Low flying "victim"?

[newswatcher]

BBC reports(12/6):

"A rider may have been killed in a horse fall after the animal she was riding was spooked by a low-flying military aircraft, police have said. Heather Bell, 38, was riding with two friends on a farm in Lincolnshire when she fell.

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said it was investigating the tragedy after it became apparent that the horse may have been frightened by an RAF aircraft. The accident happened at around 1000 BST on Tuesday as the three friends were riding along a bridleway on Manor Farm, Middle Rasen. Ms Bell was taken to Lincoln County Hospital where she died at around 1215 BST on Wednesday.

The MoD spokeswoman said: "It is a very, very sad incident, and absolute tragedy.

"It is not something that has happened before.

"Lincolnshire police are investigating it and we are fully co-operating because there appears to be a possibility that the horse was frightened by an RAF aircraft."

[CrabInCab]

MOD Spokesperson not quite correct. If my memory serves me correctly there was a similar incident inadvertantly caused by Chinook some years ago. Speaking as a mate who flys and rides this a tragic accident and our condolences go out to Ms Bell's family and friends, I just hope it doesn't lead to a P&SS led witch hunt.

[pohm1]

What sort of witch hunt do you want to avoid? One in which the event is investigated and charges levelled at those found responsible if wrong-doings are discovered?

Maybe it was just high spirits or a bit of larking about, but oh look, whoops someone died.

[BEagle]

Although quite a few things can spook horses, perhaps its just that the sight of an RAF aircraft at low level in the UK is so comparatively rare these days and the horse had never encountered one before, so took fright when it did?

Condolences to the bereaved - a tragedy indeed.

[Soulman]

Same thing happened earlier this year in Aus, only there wasn't a human fatality. Turns out the Yanks were fine-tuning their F-15 display out behind the You Yangs (mountain range behind Avalon), the pilot was low and fast and straight over an estate which was home to some top racing horses. The F-15 scared the hell out of the million dollar sprinters and they went mad. Ran like crazy all over the paddock and the owner found them later that day with huge gashes across their neck. Turns out they'd ran flat out into the 6-foot high barbed wire tipped protection fences and cut themselves to shreds. Poor b*stards. Last I heard the Estate owner was taking the Yanks to court for damages.

Condolencences go out to the family of Ms Bell.

Souls

[Postman Plod]

Pohm1 - out of order. Some Military aircraft fly at low level - thats their job! Its not larking around, its not high spirits! Very very unfortunate that they just happened to fly over a couple of riders, and tragic that one of them was killed. Anything could have spooked the horse, just happend to be an RAF aircraft...

If its not in NOTAMS or anything similar, its worth knowing to avoid the Scottish Borders if at all possible at this time of year, especially in the evenings. The local common ridings take place (Peebles Wednesday night for example), I have seen low flying aircaft around at times during them in the past, and I'd hate to see hundreds of crazy horses taking off!

Plod

[Feck]

Here here Plod. An absolute tragedy.

>> Maybe it was just high spirits or a bit of larking about, but oh look, whoops someone died.

Prat.

[fobotcso]

Pohm1

You're casting a slur on those who train to do this job for real, professionally and, at times, at high cost when the Call to Service comes.

Care to revise your offering?

fob

[T_Handle]

Pohm1 - get back in your box!!!!

low level is a dangerous occupation, many die trying to master it! So no we don't lark about etc etc!!!!

thoughts are with the family and friends concerned and with those aircrew involved.

And as for the comment on P+SS witch hunts, if you have any experience at all you will know that they like to have someone to blame. They rake up every bit of dirt and blow it all out of proportion pointing the finger!

Yes a terrible accident occured, but flying with an out of date headset or the wrong BINA edition didn't cause it!!!

If you don't have any experience of our system or anything constructive to say, then please don't comment at all. And if this was 'fishing', then you are a very sick individual.

T

[M T Room]

My deepest sympathies go to the family of the lady concerned.

pohm 1, u r an *rse!

[Scud-U-Like]

First of all, my sympathies go to the family and friends of Ms Bell.

Secondly, I'm not sure pohm1's remarks deserve some of the responses above. We know the vast majority of aircrew use the low flying system in a highly professional and responsible way and, in any case, the system is so tightly regulated, there is limited scope for abuse. That is not to say, abuses never occur.

There is still a common misconception that military aircrew simply jump into their aircraft, take off and have a good blast around the countryside (the lower, the better). One way to maintain public confidence in military low flying is to ensure that, where it may have led to a fatality (however tenuously), the matter is thoroughly investigated. I don't think slagging-off P&SS is helpful. If they're being honest, most aircrew will tell you that, in low flying investigations, they get a pretty fair deal from P&SS.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Well I come from a Mid Wales farming background. The vast vast majority of complaints and claims by farmers are false. Its simply another way of complaining and making a living.

In this instance - assuming the horse bolted due to the jet - surely the risk is taken by the rider and therefore there is no claim?

The animal could have been equally spooked by a gas crow scarer behind an adjacent hedge, a farmers shotgun, a clap of thunder, a car alarm or any other myriad possibilities.

As a horse rider I accept there is risk in what is a recreational pursuit. Low flying aircraft being obviously one of those risks.

WWW

[BEagle]

WWW - funnily enough, when the UK LFS was extended back in the late 1970s, many farmers cottoned on to the fact and submitted claims for livestock damage resulting from exposure to low flying ac. One rogue even tried to make a claim until it was pointed out that his farm had always been in the LFS!

Some animals seem de-sensitised by exposure to ac noise - but I did once query the sanity of a group of riders who were exercising a string of racehorses along the road past the threshold at the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase just as I was about to commit aviation in one of HM's Vickers WhisperJets!

Funniest equine incident I witnessed at Brize was when the local hunt was chasing a fox towards the fence. The fox, being somewhat brighter than the average huntsman, nipped under the fence whilst a few tons of sweating self-propelled dogmeat came to a screeching halt with much cursing, swearing, tooting of horns and baying of hounds. The MFH knew that the base was off limits, so the hounds weren't allowed under the wire. The fox clearly knew this as well, so it decelerated to a walk, then slowly looked all round before crapping imperiously in the middle of the taxiway as if to say "F*ck the lot of you!".

[pohm1]

To those who have taken my comments out of context, I will attempt to clarify.

Low flying is essential to aircrew training, couldn't agree more, if the RAF is to remain the at the top of the ladder.

My point was the reference to a witch hunt by P&SS, if you have done nothing wrong, stuck to the min alt for the sortie and flown the approved route, P&SS will have no case to press, and most P&SS investigators, contrary to popular opinion, are happiest with that result. As for raking up dirt, well they can only do that if there is dirt to be found.

If the aircrew are blameless then it is an unfortunate incident with terrible consequences, if not, well as always, its all fun and games until someone loses an eye, or a life.

Maybe those Aircrew(US?) that did an unapproved low level burn under the ski lift a few years back can help to shed some light on why low level training get such bad press-the few idiots that ruin it for the majority.

I was casting no slurs, nor was I fishing for reaction, I am not revising my offering, but merely clarifing it.

[henry crun]

Same sort of thing happened at Stradishall many years ago Beagle.

Only difference being on that occasion a rider hurdled the fence, galloped round the peri track, drew up outside air traffic and asked the controller to stop flying while the hunt went through.

The reply was similar to that of the fox in your story.

[pohm1]

Having done a little digging on the Military Aircrew threads some of you may be interested in:

1/ Shocking Example of Low Flying-7 pages of photos and videos of military pilots doing low level beat ups over roads/hangars etc with many contributors, obviously either serving or ex-mil extolling the virtues of such antics.

2/ Low Level Omani Jets-5 pages of similar threads to above.

These stories make for fantasitc telling in the mess after a couple of sherberts. Most of the tales and pics are nothing more than daring-do, and seem to be commended by all on the thread but as soon as a life is lost you resort to the Queen and Country argument. I have served, I have more than a little experience of the Military, Low Flying and P&SS investigations. As I said before its all fun and games until someone loses an eye, or a life.

Your training is necessary to become a well rounded combat pilot, but if some chose to take it faster/lower than they ought, well they may have to face the music, or the witch hunt, which ever you prefer to call it.

[2 TWU]

I was once investigated by P&SS after supposedly spooking a horse and cart, child driver thrown out of the back, broken arm etc. Yes we were there, totally legally but not flying in the manner alleged by the complainant.

P&SS were excellent, managed to prove the kid lost control of the horse 5 mins before we overflew, arm not broken (pictures of said child shovelling horse **** 1 week after incident). Also, am personally aware of the way the plods went about the many low flying complaints we got at Chiv, all propoerly handled with no witch hunts.

So, I'm sure other people have different tales to tell but in my experience P&SS have always been correct and proper when investigating complaints, credit where credits due.

[MajorMadMax]

First, my condolences to Ms Bell’s friends and family, a loss of life is unfortunately in any situation.

I strongly support the concept of low-level training for survivability, but we cannot ignore incidents such as the USMC EA-6B that killed 20 skiers in the Dolomites back in Feb 1998. The plane was reportedly at 300 to 500 feet (90 to 150 meters) when it clipped the cable. Recall that the pilot in this case also destroyed a videotape of the incident.

I am not insinuating that the a/c caused the horse to throw its rider, I have seen a horse spooked by a simple bicycle; but it is best that we let the investigative process take place and all the facts are known before we start the witch hunt! Luckily the aircraft in question will have recorded evidence of its location, speed and altitude at the time of the incident. It will be up against the “testimony” of the two friends.

Cheers! M2

[MightyGem]

I was once accused of flying so low as to break panes of glass in a conservertory with my downwash. I was most disappointed that the DCFI who had me in didn't hot foot it around to inspect the damage.

Henry Crun, you must have a very good memory if you can remember when Stradishall was operational!

[DummyRun]

Again, condolences to family and friends of Ms Bell,

I noticed on this thread that a couple of posters admitted to doing a bit of 'donkey-whalloping' themselves, I too have to confess to having 'thrown a leg' over a horse once or twice, and yes some were 4 legged.

Whilst accidents will always sadly happen, a bit of education/explanation never goes amiss, why don't those of us that do a bit of both put somthing together and offer it to the Horsey mags, hopefully between us we could cover FJ, ME and rotary types.

WWW, CinC, thoughts... by PM if you'd prefer.

[jumpseater]

Dummy, potentially a good idea but having dealt with noise and low flying complaints there are potential problems,

It must be structured very carefully so as not to give the impression that every single complaint can be fully investigated, and briefly outline technical reasons why this may be so, radar coverage and terrain masking, flight data recordings etc :suspect:.

In discussions and articles you are raising the profile of the issue, which in itself may lead to additional complaints. Due to technical limitations ie some of the first para issues, you may end up with unsatisfied complainants, writing to their local MP's courts etc, and then getting a couple of quid to restore the stately pile under your flight path/LFA. :mad: This in turn could breed further complaints etc etc......:uhoh:

And why should they be in tins?, one stood on my foot :uhoh:, I've been in a car accident with one :ouch: (no rider), and they cost me a chuffing fortune cos my daughter rides every week!:{

Sincere condolances to Ms Bells family and friends.

[FOFG]

MajorMadMax,

A few facts about the Aviano mishap. The briefed, via the USAF operational chain, and allowed altitude was 200' AGL. The pilot did not destroy a video tape nor tamper with any evidence.

As a supposedly serving U.S. field grade officer you should at a minimum do the basic research before disparing someone publicly and passing on on outright lies and/or distortions in a public forum.

S/F, FOFG

[BEagle]

Once when I was working in Wattisham Ops, we had a noise complaint. It seems that late on a hot summer evening, T*ny-the-P**f had led a 3-ship of F4s back from the North Sea at low level.

That was certainly 'unnecessary low flying'. No tactical value whatever in 5 minutes low level at that time of night 'just because we can' - the complaint was justified, to my mind. But, of course, we told the complainer that this was a valid military training exercise; however, we'd avoid his location next time......

[pohm1]

With an attitude like that BEagle, what confidence can the public have in any military investigation, or the abiltity for the military to be responsible in policing it's own?

If the complaint was justified why not have enough spine to stand up to those responsible for making genuine low flying training more and more difficult for the public to accept?

[newswatcher]

The pilot did not destroy a video tape nor tamper with any evidence Interesting choice of words FOFG!

In fact Capt R. Ashby, the pilot was jailed for 6 months and dismissed the service in May 1999, for "obstruction of justice" in helping hide the video taken from the aircraft. He was earlier acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. His navigator Capt J Schweitzer was also dismissed for his part in the incident. Although Ashby removed the video, he insists he gave it to Schweitzer, who later burnt it.

Reports state that at the point of impact, the cable was 370ft(113m) above the ground. The pilots were using US maps which did not show the cable run, although it was installed in 1966. It was also put before the court that the altimeter in the Prowler was malfunctioning.

[orionsbelt]

On May 29th at around 1730ish visiting a farm NE of York, one of your Tornado mates flying the terrain not too low and not flat out
(wings at mid sweep) passed near to a field with a group of horses, they went balistic. All looked normal low flying to me.
(JAA CPL/FI)
The horses were very unhappy and it took a good few minutse for them to calm down. Not much you can do about that other than offer the land owners the chance of having the local area charted as a sensitive area. Then that would be the end of Low flying in the UK.

[MajorMadMax]

FOFG

I am still waiting for your reply...

M2

In fact Capt R. Ashby, the pilot was jailed for 6 months and dismissed the service in May 1999, for "obstruction of justice" in helping hide the video taken from the aircraft. He was earlier acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. His navigator Capt J Schweitzer was also dismissed for his part in the incident. Although Ashby removed the video, he insists he gave it to Schweitzer, who later burnt it.

[FOFG]

Newswatcher,

He was convicted them later acquitted on appeal during the second court martial. The charges on the 2nd were conduct unbecoming for allowing his wife to speak to the media and his one interview with a news organization (I do not remember which one). There were no allegations that he passed anything but the truth during the interview and he was under no orders not to speak to the press at the time of the interview. The charge of destruction of justice was also overturned.

The video camera, and the tape produced, in the cockpit was owned by Capt. Schweitzer (ECMO 1). The tape removed by Capt. Ashby was a mission tape. The tape removed by Capt. Ashby was properly secured in accordance with is security classification. The tape removed by Capt. Ashby had no video, it was automatically encrypted, and the only tampering was when the Italians attempted to view and did not have the proper equipment. The last time the mission tape was in Capt. Ashby’s possession was the day of the mishap when he signed it over to proper authority.

It is a matter of record that Capt. Schweitzer destroyed his own tape three days after the mishap and that he had his tape in his possession the whole time.

The briefed altitude to USMC units at Aviano prior to this event was 200’ agl. The USAFE updates for the USMC dets were placed in a box in the transient aircrew base operations room, which was not utilized by the detachments. The crew was trained and certified to 200’ agl. The charts did not have the cable car listed, the CHUM did not have it listed, and the CHUM updates did not have it listed.

While executing the ridge crossing in a port roll the gondola came into view. The visual acuity calculations say 3-5 seconds before impact with the Gondola. Capt. Ashby put the stick forward left, then right rear with full right rudder to clear the terrain. The flight path re-construction verified that if the jet had not hit cable that initiated the hard yaw to starboard and nose up the acft would not have cleared the terrain. Both the visual acuity and the flight path data work-ups were initiated by the prosecution.

The altimeter was the radar altimeter, not used during low levels by the EA6-Bs. It was not an essential requirement for the conduct of the low level. The fact that it was brought up in the normal post mishap maint. inspection was seized upon by the prosecution, even though the DSS personal told the prosecution that the radalt was irrelevant. It appears that the defense just let the prosecution expend lots of pointless effort. The barometric altimeter, which was and is a requirement, was by all accounts in an up status.

M2,

Rather busy on in a different time zone. Statements still stand.

All,

I do not, have never flown, nor ever been attached to an EA6-B unit. I apologize for taking the thread down a different path.

S/F, FOFG

[MajorMadMax]

FOFG

So both individuals should still be on flying status within the USMC, right? If not, then why? Based on what you have reported, they have been fully cleared of all charges.

M2

[newswatcher]

FOFG, you post with reason and authority, but I find it necessary to challenge your statements. :confused:

There were only two courts martial reported for Capt Ashby. The first concerned the charges of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide, which were dismissed on March 4 1999. The second concerned charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, for which he was jailed for 6 months(May '99). He served 5 months of this sentence, and was released from Camp Lejeune on October 2nd. I have seen no subsequent reports of a successful appeal, either for this, or his dismissal from the service.

Regarding the videotape, during his trial Ashby admitted that he had removed the videotape from the aircraft, and replaced it with a blank. I believe it was actually his video camera, but only operated by Schweitzer during the flight. Schweitzer knew he had filmed himself smiling into the camera, and thought this would go against him if the tape was subsequently used. Not sure when they were advised of the fatalities, but seems surprising that the "switching" of this tape was one of their first priorities after landing!

[MajorMadMax]

reason and authority??

Is that what you call someone who is wrong?

FOFG has yet to admit his mistake and apologize his ignorant comments, and I doubt he ever will. That is pretty poor conduct from a Marine, and I am glad that the Marines that I work with have more intestinal fortitude than this guy.

M2

[FOFG]

Condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Bell. I apologize for my participation in letting this thread getting off-topic.

M2,

I will apologize for not spending all the time on the internet. Just to
keep your panties from bunching up I'll be out of pocket for a little while,
though other folks will keep an eye on this for me while I'm gone.

ECMO 3, from another squadron was the 1st back on flt. status and
relatively quickly. ECMO 1 and 2 both were grounded for a period of time
with I believe ECMO 2 getting back his status 1st. Both ECMO 1 and 2 had
promotions withheld but were not allowed to resign and get on with their
lives. By 2000 or 2001 both had their records completely cleared, with back
dated promotions and pay. I do not know their current status.

Capt. Ashby's appeal was not heard until after he released from the brig.
His discharge was upgraded, whether to an honorable or general under
honorable I am not sure. I do know there were issues after the appeal and
change of status the legal status on his discharge, i.e. what were his in
active reserve obligations.

If I get some orders to Tx. as an active duty I&I we can arrange a
meeting. The lack of intestinal fortitude by someone who has not done the
research and makes further accusations on the basis someone not having a
chance to post for a few days is contemptible. I seriously doubt that the
Marines you work with know the facts, and if they do I will call them a POS
to their face.

News,

When he left the brig he was obviously a Private (E-1). After the appeal
his rank was re-instated. I did not get involved in this part of the
process. I later learned the fates of Capt. Ashby and ECMOs 1-3 in due
course, having briefly worked with one during OEF planning.

The prosecution went after the video camera the same way they went after
the radalt. The prosecution tried to use the personal camera standard of
the EA6-B RAG which is a Navy unit governed under different regulations
(COMNAVAIRPAC). The AIRPAC rule said either the sqdn or wing CO had to give
permission to use the camera. The governing regulations for USMC is their
respective Wing, basically states it is up to the aircraft commander but not
to interfere with either flight safety or mission accomplishment. His
actual statement was to the effect that it was his authority. Still not his
camera. He admits to taking the mission tape. The stories diverge between
the aircrew as to who was present (ECMO 3's story changes depending on which
court and statement) and what was said relative to the tapes disposition.
ECMO 3's story changed the most. All were in agreement that Capt.
Schweitzer on either the 3rd or 4th day presented to the other three that he
had destroyed (burned) the tape. While I do not know for a fact what was on
the tape, and the bet is hollow at this juncture, I believe the flight and
flight related portions to be irrelevant.

This begs the further question is with the existence of the video tape
known to the investigators wasn't it asked for until well after it was
burned.

One of the other things the prosecution took an unreasonable interest in
was the accusation of low level aerobatics. They used the 3710 definitions
w/o the caveats. The caveats being break and tactical maneuvers. As far as
I know all witness statements of aircraft movement conform to LATT
maneuvers.

What they didn't look at very hard, and in my and others who have had a
close look should have, was the authorization. Capt. Ashby hadn't flown a
LATT or LL in approx. 13 months (from memory) and that was in E. NC, the
route was basically feet dry due W 150 NM, S. 20-50 nm, then due E. until
feet wet again w. little vertical terrain. In the interim he had been
turning circles enforcing no-fly zones. The T&R (training and readiness)
manual still listed the flights as a 90 day re-fly criteria w/o instructor
and then you had to have the flight in similar (desert, mountains, etc)
terrain. A draft T&R gave the re-fly as 12 months and the previous flight
could have been in any terrain. The CO has the discretion to waive the
re-fly/work-up. Initially the request was for two flights, one
warm-up/refresher and the 2nd to the lower altitudes. One was scheduled.
No firm answers on why, let alone apportioning blame.

NATOPS and DSS aviators who looked into it calculated the visual acuity
would have been 4-7 seconds. Not enough data was generated to attempt to
calculate whether there was enough time to arrest the roll and arrest the
rate of descent with a negative g push would have cleared the cable/Gondola.

As far as my personal involvement with the individuals, I have seen Capt.
Ashby once in my life and would only recognize one of the ECMOs from working
with him a year ago.



S/F, FOFG

[newswatcher]

FOFG, once again a very detailed response, for which I am grateful, since I have no inside knowledge and have to rely on contemporary reports, of which there are quite a lot!

However, on his website in "unauthorised" defence of Schweitzer http://www.michaeljdavis.com/mountc.htm
there is the following quoteAs of November 6, 2001, Schweitzer is still awaiting for a just resolution of his appeal of this verdict which seems to contradict what you say.

As I previously stated, I can find no record of anything reported for Ashby after his release from jail. If he has now been exonerated, I find it extraordinary that there has been no public confirmation of this, particularly on CNN, which had followed this case avidly. It is almost as if the records of these two have been expunged after October 1999.

[MajorMadMax]

FOFG

You had problems with my original post, so I went back and tried to figure out what was wrong with it.

I mentioned the "...USMC EA-6B that killed 20 skiers in the Dolomites back in Feb 1998." The aircraft was a USMC EA-6B and 20 individuals were killed. Regardless of the circumstances behind it, the accident did happen.

Secondly, I stated that the plane was "reportedly between 300' and 500' when it clipped the cable." You replied that the "allowed altitude was 200' AGL." OK, no dispute, I never claimed that they were below minimums, if anything the numbers I stated confirmed they were above them. Newswatcher reported that the aircraft was repotedly at 370', again above the minimum.

Lastly, I stated "Recall that the pilot in this case also destroyed a videotape of the incident." Newswatcher reported that "during his trial Ashby admitted that he had removed the videotape from the aircraft, and replaced it with a blank. I believe it was actually his video camera, but only operated by Schweitzer during the flight. Schweitzer knew he had filmed himself smiling into the camera, and thought this would go against him if the tape was subsequently used." OK, I did make an error here. Although Ashby removed the video, he insists he gave it to Schweitzer, who later burnt it; a point that you also made.

Now those were the only comments concerning the Cavalese incident I made. If you have time to reply, let me know which of these facts were incorrect, I would like to know so I don't repeat them. I am sure you will keep your response professional, as I have tried to do.

M2

[Megaton]

Hey MMM,

You'v got wayyy too much time on your hands!

[MajorMadMax]

Howdy Ham!

Just causing trouble, as usual...:}

Cheers! M2

[FOFG]

Newswatcher and M2,

I am back in and trying to catch up.

M2,

It is the quote that the pilot destroyed the tape and the insinuation in the same paragraph that the pilot was flying lower than allowed by regulation. If you had no intention of insinuating that the aircraft was lower than allowed than I am apologizing for sounding off on the latter. On the former you were completely mistaken and out of line.

It is interesting that both lead prosecuting JAGs on either of Ashby’s Courts Martial are in agreement about the video camera. Both were in agreement that the camera was owned, operated by, and the tape was destroyed by Capt. Schweitzer. Both are in agreement that the crew attempted to turn the tape in on the day of and day after the event. They were precluded from turning in the tape as there was no one to turn it into, the investigation was being run from above the DOD’s head. The tape was not asked for until 3-4 weeks after the event.

Again the only tape Capt. Ashby removed and replaced with a blank, as he should have after any normal flight, was the mission tape. The same one alleged to have been tampered with when it was only encrypted.

Capt. Ashby appealed the conviction on the second court martial. Normally an officer or SNCO is allowed to remain free until the 1st appeal is heard unless the offense was of a violent nature. Capt. Ashby’s appeal wasn’t heard until after he had served his six months. It was overturned. He chose an administrative separation under honorable conditions. That allowed him to leave the service w/o any obligation. Otherwise he was still under obligated service and the best he could have gotten was an honorable discharge but with reserve obligations to serve. After his treatment I do not blame him.

News,

Capt. Schweitzer was the mission commander, the mission planner, the navigator, and it was his camera, etc.

I do not know if Capt. Schweitzer is still serving. I left CONUS Oct. 01 (thinks were getting interesting around the world). Between Sept. 11 and 1st week of Oct 01 I had a conversation about Capt. Schweitzer’s lack of promotion. The condensed version is he wasn’t promoted and evidently thought the Aviano incident had something to do with this. His involvement was to ignored and his career was to be looked at on it’s merits w/o any consideration of Aviano. That is the only appeal that I am aware of that could be ongoing.

S/F, FOFG

[WorkingHard]

Perhaps it is time in this very crowded country and also very crowded skies to call a halt to ALL low level ops except in clearly defined areas. I do not mean the whole of the UK as a clearly defined area either. There are a number of instances referred to above that do not show the low level pilots in a good light and recognition must be given to the views of the people affected by this type of operation. To suggest that all is correct and above board is clearly total rubish and needs to be admitted and transgressors "sorted" for the benefit of all. May I ask a simple question? Where your mobile radar is set up to detect breaches of height restrictions why do you find it necessary to promulgate by one means or another where this is to be situated and when? Hardly seems to be all above board does it?
It is very sad indeed that a person should die as a result of the mount she was riding being spooked. Whether that is the result of a low level a/c or not is not yet known and we should treat it as such.
Low level FJ over populated areas in the dead of night is frankly just plain stupid and will inevitably alienate the very people you are supposed to be working for.

[Scud-U-Like]

WorkingHard

Military low flying is restricted to 'clearly defined areas'. The (low level) skies in these areas are not very crowded. Densely populated areas are generally not open to low flying. In those areas where low flying does take place, it is very strictly regulated, in order to spread any nuisance as equitably as possible.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly where details relating to the movements of the mobile radar you refer to are promulgated in advance.

Fast jets are prohibited from low level flying 'in the dead of night'.

For more information, see:

http://www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying/index.html

[WorkingHard]

SUL thank you for the information and the link. I cannot find anything in the MOD site that says no FJ at night. Perhaps I am not looking in the correct place. In any event thare are very many people in my part of the world that would disagree that FJ do not fly low at night. As for the advance warning of the radar sites, at a public meeting about 3 years ago after an an accident to a low level FJ an officer of air rank and an MOD official apologised to the audience that this was in fact the case. As I understood it, and no doubt you will correct any misunderstanding, the whole of the UK was declared a military low fly zone sometime in the 1970s.
PLEASE tell me I am wrong on all counts.

[Scud-U-Like]

WorkingHard

My pleasure. The link states:

"At night, we require low flying training to be completed as early as possible and only very rarely will we permit military jet aircraft to operate after 11pm." For 'only very rarely', read 'pretty much never'.

With regard to 'Skyguard' (the mobile radar you refer to), the link states:

"Generally, Skyguard deploys to a different location monthly and monitors activity over a four-day period. Flying stations are not given advance notice of Skyguard deployments or the locations chosen."

That is not to say that, sometime during a Skyguard deployment, aircrew will not learn, by word of mouth, where the system is deployed, just as, for example, car drivers may eventually learn where a road traffic speed trap has been set up.

The link continues:

"The total land mass of England, Scotland and Wales is 229,961 km2 (88,788 sq mls). Since military low flying training cannot be conducted in controlled airspace and other areas listed for avoidance, 38,343 km2 (14,804 sq mls) of the total land mass is unavailable. The remaining airspace is divided into 19 Low Flying Areas, some of which have been designated as Dedicated User Areas. Access to these areas is not generally available to units other than the dedicated user.

Excluding the Dedicated User Areas, the total usable overland area of the UK Low Flying System is 179,259 km2 (69,212 sq mls). Within that area, we endeavour to distribute low flying as equitably as we possibly can. But, however hard we try, there will never be a time when the activity can be truly evenly spread. There are a number of reasons of this, each of which will influence, to varying degrees, where low flying training will be carried out."

So, as you can see, the whole of the UK is not a military low flying zone.

[WorkingHard]

SUL - once again many thanks for the detailed response. You clearly belive in your reply but I have to say firstly that FJ after 11pm are a fact of life. They may not be at 250 ft but even at say 1000ft and 450k they make a hell of a noise in the dead of night.

As for Skyguard being compared to speed cameras then i should tell you that ALL speed camera equipment has to be notified as in use 3 weeks beforehand with locations published.

Your definition of the low fly zone is interesting. Of course you cannot use controlled airspace (although from the incident reports it seems that you inadvertantly do from time to time) and of course you cannot use other designated military areas where you may come into conflict with say a stray rocket or shell, which leaves effectively the rest of the populated areas of the UK. By most reasonable people's defention this is the whole of the UK. I understand the need for training in techniques that are very exacting and require practise to perfect but what I am also trying to understand is why you cannot do this in a special use area. This thread earlier referrred to other forces use of our low fly zones on a reciprocal basis; is it not the case that most other countries have special use area for this? Certainly the USA does, so are USAF a/c restricted to such an area here?

[MightyGem]

One thing that I've noticed on my few trips to the US, is that they have vast unpopulated areas that can be set aside for low flying. Can't think of any similar areas in the UK.

[ORAC]

WorkingHard,

We used to have such a system.

The level of complaints from those living in the nominated areas caused the government of the day to replace with the present system to share the noise more equitably.

How would you like it if a change back to such restricted areas was proposed and you found yourself living under one?

[bjcc]

I think you will find that P&SS investigating any breach of low flying regs are the least of the crews worries. The local Police will be investigating the matter as a sudden death, RAF Plod may well assist in tracing the crew concerned, but if they crew were doing something they shouldn't then the civil police will probably be looking at offences such as manslaughter. Now before you chew me a new bottom, I am not saying they did anything wrong, thats the object of an investigation, to find out what happened.
Yes Mil aircraft do have to train to fly low, and if they did everything they should have done then there is no problem, accidents happen, and no one can foreseen a horse and rider being in the wrong place at the wrong time nor the nags response to the aircraft.

[Scud-U-Like]

WorkingHard

Low flying for fjs means from 250ft (100ft in tactical training areas) to 2000ft agl. Fjs above 2000ft may be 'noisy', but they ain't low flying, either by the MOD's definition or, I would suggest, by that of any reasonable person.

Regarding your point about speed cameras, even if it were correct, so what? I was merely illustrating how word might travel, about the positioning of Skyguard. The fact remains, aircrew are not given advance notice about the areas to which Skyguard will be deployed. If they were, don't you think it would have topped the bill on this Forum by now?

All areas of concentrated population, from large conurbations, right down to individual towns (with a population of 10,000 or more) are mandatory low flying avoidance areas and are included in the 14,804 square miles of the UK that are not open to military low flying.

What sort of 'special use area' for military low flying do you suggest ? ORAC and MightyGem (above) have explained why this would not be practical in the UK.

[WorkingHard]

SUL - again my thanks for the response. I am no more than trying to understand and elicit the reasons, the rules etc. it is a very emotive issue amongst the population at large and an issue that needs to be understood by as many as possible. If we take a simple question that I have heard in more than one crew bar - "Why do you need to practise when you have TFR. A machine does not need practise" Yes I can understand the response that will arise BUT please remember it is non military aviators and the public that need more information.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

WorkingHard

Is this the response you expected?

1. As far as I am aware, only the GR4 Tornado has TFR, the rest of us paupers have to do without. This means flying it ourselves!!

2. What happens if halfway through a mission the TFR fails - somebody has to mantronically fly the thing back home.

Low flying is an essential skill to military pilots of all operational aircraft types, whether Hercules in the tactical role, Harriers in a close air support role or Seakings on Search and Rescue duties.

I disagree that low flying is such an emotive subject with the general public, many couldn't give a toss and are quite happy to wave as we fly by. Those that complain often have legitimate gripes, but many are after a quick buck or are professional complainers.

I am not sure what your point is, but I can assure you that the rules that are inplace are stringent, complaints are investigated thoroughly by the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team from Henlow, and rule breakers are dealt with seriously.

I can also assure you that the postion of the Skyguard radar is not divulged; the positions of the many hundreds of sensitive areas and avoids are though.

HPT

[WorkingHard]

HPT - Well responded but WOW
"I disagree that low flying is such an emotive subject with the general public, many couldn't give a toss and are quite happy to wave as we fly by. Those that complain often have legitimate gripes, but many are after a quick buck or are professional complainers"
Perhaps the "wave" that you see would by others be classed as a "gesture" and as for those who may not give a toss then maybe they are part of your team or have never experienced it. I cannot see where the quick buck might arise but no doubt someone will enlighten me as to how low flying can benefit someone's pocket.
For those, in your words, that have legitimate gripes, please tell us what may cause such a legitimate gripe and what is done to address such matters.

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Working Hard

You are very wrong. I have been with an aircraft to many public events such a airshows, town shows and village fetes. Invariably the response has been positive from the publice and the 'gesture' has been of friendliness and not a 2 fingered salute.

Those with genuine complaints (perhaps gripes was the wrong word to use) often live in areas where the amount of low flying has increased dramatically as the size of the Armed Forces has reduced in size, leading to more intensive flying operations from the bases that remain open.

You can also trust me when I say that some complainants do so to make a quick buck. Believe it or not, I have exerienced retired police officers in Northern Ireland buying land next to very busy landing sites and putting horses on it in order to make claims against the MOD. I have many other examples of such activity.

As I have said, any complaints are investigated by the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team from Henlow and if individuals are found to have acted in anything but a most professional capacity they are disciplined. I have seen punishments ranging from CO's b()llocking, to fines, to Courts Martial.

I would be interested what your experiences of low-flying disruption/disturbance have been. Perhaps you are just unfortunate to live in one of those busy areas I have already mentioned. If this is the case, why not speak to the Community Relations Officer at your nearest base, you may be surprised that he will actually listen to you and will, if feasible, take any points that you have forward for action.

HPT

[Mr Nitrox]

Well said HPT.

Regarding cashing in, there was also the case of the South Armagh Cow back in the late 80's, which was carted around to several farms for the RUC to investigate. MOD paid out several times before the thing got a bit wiffy and somebody sussed.

I knew a couple of the guys who where crew on the Chinook which caused a rider to be thrown with fatal consequences back in the early 90's. They were perfectly legal, doing their thing and never saw the horse and rider, though a crewman saw a riderless horse as they flew onward... Often (for helicopters) you make more noise and cause greater distress to livestoke by aggresively maneuvering to avoid them, especially after a late spot (blade slap). We learned it was easier, safer and quieter to lift the nose and overfly them in the climb. Just my two cents.

[tony draper]

A few years back my nephew went on a visit to Chillingham to take a look at famous herd of white cattle, guide told them to creep up and be very quiet as the cattle are wild and very nervous.
A couple of F3s came over at zero feet as they are apt to do in Northumerland, and my nephew said most of the kids had accidents in their breeches with fright, the cattle did not even flinch or look up but continuded with the business of scarfing
grass.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Living on the Southern edge of Dartmoor, we get a fair amount of exercise activity in the summer, but not nearly as much as there used to be about 10 years ago. Most of the mates respect the 250 ft agl rule, but occasionally someone "cuts the corner" over the top of the minor ridge on which we are perched. This may cause us to cry " shyyyyyit!" and run outside - invariably too late to spot the offender. The cattle in the field below us are quite unmoved. I was talking to a lady about a mile from here who is a horse-trainer (dressage and all that). She thought that much depends on the temperament of the horse and its familiarity with sudden loud noises. Her last establishment had been next door to Biggin Hill and her horses soon learned to ignore aircraft noise. She agreed with me when I suggested that many of the horses being ridden around the lanes near here are barely under the control of their riders who are often young ladies making a fashion statement. In my car, I have learned to stop and pull over and let the rider pass in his/her own time. A neighbour had a horse rear up and stamp on the bonnet of his brand new BMW. :*

[PlasticCabDriver]

Have to agree about the animals simply getting used to the noise, there is a riding school under the centre line inside a mile on finals to 19 at Benson, and the horses there dont even bother looking up any more.