, Lossiemouth for starters?

It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there.

You haven't thought that one through have you? How many people employed by FJ bases in England will thank you, if all our FJ assets are moved away to the wilderness?

[Runaway Gun]

When flying at low level, FJ crews normally utilise their eyes to the maximum - to avoid all obstacles including the ground, bogeys and civvy aircraft. Of course the FJ crew are normally checking six most of the time, but they do look everywhere. Dropping their max speed not only drops realism, but also affects performance and safety. Lookout is a highly stressed part of military aviation, and it can be more effective if all types of aircraft use it (including the bug smashers). And I've been involved in enough civvy ops to see how poor this is sometimes utilised... Believe it or not, I was working in a low level survey company where we would 'Terrain Follow' at 160ftAGL for up to 6hrs per day, and my 'captain' would read a novel whilst flying. This is obviously an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

[Fox3snapshot]

I hope the novel your "captain" was reading wasn't "How to fly a Cessna 172 in five easy steps"

Step 1 - Get in plane, put on Ray Bans

Step 2 - turn keys, make engine sound really loud

Step 3 - look for a really long straight bit of turf or road and go like the clappers till the wheels leave the ground and moo cows look little,

Step 4 - fulfill all your boyhood fantasies and crash into clouds,

Step 5 - try and find the same piece of turf or road you left from, make the engine noise really soft...and hope like hell you can find the same parking spot you left from!

:E

[Runaway Gun]

Fox, please check your PMs.

It was in a twin Aerocommander actually, but the principles are the same.

I think you may have forgotten a few chapters:

6. Don't do any engine run ups or wait for the oil temp to rise.
7. Don't check NOTAMs
8. Berate any other crew members when they offer advice, because you have lived longer than them in this game !!!!
9. Don't check the fuel remaining - ASSUME.

NB. I am not attacking the civvy pilot community as a whole, it's just a few rotten apples.

[L J R]

F3 SS

You are correct in the critisim of whoever stated that the RAF are the 'expert' in low flying. The Kiwis, while may be so called 'experts' in flying at 50', may have to question the rationale as to the reasoning behind same - but that is not the purpose of this thread, the LF Oman Jag prove that there are others who fly VeryVery Low - albeit for fun factor rather than a realistic operational purpose. The point is that there are a number of 'professional' low flying operatiors - and those who no other Air-Force exposure than the RAF are often one-eyed in their opinion of others. The simple fact remains is that the RAF need to fly low at realistic speeds [albeit slow at 420 - 480 Kts] AND they are normally unable to accept critisism of their modus operation.

Furthermore, the UK general public [or those who are interested] often express their opinion based on WW2 [Battle of Britain et al] experience. Hats off to those who learned lessons from same - but the world has moved forward since then. All too often I see comments portraying RAF at 'Experts' in lots of stuff when really they are often 'competent' and sometimes 'leaders' in the field, but flexibility [a term often bandied around in RAF circles] is unfortunately lacking.

Although this thread is about the UK LFS, the inuendo is that the Brits do things better, when actually they are sometimes ignorant of the rest of the world - just as the USAF is at times [and everyone else for that matter!!]

By the way - fly safe and LOOK OUT....

.

[Fox3snapshot]

LJR,

Always appreciate feedback. I will add though that the purpose of the Kiwi's Low flying was fundemental to one of the tasks they were carrying out regularly ie.Ship Strike for the RAN and RNZN.

As the Brits found out in Argentina...even a dumb bombing A4 can reap havoc on a flotilla (HMS ARDENT hit by MK82 Snakeye and the sinking of the HMS Antelope). To higlight the altitude issues here I have provided an extract from the Argentine A4 Briefing:

HMS ARDENT MISSION DEBRIEF


* DATE:
May 21, 1982, 15:01 Argentine time (H + 3).

* TARGET:
Type 21 British frigate located 2 miles north of the West Island ( Bah'a Ruiz Puente en el Estrecho de San Carlos).

* ATTACK GROUP:
1st Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-307 Capitan de Corbeta Alberto Jorge Philippi
o Skyhawk 3-A-312 Teniente de Nav'o José César Arca
o Skyhawk 3-A-314 Teniente de Fragata Gustavo Marcelo Márquez
2nd Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-301 Teniente de Navio Benito I. Rótolo.
o Skyhawk 3-A-305 Teniente de Navio Carlos Lecour.
o Skyhawk 3-A-306 Teniente de Navio Roberto Sylvester.

* WEAPON LOAD:
Four Mark 82, 500 pound Snakeye bombs per plane.
Two hundred 20mm rounds per plane.
Three 300-gallon external fuel tanks per plane.

* ATTACK ROUTE:
Approach the target below 50 feet altitude.
Climb to 300 feet to drop weapons.
Drop with 250-millisecond interval.
Approach angle, 30º separation between aircraft.


Perhaps some of the Kiwi knucks can provide a more operational perspective on these issues, after all it was their bread and butter.....I just went along for the ride!

:eek:

[Runaway Gun]

LJR,

I have to agree with many of your comments here.

Having served with numerous air forces (and worked with pilots from many others) there is a common theme running through their self-appraisals: "We are the world's best at ..... this". Normally it's the world's greatest military aviators, but it regularly continues to "world's greatest low flying experts", "NVG operators", or "Highest Mooners in an F14 - RIP".

Of course I believe that there still is a need for low operational flying and training, yet I am also aware that it is not the answer to all delivery profiles. Every conflict will be different, and it is impossible to predict what tactics will no longer ever be required again. As you are no doubt aware, low flying is a skill which pilots require constant practise to remain safe. Flying at 100ft for the first time was a quite a bit of an eye-opener, yet after qualifying at 50ft (which brightened my peepers even more) I found that 100ft was relatively easy going, and it certainly freed up my little bit of SA. Last time I flew a little jet at low level (after a break of a few years) I was a lot less comfortable than I had been in my "prime". The more it's practised in peacetime, the safer it'll be utilised in times of need.

The same point (and more) goes for limiting airspeed to a ridiculous 250kts.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/kiwi2.JPG

[hanger35]

Risky Training

I think calling the Lake District (in England by the way), North Yorkshire( also in England) and Scotland the wilderness is a pretty arrogant thing to say and what you are saying is you could not care less if blew their roofs off or killed their livestock and genrally made their life a misery. Like I said if these people are having to put up with this then should see some benifits. If this means moving equipment and personnel from bases such as Marham to say Lossiemouth or Leuchars so be it.

Sir your loyal obedient servant

[scroggs]

I seem to remember that it was at the very least proposed that there would be a blanket 250kt limit below 10,000ft for all VFR and IFR traffic, military or civil, that wasn't legitimately using the military LFS. This was at about the same time that the 540/480/420kt limits within the LFS were introduced.

Is my memory wrong? Did it or didn't it happen?

[Training Risky]

Hangar 35, the crux of your argument was that you thought it would be easier if.... "Military Jets that are carrying out LL trg were based around the areas they were practicing ie Scotland and the Lake District thereby not conflicting with ciivilian flight paths by flying up from East Anglia or East Midlands. It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there."

Easier for who? Some gash PPL who wants to tool around at LL, or the nation's defenders transiting back and forth to the tac areas from Marham, Coltishall, Leeming etc?

It seems obvious economics to me that if you remove 'n' number of jobs from the economy of Norfolk while creating 'the same number in the wilderness (sorry, but that's just what anywhere north of Birmingham is!), then there is NO NET GAIN OVERALL:rolleyes:

Accusing me of arrogance is pretty rich when you think that LL is just a toy for us to 'blow peoples roofs off', and random PPL/CPL flying somehow benefits the nation's welfare and economy to a greater extent than military training.
:*

[Jackonicko]

Liam G,

Re: The King Billy.

Yes, unfortunately 'Conehead' has gone, taking with him the farm implements and furniture, and all those festering plasters on his unusually shaped cranium.

No more walking in at 9.45 on a quiet winter evening to be told: "******! I was just hoping to close."

No more waiting at the front of a huge queue while he went to watch your pasty going round and round in the microwave.... (What serve someone else while waiting? You jest.)

No more ostentatious refusal to notice people he didn't approve of as they tried to get a drink (usually BMW drivers or any kind of yuppies).

The place serves more than cheese rolls and pasties, now, but to me it's lost much of the charm and character. Play equipment in the garden doesn't help, and they now have pumps on the bar for some of the beers. Pumps! And they sell lager......

But what a fantastic view!

Even though that amazingly gorgeous bar maid (you know, the one with the gorgeous eyes, dazzling smile, pretty face and flirtatious manner - but with no apparent space for internal organs, unless they were mounted much higher and further forward than usual) has also departed......

[WorkingHard]

Well, well, well, straight from the horses mouth so to speak. According to Training Risky PPL are "gash pilots" and according to Deliverance anyone who has the audacity to disagree with him should "piss off". I would be interested to read what went on your psychometric test assessment at OASC. How the hell did you ever become pilots (assuming you are military pilots) with that kind of attitude. Bet your line boss does not hear such remarks from you. However that said what happens when the FJ pulls above 500 ft doing whatever speed is allowed? What is the speed in a battle situation at LL. is it above mach 1 or is it say 700k? Why do you not practise at those speeds? Because it is not acceptable to the people you are supposed to serve. Go what speed you like below 500ft in the designated areas but when you get up into the open FIR remember other people are there by right and if your flying in that FIR has to be restricted to accomodate them, then live with it or find something else that may satisy your arrogance

[WorkingHard]

Why do you have this problem with PPL. It is not just PPL who transit in the open FIR, many CAT operations are in this category of airspace and also remember that a large part of GA is other than PPL. So do you want the airspace cleared for your unknown, undetermined manoeuvres at high speed? Grow up little man. Perhaps the RNZAF masters saw something like you running it and decided to act in the best interest of everyone!

[raytofclimb]

Civillians who know square root of f-all about military ops should not be calling the shots here. Stick to your airways and shut up.

The number of FJ squadrons about now is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago, the RAF is HALF what it was in GW1. There is consequently less LL traffic now than ever.

If the price of freedom is occasional jet noise and an extra tenner on your holiday cos your operator can't cut the corner out of an airway then it's VERY CHEAP in my book.

Go and lament why you failed OASC and let us get on with our mis-understood job.

[Fox3snapshot]

Wow we all got angry here all of a sudden...and its the weekend too???!!!

:(

[Runaway Gun]

I guess some of us have to work this weekend (but not me!). Ahhh the unappreciated things that some of us have to do to protect this glorious Kingdom...

[tonybliar]

The main argument on this thread now seems to be between professionals and amateurs.

Perhaps the amateurs should accept that their taxes are funding professionals to protect them and unless they allow those professionals to do so in a well-considered and professional way their money will be wasted.

In any case, they have about as much chance of getting the military to either abandon low level training or restrict speeds to 250kts as they have of finding WMD in Iraq.

So why is anybody getting wound up about it?

[LoeyDaFrog]

Hanger35 - Put very simply. You are wrong, so get over it!!!!

[Guido]

The latest TCAS may solve the problem? GA traffic has mandatory fit and reacts to TCAS alert. LL FJ makes note and applies min seperation criteria. PPL fliers just ignore the kit because they don't even know how to switch it on or what its telling them.

[SASless]

No one allowed into "uncontrolled airspace" unless they have air defense radar........

Might we want to reconsider the concept of "uncontrolled" if that is the case?

We have plenty of room here in the USA....as does Canada....or OZ for that matter and with the same kind of weather.....why don't you set up a training site(s) as was done during WW2 and escape from all the hassles you have trying to operate within the UK for your low level....dare devil flying? That way, the vast majority of flights would be done in a safer less congested environment.

[Lucifer]

Guido, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but TCAS certainly is not a required fit on GA aircraft and never will be due to the weight penalty. What is madatory is having a transponder turned on where fitted.

The solution is the develpment of adequate military TCAS for fast jets, that won't give spurious alerts every five seconds - it is of course the faster in the sky that gives way to the slower - I'm not sure how you expect a Cessna to be able to manoevure out of a GR4's way at LL with adequate separation.

The problem is that civilians with the knowledge of square root of FA make our laws, fund the military and are often quite vocal. Educating the point, instead of telling them to ****** off as it's not their business will only aggravate the point.

PPLs are certainly not gash - military . Some are. So are some fast jet pilots. The biggest problem is the lack of training about military ops in PPL and ATPL which doesn't help at all - has anyone else seen FJ LL routes on a CAA chart.

For those who do need to go low level - which is incidenctally allowed with prior dispensation from the CAA for training or whatever purpose anyway - I propose that all civilians should be taught about LL booking system, and be able to use it as well where necessary (ie not simply PFLs or it would be overloaded!)


I am also now convinced that all airline executives knows everything there is to know about geopolitics and will bow down to their greater knowledge, ignoring all university education. Hanger35 - you're an ass.

reynolds no 1: civil traffic is limited to 250kts IAS in uncontrolled airspace in the UK - no speed restrictions beyond controllers' apply in controlled airspace.

My latest low flying complaint aginst me? At 600'. Guess where? Finals. *******!

[contact_tower]

why don't you set up a training site(s) as was done during WW2 and escape from all the hassles you have trying to operate within the UK for your low level....dare devil flying? That way, the vast majority of flights would be done in a safer less congested environment.

I know that the MIL boys on this side of the north sea are trying to draw them over here. It remains to be seen if they want to come...... :E I wonder how many of this winters planned deployments will materialize. :D

[BEagle]

Lux ferens, no, it is cetainly not mandatory to switch on a transponder where carried.

It is only mandatory to have a serviceable SSR outside regulated airspace below FL100 if you are operating under IFR. (This is a bit of a simplification as there are other rules in the Jockistani TMA). Hence Golf-Alpha-Good-Morning-All-I'm a PA28-err... can quite happily operate under VFR without talking or squawking. Which is bliss!

Mark you, for sport you can always go and find one of those corner-cutting airliners in Class G airspace, sneak up on it with the IFF at standby and then switch it on at close range and watch the chaos as the TCAS TA/RA is responded to... No, on second thoughts, please don't:E

[NoseGunner]

"Speed is life"

"At Mach 1.6 you have no 6"

:cool:

ps I prefer to fly just above 2000' agl - then I can go at M.95!!!

[Liam Gallagher]

I do hope nobody believes TCAS is viable at low level. Putting aside the issue of radio wave coverage; hence the reason you are LL!!! other problems exist.

Without teaching granny to suck eggs, TCAS separates vertically, with one aircraft being told to climb, the other descend. In such circumstances, I vote to be the one told to climb!!

Whilst some TCAS presentations give a plan view of the position of other traffic, it is not accurate and at the LL environment would probably be a distraction. It is bad enough in the approach environment in a multi-pilot ergonomically designed flight deck; on a single pilot ergonomic nightmare.......

[contact_tower]

TCAS is nasty at low level, we had a Fokker 50 that got "descend" command form TCAS on short finals due to a fighter passing overhead for break. Descend when you are 200ft AGL in a F-50.........
Think this has been fixed in the latest version though. (Not decend when below xxx-ft with gear down ect, doses not help you FJ lot a bit I should think :( )

[Fox3snapshot]

Naval ships transponders have triggered TCAS on approach and departures, regularly in some cases. A call to the navy when the ships are alongside to ask them to sqwk standby is novel to say the least!

:ooh:

[Lucifer]

Liam - that's why I say 'viable military TCAS'

[Runaway Gun]

Nosegunner, at Mach 1.6 you will still be caught out by most AAM's. Suggest you tell your tailgunner to keep alert! :p

[West Coast]

A TCAS RA at 200ft? Something is askew as it should have been inhibited at somewhat a higher altitude, 700AGL comes to mind.

[M609]

Might have something to do with the high terrain on short final. 200ft is from the AAIB report.

"M609 is formerly known as contact_tower"

[ShyTorque]

Liam Gallagher,

Having used it in the Police role for 2 years and another heli copter role for nearly 3 years, I disagree that TCAS is no good at low level.

There are a couple of problems with it. Firstly, it can give false alarms if an aircraft laterally nearby isn't using mode C (it assumes the aircraft is at the same level).

It also often fails to pick up military aircraft.

[Fox3snapshot]

Have to agree with the comment on the mode C aspect ,which is relevent to my ship story as you get a ground speed on your radar from the ship but obviously no altitude, unless they are in a "Sunami!".

Unfortunately I disagree on the "doesn't pick up military aircraft aspect", though having said that I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the military aircraft you refer to are not Sqwarking (still don't know how to spell that properly after 12 years!).

During the recent Afghan and Gulf conflicts there was an horrendous amount of military traffic spending most of their sorty time transitting through civil airspace. So much so that the longest fighter combat sorty record was set by F15's from Kuwait.... but that is another story! (Callsign "Zesty" or "Rattler" or something really cool and warry like that!)...anyway........

The aircraft involved were thankfully (on most occassions) entering, transiting and exiting the operational areas with their transponders on,I am basing this on Afghanistan and the transit to Iraq (B1's, B52's, KC135's, EC135's, E3's, U2's, RQ4 blah-de blah).

Whilst we have had and still have some messy scenerios, the saving grace is the TCAS on the civil aircraft can still interrogate the military traffic and if required provide the required resolution to keep all the punters in one peice....and that's what its all about. Unfortunately of course not all of the military traffic have TCAS which is another issue.


:8