Low level fast jets over Silverstone 25/6

[powerless]

Today (wednesday 25th) around 09:20 we had two fast jets low level across Silverstone circuit. As today is tyre testing the circuit is full of people so wondering if this was official or not?

Well spaced but feeling from some people who were near said it looked dangerous. Anyone know who and why?

[tonker]

Being motor racing fans on tyre day they'd know:hmm:

[powerless]

Tonker

My point was not that it was dangerous, I am sure the crew know what they are doing, have all eventualities covered and it was 100% safe. My point is that Joe public see it as dangerous and that maybe doesn't help aviation in general.

Just wanted to know what it was and if it was some practice prior to the GP.

[tonker]

Fair enough.

Every now and then we get people on board who claim that we were only feet away from peril, and that ATC and TCAS must have been in on it. Not the published 1000'

I used to fly into Turweston and always made a point of flying over Silverstone just to have a gander. Problem always was that everbody else did the same, so on a saturday it resembled a big wing!

[Fg Off Max Stout]

My point is that Joe public see it as dangerous and that maybe doesn't help aviation in general.

I don't know much about Alaskan crab fishing but I certainly think it looks dangerous. Perhaps policy should be left to those knowledgeable in the field, based on facts, rather than trying to placate those who, from a position of ignorance, think it looks a bit dicey. Maybe greater public exposure to Alaskan crab fishing and low flying operations is the answer.

[powerless]

We get lots of trafic across silverstone including a fair number of military ones and the more the merrier I say. They mil ones are often low level and great to watch but because of the huge number of people here today suprised by this one.

[bArt2]

Like my grandmother used to say, don't fly to high and too fast as if low and slow would be safe :8

[ZH875]

And of course there are lots of large obstacles above Silverstone circuit, must be very dangerous to fly in an open sky.:rolleyes:


Maybe they were just showing LH that he doesn't actually drive that fast after all, or maybe showing 'Big Fin' support to Kimi Räikkönen.

[airborne_artist]

You have to remember that all pilots are experts in steering a stricken aircraft clear of schools, hospitals, homes for the sick and infirm, homes in general, and any large gathering of people :ok:

[Spanish Waltzer]

Was a NOTAM published warning of the "huge number of people" at Silverstone today? If not (as I suspect) then how would the tonker drivers or indeed any other airman be aware???

Silverstone is always going to be chosen as a turning point or nav check feature for the reasons tonker has already pointed out.

[Gainesy]

Did they have red flying suits? Could have been the Kwik Fit Fitters wanting to see yer tyres.

[powerless]

I don't have access to the NOTAMs but would have thought so.

From the responses I guess I won't bother asking anything in future. Thanks

[anotherthing]

Powerless's statement about public perception is a valid one... and answers from the likes of FG Off Max Stout are not exactly helpful.

There have been numerous threads here and on other forums bemoaning the lack of public appreciation and the shoddy treatment our servicemen and women receive compared to days of old.

Whilst probably totally correct regarding the actual safety of the fly past, throw away comments like Max Stouts which belittle members of the public are not the sort of thing that will enhance the perception of the forces.

Silverstone is obviously a high profile place this week - what sort of reaction do you expect to get from ill informed members of the public who are not lucky enough to have flown for the military or even served alongside those who have?

Attitudes like those shown by the minority are one of the reasons why Joe Public does not connect with the Armed Forces today

[green granite]

You get quite a lot of low flying fast pointy things just south of Northampton :ok:

Just a point though, Silverston has an active airfield in it's midst so, unless they had permission to overfly, then it could be dangerous if they caught something taking off.

[Phil_R]

Personally as a non-aviator I find it extremely difficult to judge altitudes by eye. The first time I ever walked up to a Tornado on the ground I was expecting it to be vastly larger, more the size of an F-15, so presumably up to that point I had been overestimating.

Much as I assume average aircrew probably wouldn't be much cop at estimating focus distances, one would not expect a cameraman to do a pilot's job or a pilot to do a cameraman's job...

That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules" which is of course fine until someone puts a fast jet through the side of a tower block in a moment of excess.

P

[12 twists per inch]

Maybe it was Rodders again.........:rolleyes:

[Gainesy]

That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"

Really? On what do you base this statement? Have you ever seen a low level sortie planned or briefed?

[Flap62]

actual safety of the fly past

anotherthing - who said it was a flypast? The original post simply said jets overflew - a very different thing.

[Phil_R]

I couldn't give a rat's rear end about what's said in a briefing, I'm referring to everyone from Colin Strong and Duff Hart-Davis, through Pablo Mason, right up to this very forum where people winkingly say things like "...at about 250 feet...".

I'm not particularly worried; I expect people to know what they're doing and follow the rules where necessary; that said, if you're going to break the rules, you'd better be very sure you know what you're doing.

P

[Background Noise]

Just a point though, Silverston has an active airfield in it's midst so....

There doesn't appear to be a NOTAM out for Silverstone today or until the end of the month so it is unlikely anyone, civil or military, would be aware of any unusual activity. Silverstone is listed as a Heliport and does not appear to attract any sort of ATZ so overflight is quite legal. Likely just to be aircraft routeing through the area.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

My post was, of course, slightly tongue in cheek, but the underlying point is valid.

Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago, the public reaction would most likely have been along the lines of: 'What a fantastic sight! Highly trained professionals going about their job. I'm sure they know what they're doing'.

These days there is a very vocal minority opposing military flying (and numerous other issues) whose opinions are often amplified by the media. Additionally lay persons are more comfortable expressing opinion on subject outside their expertise. Couple that with our modern risk-averse blame-culture, where any opportunity for litigation and compensation is exploited, and we have a problem on our hands.

A few people who, in their maybe well-meaning but ultimately uninformed opinion, consider an overflight to be dangerous, are given credibilty by the media, and before you know it you have a tabloid campaign, a knee-jerk appeasement from MoD and another red dot on the avoids chart, which slowly but surely is expanding into one large UK-shaped avoid.

A recent example would be the Heather Bell / horse / Chinook incident, which resulted in restrictions imposed on RW low flying, which do little to enhance safety, but go some way to temporarily appeasing the objectors, all at the expense of training value. Likewise the recent tabloid outrage over the inclusion of an 'unairworthy' Nimrod in the London flypast.

The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"', although as the Heather Bell saga demonstrated, in many cases the public do not wish to be educated. Should the RAF change its ways to accommodate such a state of affairs?

Perhaps Powerless could explain why exactly some people thought the overflight was dangerous.

Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, I have no idea what the FJs were doing near Silverstone yesterday.

[safe single]

"that said, if you're going to break the rules, you'd better be very sure you know what you're doing."

Damn it, there's a rule book ...? So THAT's where I'm going wrong.

I'm so glad that we have 'knobcheese journos' to keep us on the straight and narrow.

:ugh:

[anotherthing]

Flap 62

I am very aware of the difference in a fly past and an overflight. However in plain Joe Public language, they are one and the same... that's the point.

Joe Public does not understand the rules the military play by and as others have said here it is very difficult to judge distances etc from the ground... even trained aircrew would get it wrong more often than not... though because they have the knowledge, their minds would work slightly differently in that instaed of the first thought being "thats surely not safe" (the way Joe Public would think), a seasoned person would be thinking from the angle that it was a well briefed and executed flight!

It is partly the difference in mindset that is the problem... educating the public is an ongoing task and needs to be done to keep them onside - and more to the point, to get them to rekindle the pride they used to have in the Armed Forces as near back as the 80's.

[Phil_R]

> The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"',

Quite so.

I very much wish someone would write a book as otherwise the only information available to anyone - journo or not - is "Tornado Down" et al (and yes many do mention breaking low flying rules). If you object, counter-publish, please!

But seriously - I've long bemoaned the lack of reference on this subject. It's tough to portray the RAF in popular culture because it's tough to find out how it really works.

P

[dogcharlietree]

From the responses I guess I won't bother asking anything in future. Thanks
Unfortunately powerless, that is what you get these days.
If you ask a decent question and expect an INTELLIGENT answer, well once in a blue moon you may be lucky.
It seems that most posters DO NOT "RTFQ" and go right off on a tangent pushing their own barrow, and obviously have far too much time on their hands.
Please remain on the forum, as every now and then there are useful responses.

I will now put on my flak jacket and batten down the hatches for incoming.

[WorkingHard]

F.O.M.S. "Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago" you are of course quite correct BUT in that time period you did not have the luixury of the whole UK being declared a low fly zone. I believe in general the vast majority of joe public is right behind the services but the arrogance shown by some, including contributors on this thread, just shows why a large amount of contempt is creeping in. Certainly many decades ago the RAF taught that no matter what badge of rank was worn RESPECT still had to be earned. Is that not still the case?

[Postman Plod]

In this day and age, I suspect that 95% of the people at Silverstone for any sort of event will never have seen a low flying military jet, due to living in the middle of a very large built up area such as Brum, London, Manchester, etc. The people most likely to have exposure to military heavy metal are rural dwellers, who probably wouldn't blink at the sight of a low flying jet - however there obviously aren't as many of them, particularly in that part of the world.

With regards to reactions on PPRuNe, you will generally get a serious reply, but only after 15 bone or tongue in cheek replies. Be patient! :}

[Phil_R]

Given the mailbag this is generating I feel the need to elucidate a little further - no I don't object to military low flying, no I don't consider aircrew to be dyed-in-the-wool rebellious rulebreakers and I'm sure nobody at Silverstone knew 500ft from 1000ft - I probably wouldn't.

My only position is that if you're going to complain about people's assumptions that you are breaking the rules, perhaps it's best not to write in books about gleefully doing exactly that.

Personally I think if you're going to sit on top of an animal known for startling at at small, inoffensive happenstances (let alone military aircraft) you probably deserve all you get - but that really would be barrow-pushing.

P

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Phil,

I would tend to agree with your last paragraph (hopefully without appearing too arrogant, unhelpful or bringing the forces into disrepute). The reason I jumped on my high-horse was simply that in recent years where a conflict of interest has arisen between military aviation and the general public, the compromise has been on one side only! I would never say that the likes of Heather Bell deserve what they get, but they must take some personal responsibility for their own safety and risk, rather than simply blaming military aviation. I still see riders without helmets, without the MoD funded high-viz vests, and presumably without having called the MoD low flying hotline, and yet the complaints still roll in.

if ... you are breaking the rules, perhaps it's best not to write in books about gleefully doing exactly that

Some of the examples of RAF 'high spirits' in decades gone by are truly hair raising, but have been in steady decline since the end of WW2. These days there is no tolerance for such antics in civil or military aviation. Pablo may have said 'bugger the rules' on many occasions but look where he ended up. Regardless of your thoughts about the final incident, he stepped outside the rulebook and got his arse chewed for it.

Pablo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7111883.stm)

Professional aviation these days is very 'professional', and what the general public may perceive to be dangerous is most often absolutely safe.

[Phil_R]

You can see hi-vis from a FJ in the Mach loop in time to avoid horsey?

P

[Fg Off Max Stout]

FJs are not my area of expertise, but when flying a fling-wing death banana at 50ft (pre Heather Bell, or 100ft post) a high viz jacket makes a significant difference, and can mean the difference between a direct overflight or 1/2 a mile's spacing.

[microlight AV8R]

I'd like to have been there and spoken in support of our aircrew. Joe public needs to understand that we have people flying war missions on a daily basis in support of troops who are facing some of the most intense combat since Korea.

I have nowt but admiration for those of you who continue to serve :ok:

As for flying over Silverstone, I hope nobody was alarmed a few years back when I overflew said establishment as a waypoint on my QXC :eek:

Now then, when can we expect an FJ foray through Tower Bridge ? :cool:

[AIDU]

I hope nobody was alarmed a few years back when I overflew said establishment as a waypoint on my QXC

Not sure a microlight going backwards due to a stiff headwind could frighten anything.

[MAN777]

A Pilot colleague of mine says a good indicator of 200ft AGL is the sheep leg rule, if you can see sheeps legs then you are at that height or below !

A technique used in low level training I believe.

Probably totally irrelevant to this thread but interesting anyway ! :)

My view of low level fast jets is "bring em on" love watching tornadoes rip through the lake district at obscene heights, really gets me giddy ! (they must be checking out sheeps legs !) Every time I see one I say to myself " Lucky ba****rd !

[londonmet]

oe public needs to understand that we have people flying war missions on a daily basis in support of troops who are facing some of the most intense combat since Korea.

I totally agree. Even if I was sleeping during the day before or after a night duty I wouldn't for one moment be pissed off by being woken up. They're training for active service abroad with limited resources. I would like to think that when flying in the UK training for dets they have the go ahead to train whenever and whereever they wish. To me it's more that looking up seeing and hearing the sound of freedom.

L met

[wg13_dummy]

but feeling from some people who were near said it looked dangerous.

Fcuk 'em.

It would have been a darn sight more dangerous on the track testing tyres.

Unless of course those on the ground at Silverstone were QFIs/CFS/DARS and had a valid opinion of what constitutes 'dangerous'?

And before some rant on about 'we need to make the public aware'. No we don't. We go out of our way to make the public aware of what we do. Watch the news.

[microlight AV8R]

'twas an eye watering 100 (imperiel) mph !!! [EV97 Eurostar] :cool:

[Op_Twenty]

Fast jet pilots don't break the rules - they make them. (Spears inbound!)

Phil_R, if you want to know what jet guys do then PM me and I'll get you up to have a look around the Sqn, maybe talk you through flight planning issues, show you how we do everything we can to avoid upsetting the public etc. Once we lose the low flying areas, we'll never get them back.
And yes, you can see high vis vests in the mach loop.

Flying below 250 ft is incredibly demanding and can be sustained for only short periods of time - areas are allocated for this purpose (Operational Low Flying areas). I've never known of a pilot to fly around continuosly at less than 250 ft without authorisation, he knows the boss would tear him apart for it and that he is also likely to be killed.

Hope that helps.

[AIDU]

is the sheep leg rule, if you can see sheeps legs then you are at that height or below !

What happens if they are lying down?:hmm:

[LateArmLive]

It's ok if they are lying on their backs............

[Derek Booth]

What happens if they are lying down?:hmm:

Repeat after me: "Our Father ....................................."

[AIDU]

Ah I see now.

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3429825.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=D278A15CF533E62CF62B340036F4D767A55A1E4F32AD3138
Good job that sheep is lying on its back as you can't see the others legs in that long grass.

[Phil_R]

Question.

Why do they restrict the low flying areas?

Surely all you're doing is ensuring you concentrate activity over a small number of people, thus pissing them off. It happens once, you glance upward, shrug, and go back to what you were doing. Thrice daily, I can imagine it could begin to irritate, if you have animals, small kids, a night shift, whatever.

I'm working on the assumption that there needs to be some hills and holes to go whizzing through to make it a worthwhile exercise, and you'd rather do it away from populated areas in case someone makes a mistake, which in combination is rare terrain in the UK - is that all it is?

P

[scientia in alto]

Op_Twenty "Flying below 250 ft is incredibly demanding and can be sustained for only short periods of time - areas are allocated for this purpose (Operational Low Flying areas). I've never known of a pilot to fly around continuosly at less than 250 ft without authorisation, he knows the boss would tear him apart for it and that he is also likely to be killed."

Op Twenty, I suggest that area is not Silverstone! I suggest that you do not imply that; however, I am well qualified to suggest that the margins were well pushed.

The chaps in question presumably have completed the FLAC, where future DAs are made well aware that many people have cameras. On a Silverstone testing day, there are more cameras and TV crews than people. I can say that the boys put on a good show today... but I wouldn't risk my Cat (his QFI tick) on a flypast (authorised/unauthorised) that was visually judged (no radalt in a hawk) through an impaired one-eye!


He put on a good show, that was well received in my circle, above the F1 noise of the pit. But twice at 0930 and then again after a trip to the circuit, a flypast of the pits in the early afternoon... that is asking for it!

I wish the boys well, but there are chaps putting themselves on the line in AFG and other places daily, whilst FJ trg boys turn the RAF into a circus! All I ask is that guys should push themselves and their limits, but not for a cheap thrill at the expense of the reputation of the RAF. People are working too hard, for that to be damaged by people hiding in PTC (or what was). Even if it is for a couple of chaps to get an hours fame in the hospitality tent
! That's a cheap gain for 2 guys, lets think bigger picture...

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Max stout

you said that a
"conflict of interest has arisen between military aviation and the general public".

well given that one funds the other - who do you think is going to win long term if they each piss each other off ?

Op_Twenty

You made an offer to Phil_R - is that an open offer?

And the sheep lying on its back with legs wide?
That is taken from the side of a welsh valley. The sheep was not startled by hawks out of Valley, but its welsh boyfriend (who was there just a moment ago) took fright to an overflight - or was it a flypast - or hawks and legged it.

[angels]

A chum of mine is a motorsports enthusiast and was at Silverstone yesterday. The first thing he asked me when he came in this morning was 'Did the Pilots talk about the Hawk at Silverstone yesterday?'

Well you did!

His take on the whole matter was that it was great and that folk who watch Grand Prix races are not averse to whooping at the odd low-flying jet.

He says the crowd loved it.

The Tannoy explanation seems perfectly feasible to me. I would imagine that the stands etc could create the odd bit of updraft occasionally so why not toddle along to check things out?

PS - AIDU - belter of a pic mate!

[Spanish Waltzer]

The commentary said it was a recce for the Reds appearance at the GP, and two RAF flightcrew in green Hawk-patched flightsuits were spotted in the crowd later in the morning, presumably the two from the jet!


Unlikely - the reds display there every year so shouldn't need another recce. If it was the reds then they would be in red hawks and wearing red flying suits when strolling the crowd - don't think they would miss that opportunity!

More likely to be a regular training sortie & suprised if the pilots in question would land & get themselves down to Silverstone in time. Could have just been a coincidence.

Scientia I wish the boys well, but there are chaps putting themselves on the line in AFG and other places daily, whilst FJ trg boys turn the RAF into a circus! All I ask is that guys should push themselves and their limits, but not for a cheap thrill at the expense of the reputation of the RAF. People are working too hard, for that to be damaged by people hiding in PTC (or what was). Even if it is for a couple of chaps to get an hours fame in the hospitality tent
! That's a cheap gain for 2 guys, lets think bigger picture...

not sure what your gripe is but lighten up! ;)

[ShyTorque]

Ah yes, the old sheep's legs altimeter myth.

As my instructor once said to me: "See those sheep - show me their legs, get down there!"

So I got down there....

Suddenly, he yelled "Oh Cripes, pull up, pull up! They're not sheep, they're mushrooms!" :eek:

:ok:

[cheez]

I'm not sure where some of you (who appear to be in the RAF) get off insinuating that the a/c over Silverstone was either too low or flown by a couple of clowns, but let me assure you that the a/c was flown on a regular trg sortie, adhered to all rules and regulations, and was piloted by two consumate professionals.

Gossiping about what happened when you don't have first hand knowledge of what went on is unprofessional, and could prove to damage others careers....don't you know better?

I suggest you stop insinuating facts into something you know nothing about.......

[Ystwyth]

I was on the M40 yesterday afternoon, about 4.30. near Gaydon when overflown by a very low harrier. could there be a connection

[AIDU]

Gossiping about what happened when you don't have first hand knowledge of what went on is unprofessional

This is PPRUNE, some have nothing better to do than gossip about stuff they know nothing about.

[Agaricus bisporus]

May I speculate that the large hazardous objects in the sky above Silverstone that present such danger to the RAF are no more than the over-developed egos of the toy-tech motor racing people at ground level?

If only the public knew when anyone in a fast-mover did something that scared the driver as dangerous... but no, perhaps better not. And how the hell would the public ever know by observing from the outside?

Please file under "circular".

ps. The sheep's leg "myth" is no myth. I was taught by the RN to judge low-flying height by cow's legs visible at 500', sheep's legs visible at 250'. It works.

[Op_Twenty]

Yet me too - by the RN also... (Sheeps personality = 100 ft for OLFing)

[Champagne Anyone?]

I was flying over Silverstone the other day and was horrified to see cars being driven at ridiculously dangerous speeds, well in excess of the national speed limit and only a matter of feet away from crowds of people!

Literally only a few feet away! How irresponsible! Who do these people think they are?

They were hurtling into bends, with the public standing only a few feet away and they didn’t even have any tread on their tyres! My god, what are they playing at?!!

I have seen so much TV coverage in the past and the majority of it shows these cars crashing all the time. Some regularly launching wheels and other heavy body/engine/gearbox parts into the crowds!

Don’t the organisers of such activities know how dangerous that is?

I have a mind to write to someone and let them know how I feel!

Sheer stupidity!! Completely irresponsible if you ask me!





Oh, they were practising for some future event were they? And it was to increase the margins of safety was it? To make them aware of what to expect when they are hurtling round at high speeds in those conditions was it?

I see....








Sounds rather familiar doesn’t it!! :ugh::ugh::E:E

[Alber Ratman]

The British GP @ that place that first held it 60 years ago! - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=259620#post259620)

Better low flying action found here.

Who cares about couple of jets on a transit??:ugh::ugh: