Hotline for low flying military helicopters

[Heliport]

Link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165282)

[KENNYR]

Oh thats just wonderful............lets all hope that the caller doesn't speak with a Middle-Eastern accent. There have to be serious security implications of this knee-jerk solution.

[Pontius Navigator]

Aw Kenny, there's always someone who spoilts a good idea, NIH syndrome.

Seriously, good point. When briefed at the assembled audience of military and civil scribblies last month that was NOT the question on ANYONE's lips.

[Scud-U-Like]

It seems perfectly reasonable that the MOD should take all reasonable steps to keep the public informed of LF activity. The information is already there at the LFB Cell, so why not make the public aware of what is booked to fly in which LF areas?

As for the security implications, is our Middle-Eastern accented one more likely to do his hostile deed:

a. Near a helo unit, where sighting an airborne helo is guaranteed

or

b. In the wilds of a low flying area, where a helo booked to fly may or may not fly within range of him?

Get real.

[KENNYR]

Scud, Your point is noted. However, instructors tend to use the same route or area to conduct exercises (familiarity with terrain etc). It would not be too difficult for a determined nasty-man to see this pattern and use it to his/her advantage. This is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Do the public really want a totally useless, ineffective poorly trained AirForce, Army or Navy. We all know that it is essential to practice low flying and the available areas are shrinking because of public opinion.

Lets give the Forces aviators a chance to do their jobs in the best, most professional and effective way.

[LXGB]

Found a link: http://www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying/heli-helpline.htm

"Due to high levels of activity close to helicopter training schools and main helicopter operating bases, it is not possible to provide a forecast for these Dedicated Helicopter User Areas – Map Areas 1, 3, 9, 10 and 19 [Northern Ireland] "
:rolleyes: :ok:

Nice One,
LXGB

[Scud-U-Like]

KENNYR

Then perhaps instructors should be doing more to vary their training routes, not only for the benefit of those living along such routes, but for CT reasons too.

In a democracy, aren't the public 'the dog' and we 'the tail'? Of course military aircrew should be given every opportunity to develop and maintain their LF skills. I don't see how the helpline affects that. If it helps a riding school, a farmer or anyone else who might be adversely affected by LF, to better plan their activities, how can that be a bad thing?

[KENNYR]

Scud, Why is it always the Military who have to compromise or suffer? Why cant the horse riders use a different area, keep them out of the LFA? Of course they would be up in arms about that and creating a lot of noise in Parliament. What voice does the Armed Forces have?.......absolutely none. Our Defence minister is as weak as NAAFI tea and will not support the Armed Forces, especially in election year.

I do hear what you say about instructors, shoulda woulda coulda! But the fact does remain that instructors will use areas they are more comfortable in ( I only speak from a rotary point of view......no FJ experience at all).

[WorkingHard]

KennyR - What is the "suffering" involved please in notifying operational areas?
The Armed Forces should have a very strong voice in their senior officers BUT if they are too weak an lilly livered to perform then it is they to whom blame should be apportioned.
NAAFI tea in my day was always quite strong enough with all the bromide etc. have the senior ranks been quite neutered by NAAFI tea by now?
Please remember the whole of the armed forces are there to do the bidding of the people via parliament and for no other reason what so ever.
I am known to have a dislike of low flying but dont perceive helos to be much of a threat to anyone. Availability of routes and times does not seem to be of any real detriment to practice regimes. Anyone care to tell us if i am wrong in this since I do not fly rotary.

[Pontius Navigator]

The hotline is not working. Heather Bell's husband has been checking the hotline and one time was given advice that there were 3 helicopter in WALES. Really helpful.

Edward Leigh, MP, said that the MOD advice was ludicorous as the declared areas were hundreds of square miles and the chances of an Al Quaeda terrorist lying in wait in Lincolnshire with an RPG7 was absurd.

Oh well, wait for the flak to fly.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Shouldn't that first post read...






Lynx

[truckiebloke]

although im sure you could always ban cars and other vehicles from the road just in case a horse comes along.....

im pretty confident they lead to more deaths a year than helicopters low flying..!

[rafloo]

2 Points. Firstly, does having a middle Eastern accent make you a bad person?

Secondly. Why do we need to low fly over our green and pleasant land when our operational LF is conducted over the brown and sandy. Lets bin all LF in the UK and only support LF training when and where it is required. Save millions.

[teeteringhead]

when our operational LF is conducted over the brown and sandy Thank Heavens your crystal ball is so accurate rafloo . Rather like when we flogged off all our desert cam and combats in the late 1980s cos we "didn't do deserts".

And remind me, which middle eastern country did we sell it all to?

(A clue: the capital is Baghdad)

[Door Slider]

Rafloo,
In that case lets not bother to shoot our guns, drive tanks/ ships and fly planes until something happens to your lovely green and pleasant land. After all it will only take a day or two to become fully qualified and EXPERIENCED!!

FOOL!!

[vecvechookattack]

That’s a good point. It was some time since this country was invaded and so why bother low flying here. As well as saving the lives of innocent horse riders it would save a fortune in unnecessary flying.

In fact we seem to spend more time and money defending low flying.... just bin it.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Portaloo,

Low flying has been extensively debated here. Have a look at this thread for some background reading (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149921).

In short LF is a perishable skill that must be practiced extensively in order to maintain capability and safety. If you argue that we only operate over the brown and sandy, then you obviously cannot remember as far back as Bosnia. The whole region was remarkably short on deserts but did have a lot of rolling green countryside and mountainous areas, not unlike parts of our own green and pleasant land. So you suggest that next time we have a war we just pitch up a couple of days early to do some low flying training in the operational theatre. Can't see it working somehow. Save millions? Not when we're losing cabs and jets on a daily basis.

[airborne_artist]

As well as saving the lives of innocent horse riders it would save a fortune in unnecessary flying.

I've been on both sides of the arguement - rode from age 5, and at 18 spent a year in a racing yard before I joined the Andrew as an SL(P).

I believe very little of the evidence I have read about LF helos causing riders' deaths. I've ridden some of the craziest horses around, and I can assure you that they will spook at a dock leaf upside down on the path, run a mile if a pheasant gets up under their feet etc. Add to that, that many are overfed and not controllable by their (poorly skilled) riders, and you've several accidents waiting to happen before you add cars, people out shooting, or worse still, a carrier bag on some barbed wire.

Helicopters clearly could be the cause, but so could the pheasant that no person heard because of the clattering blades, and they didn't see. Humans have about 120 degree arc of vison, whilst horses have about 280 degree arc of vision, and are most spooked by objects they see behind them.

Keep up the LF training, as has been said, it's a low shelf-life skill.

[vecvechookattack]

In short LF is a perishable skill that must be practiced extensively in order to maintain capability and safety


what a load of tash.....where is the evidence to support that. Complete and utter you know whats

[Tourist]

vecsomeotherboll@cks

Being based in Falmouth with that name, I can only guess that you are a pinger.
In which case, and correct me if I am wrong, you know sod all about low flying. About as much as junglies know about IF.

This hardly entitles you to an opinion on the subject. I would consider low flying, like NVG and IF to be very perishable skills.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, I think ved whatsit is probably talking the absolute truth. Low flying is not necessary nor is it necessary to provide simulators instead. The master race can just jump in the cab whenever they like and simly go forward rather than up.

What low flying is done is argued solely by staff officers with nothing better to do than so go ahead and the budgeteers are perfectly happy for all this unnecessary activity.

Squandering oodles of defence budget and spraying global warmin everywhere is of course an unfortuante by product of this play for the boys.

I mean to say, it is perfectly obvious that it is not necessary and that gordon is simply indulging the lucky few.



Bollocks of course but does it make the point?

[Tourist]

Point taken, I bow to your wisdom

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, you didn't think I was serious did you? My point was that the powers that be would stop all flying and low flying if they thought it was not essential.

Regardless of what the sticks say it is their airships that are saying that you do the minimum of low flying and that does NOT mean none and it also means that what you do do is not over and above the minimum.

[WorkingHard]

"the powers that be would stop all flying and low flying if they thought it was not essential."
Is someone actually admitting that the senior officers have a say in something? I thought it was currently PC to blame the politicans. Oh sorry that is only the case when something goes wrong.

[Pontius Navigator]

who mentioned senior officers? I said powers than be.

[ShyTorque]

The answer is obvious. Make everyone redundant but spend more money on top quality equipment. Put it all in storage. In times of trouble, simply put an advert in the Sun newspaper for the experts to come forward, start the engines for them and let them get on with it. Easy.

But I note that it is an offence to use an unroadworthy vehicle on the road. If a horse is unroadworthy/untrustworthy, then it doesn't make sense to allow it to be ridden on the road either.

[vecvechookattack]

Make everyone redundant ...I don't think that would be a very good idea.

But seriously, why is there a need to Low fly? whats the point of it? where is the evidence that we need to Low Fly? we don't do we. And so we should bin the entire thing and stop killing innocent horseriders.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

vecstuff,

you haven't read any of the multitude of previous threads which have debated this very question ad nauseam (one of which I very kindly gave to Portaloo on a plate), have you? I really cannot be arsed to go through the whole lot once again, so if you want to know why LL is necessary, even if very unfortunately and rarely it has a detrimental effect on the civilian population, please do some background reading.

Please also desist from the killing innocent horse riders rubbish. It is deliberately provocative and emotional. Riders go out to ride fully aware that they are undertaking a dangerous sport. That is why the intelligent ones wear helmets. In fact my own mother, many years ago, was thrown by a horse and injured. No heavy twin rotary involved, just a random spazattack by the horse, so I can see the argument from both sides and can tell you confidently that banning low flying is not an appropriate solution. I scuba dive from time to time and I accept a the risk involved in this potentially lethal hobby. Horses get spooked by virtually anything, so to blame military aircraft for all their woes is a pointless kneejerk reaction. Equally all cars and rabbits should be banned from country roads. The last case, involving Heather Bell and the Chinook, dragged the crew through court but eventually proved that they were operating legally despite the eyewitnesses who claimed all sorts of crap like they were chasing horses at 20ft.

The RAF seems to have a reputaion as the world experts in Low Flying. This would of course cease as soon as we stop training. For those who do not seem to believe that LL requires skill and training, cast your minds back to the Sea Knight doing night low level in poor conditions on night one of GW2, and spare a thought for the souls of the innocent troops and crew on board. Thank God we did not lose a Chinook that night - maybe that is the result of peacetime low flying training.

[Safety_Helmut]

Max

I fear that you have risen (understandably) to some pretty unbelievable posts on the subject. Does anyone really believe that the views posted here by vec stuff and portaloo are their true views on the subject, or are they really just out to get a rise from someone ?

Remember those old signs that used to be at the entrance to some stations (i haven't seen one for a while) "our role in peacetime is to train for war". It could be argued that we are no longer training for war, in the strictest sense of the word, but certainly for conflict.

Safety_Helmut

[airborne_artist]

Interesting to note that a copper can evade being found guilty for "practising" his fast driving skills on the road - at a speed which would have been far more dangerous to riders than a Chinook at 100' AGL.

[vecvechookattack]

Apart from he was driving on his own and not with an aircraft full of innocent passengers like the Chinooks do.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

OK vec I can see it now. You're a wind up merchant. Well done, now do one.

Regards

Stout

[Safety_Helmut]

AA

I cannot believe, like many others I'm sure, that he got away with that. Practicing, my @rse, an irresponsible attempt to see how fast it would go more likely.

Safety_Helmut

[vecvechookattack]

Why do we need to Low Fly?

But the report concluded that the Hercules had been shot down by anti-aircraft artillery, as it flew at a low altitude, possibly 150ft.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Vec,
If you are a military pilot who has flown anything remotely front line you should be well aware of the relative merits and risks of low level vs medium level in a theatre were you have SA, HMG, RPG, MANPAD etc.

An open forum is definitely not the place to start discussing operational tactics and so I will not, and I suggest no-one else does, answer your question. Need to know. Look it up in your Sqn tactics manual. If you don't have access to one because you fly Vigilants, hot air balloons, stack shelves, write Mirror articles or spy for North Korea, then you don't need to know and you won't find out here.

What should be obvious is that no single height will protect you from all threats.

[vecvechookattack]

Ha ha....good answer.

I Can't tell you why we low fly because its a secret....so just accept it.


Right !

But your answer seems to suggest that we low fly to avoid SA...HMG...? so why then this.....

The hercules was shredded by a multi-barrelled 20mm canon," the official said. "They have worked out that's what caused the crash. The gun is believed to have been a 1960s twin-barrel Zu-23, made in China or the Soviet Union, left over from the Saddam Hussein regime. It has an effective range of 2,000 yards and can be mounted on a lorry or set on wheels.

It is not known why the Hercules, which was equipped with sophisticated defensive measures, was flying at low altitude for the 40-minute trip."

Surely then, if they had NOT been flying at Low Level they would have avoided being engaged....

So, although we life and breathe our respective TACMAN's.....are the tactics wrong..????

[rafloo]

Thats a perfectly good question. Low Flying is a remnant from a bygone era of the good guys thundering over the Soviet horizon and attempting to avoid detection by the redski radars. Times have changed and now adays our enemies have less sophisticated weapons and are more likely to conduct opportunist engagements against aircraft with their pop guns. A prime example was the appache which was brought down by a farmer and his shotgun.


Maybe you are right and our tactics are outdated and require amending.

[Training Risky]

To the Tucano engineer and Pinger pr1ck:

Thanks for your informed posts, obviously based on your wealth of LF experience.

:rolleyes:





NB: How's it going Max, any news? I'm currently on det in Jockistan, eating quiche and sipping milk.

HURRAH.

[Razor61]

from bbc.co.uk

Motorists in north Devon are being warned to look out for an angry bull roaming the area.
The animal is thought to have run off after being frightened by a low-flying RAF jet in the Swimbridge area.

The police say they do not know where it is currently and are warning it should not be approached

[Pontius Navigator]

Do Chinooks have flight refuelling probes?

Was th Bull running in front of the chopper?

ole