Woman Killed.

[Rob_L]

A woman our horse riding has been killed in Lincolnshire following an incident with an Chinook. The Chinook was reported as flying so low near to the party of three women that the grass was blowing around them. All three horses bolted with one woman being thrown from her horse. She died later from head injuries. She has left two young children.

The Market Rasen area where the accident happened has a number of horse establishments and it's well known race course. It should have been avoided but clearly wasn't. I suppose the only real surprise is that there are not more deaths of this type. This is not an isolated incident in this area with low flying military aircraft operating with little concern for the havoc they leave in their wake. Maybe a conviction or two for endangering life might cause military crews to sharpen up their act.

[Specnut727]

You'll find more discussion on this and similar incidents in Military Aircrew - Low Flying "Victim" ?

[Pub User]

Some harsh words Rob L.

We all agree, such instances are appalling tragedies, and I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of the lady concerned.

However, you make some serious implications. 'The Market Rasen area should be avoided', for example. The area is not unique in the fact that it has a lot of horse establishments, and I'm sure it is liberally scattered with low-level avoids on military charts. Are you implying that this incident occurred within the boundaries of one of them?

As for the 'low flying military aircraft operating with little concern for the havoc they leave in their wake', I cannot think of any statement further from the truth. I am quite disgusted that anyone could post such an ignorant remark on a bulletin-board intended for professionals.

The crew in question will most certainly have to explain themselves, quite possibly in a court of law. Should any negligent or malicious acts be uncovered then the convictions you seek may well materialize.

In the meantime, I'm sure all military crews would be very grateful of your clearly expert advice as to how exactly they could 'sharpen up their act'.

[SASless]

Now Pub.....ease up.....he knows not what he says! If he happened to be in that cockpit seat (now hot seat) he might have a different tune to sing. He probably doesn't know the full details....nor the precautions Military crews take in planning the flights....etc.....and in all liklihood he owns a walking manure maker himself and wears one of those funny hats while riding out. Hopefully, in time, he will learn to gather all the facts before hurling spears.

Reminds me of something once said to me...."I say Old Chap, it is 'Tally Ho! ....not....There goes the MotherF:mad: r !"

[B Sousa]

You can bet in this world today that the Helicopter Crew is Sweating Bullets. This wont be settled anytime soon and Im sure that the Lawyers are spreading their wings while sitting on the fence.

[Crashondeck]

I heard of a story of a horse rider being paralysed after her horse was spooked by a low flying helo. It seems that this sort of thing is happening more often than it should.

I'm sure that lawyers are sharpening their pencils.

I'm equally certain that there are two helo jockey's that are clenching their sphinkters.

But who should be in court - the pilots for doing their jobs (assuming they were authorised to be doing what they were) or their superiors / policy makers who allow military low flying in equine hot spots?

If my memory serves me, Market Rasen and the location of the incident above lie within military AIAA. Maybe AIAA should be located in more remote areas. Lincolnshire and Vale of York perhaps no longer suitable?

Lets hear some thoughts from those in the hotseats.......

[Pub User]

Horse riders often get paralysed; it's an exceptionally dangerous sport.

I've personally met several of these people. Their horses were 'spooked' by such things as traffic, people, dogs, flies, and apples falling from trees. The only aircraft involved was the one I took them to hospital in.

[Blue Rotor Ronin]

Have to agree with the pub man, some horses are spooked by just about anything you can imagine and a large proportion of what you can't... Nailing the crew to the cross isn't going to bring the poor woman back and my deepest condolences to her children and family.

[[email protected]]

Does anyone happen to know if the unfortunate lady was wearing a riding helmet at the time?
There seems to be some immediate finger pointing at the crew on the mil thread and this one which is completely out of order - just as with any accident you need to know the facts before you apportion blame.
It is a very tragic incident but trying to legislate against it happening again (moving the AIAA for example) would be like closing the M25 forever just because there was a pile up on it once.
As pub user said, horse riding is very dangerous (I think statistically the most dangerous sport) at least in UK and you don't need a low level helicopter to make a horse bolt.
RobL do you operate at low level? do you know how difficult it is to see riders, especially when they are on tree lined or hedge lined paths? At low level you are constantly adjusting your flight path to cause the least misery to the populace whilst maintaining the maximum safety for the ac and crew but even the most diligent crew can be surprised by a horse and rider suddenly exiting from a wood into an open area that seemed clear and suitable to fly over.
I am afraid your comments regarding convictions are utterly offensive as you clearly know nothing of the low flying operations you are so quick to criticise.

[Whirlybird]

When an accident happens, people always want to blame someone. Then they can punish that person and/or make rules to prevent the same thing happening again, and feel better knowing that life is controllable.

Unfortunately, it sounds from the very little I've read that no-one was to blame here. Mil pilots fly low and are unable to see small objects well hidden by trees. Horses get spooked by unexpected loud noises. And occasionally, no matter what we do or how careful we are, people will get killed. These are facts of life.

Of course we could all move to desert islands, or stay home and never do anything. We could ban helicopter flying and horse riding...and maybe mountaineering and swimming and driving cars, and a whole host of other activities.

But even if we do all that, guess what - life is invariably fatal.

[Av8r]

The Sunday Times - Britain

June 15, 2003

Britain to ban horse riding.
DAVID CRACKNELL, DAVID LEPPARD AND JONATHON CARR-BROWN



LORD IRVINE was quoted this morning saying that in light of recent horse riding accidents, the latest involving a Chinook Helicopter, a motion in parliament next week would look at the banning of horse riding in the UK.
Tony Blair last week after refusing to accept that the military are to blame, the prime minister’s new legal reforms including the abolition of horse riding in the UK are a distinct possibility. “We can’t have the military practising for the abolition of terrorism having to worry about wether a horse rider may or may not be present on training exercises. Best for all concerned we ban horse riding in the UK all together”

Blair has outraged the horse riding community and country wide demonstrations against the proposed ban are planned for next week. “We cannot believe that the Prime Minister has said such a thing. Ban horse riding? What an absurdity. We would want some serious compensation to make up for all our unfulfilled weekends” one protestor was said to comment.

The military was said to be delighted.” What a coo, what absolute vision this government has, should have been done years ago, why we now have cart blanc, no holds bared now, watch out you bastards, wer're commin though...“
Air Vice Marshal Evan Hogington-Smyth was quoted saying.

The envisioned ban would start, if approved though fast tracking Parliament next week, the 1st August 2003 and would also incorporate retrospective fines for horse riding back to 1998.






HTH Mack.

[SASless]

Now being from the land of market demand capitalism....I sees a way to profit from all this! With equine manure makers becoming excess to need, and a growing "Save a Pooch" mentality of the effete rich....errr...the elite rich.....why an enterprising feller could buy up all these surplus nags....convert them into dinner steaks for our French Allies and evening fodder for the canine population. In the interest of economy we could serve them simultaneously if we could get Restraunteers to allow the French to enter their establishments.

[ShyTorque]

Bad taste guys, bad taste. Not even funny.

I did 18 years RAF SH and I was required to fly at low level for much of that time and teach others to do the same. I am aware that by doing so I have probably spooked horses and upset people below, despite my best efforts to avoid it.

I was only doing my job and I concur, it's impossible to see all potential problems. I sympathise with how the crew must be feeling and also very much with the bereaved family.

Let's not try to turn this into some smart-arsed joke because it certainly is not. :uhoh:

[Crashondeck]

By no means am I pro horses, nor am I anti low flying, quite the opposite. Horses will spook, helicopters will fly low, always have done and always will. You are right Whirly, sh!t happens. It also happened when some lawyers turned their once reputable trade into a NO WIN NO FEE LETS SUE THE B@5T@**5 circus.

No one should be to blame. Companies spend much effort in trying to foster a "no blame culture" because it prevents accidents. Alas the general public like some poor scapegoat and some lawyers are only too willing to oblige. I just hope that if it gets to court the Judge will see that those who take part in dangerous sports should be able to accept the consequences, tragic as they may be. Alas I doubt this will happen and as usual it will be those who are doing their job who will suffer at the expense of those having fun.

My previous post only shows my concern that common sense no longer prevails in our justice system. Perhaps my suggestion of moving AIAA should have been a prediction of what might happen. Good job the rotor head articulates better than I do!

[sarboy w****r]

Rob_L,

Congratulations, you have really hit the jackpot when it comes to fishing for reactions. (I'm assuming that you are merely being facetious, and didn't mean what you said).

On the other hand, if you were being serious, then I have the following points for you:

1. Military aircraft fly low so that they can't be seen, and they need to practise this skill regularly.

2. If people on the ground can't see them because the aircraft is screened from view (by hills, trees, buildings etc), then it also stands to reason that those in the aircraft can't see the people on the ground.

Are you with me so far?

3. A Chinook will typically fly down to 50' agl, as will most SH aircraft. Other military helicopters typically operate to 100' agl. You would be surprised to discover how much of the UK is available for low flying to these limits (most of it!).

4. From 50' one can see very little (that is why the aircraft are flown at this height - q.f. point 1 above). It is highly unlikely that the crew saw the horses, and if they had, there would have been nothing they could have done to avoid spooking the horses - they would have had little or no time to react.

Are you still with me? - I am trying to spell this out for you in very simple terms.

5. Assuming that the crew was not in an avoidance area, then it would appear that, tragic that it undoubtedly is, this whole incident is simply an accident.

6. An accident is just that; no-one is at fault. If you don't like this rationale, then take it up with God.

People like you like to think that everything can be attributed to something or someone, without exception. It is for this reason that we are being overwhelmed with frivolous legal claims in this country.

If you were to attempt to peddle this drivel to my colleagues or I in any other forum other than anonymously over the internet, then you would find yourself subject to some very forthright measures. Your statements are base, offensive and beneath contempt. Before you consider posting any further dross on this or any other subject, might I suggest you take the time to look into the facts of the matter.

There will be an investigation, and the crew will have to answer some tough questions. The truth will out. It is not for you or I to prejudge the crew. This should be the end of this matter and of this thread.

SBW

[SASless]

Errr...please accept my apologies Shy Torque.....did not mean to transcend the limits of propriety. I must remember there are things we should not ask our faithful canine friends to do.

[DBChopper]

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,"

Hmmm... and the thread started by someone with a completely blank profile.

Now, I wonder...

DBChopper
:confused:

[md 600 driver]

rob l

do i know you ?
did i turn up in a silver car and buy something off you ?

give me a part no

steve atherton

[Justiciar]

Very good for dripping scarcasm, sarboy. If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, if I drive round a bend on the wrong side and smack into your car, killing everyone in it it wont be my fault because I didn't actually see you there!

Just as I expect that someone may be on the other side of the road so pilots are expected to consider the presence of people on the ground who may be inconvenienced or harmed by low flying aircraft. Isn't that the reason for the (civilian) low fly rule?

Of course the military have to practice, but this country is not some military dictatorship where the forces do what the hell they like with no regard for anyone else. They have to have regard to the fact that the bulk of the countryside is inhabited by civilians going about their lawful business. This means not flying low over large centres of population or areas where the public may be at risk.

I do not want to pre judge the issue as regards the cause of this tragedy. However, the simple homespun philosophy of 'accidents happen' is not going to wash in any enquiry the military may hold, in the inquest which will be held, and in any later court case.

[pilotwolf]

A few abstract points from a horse owner/rider and helo pilot... please forgive any irrelavence as its late and I m tired


Horses are, like women (ducks!), ...
Strange and unpredictable creatures.
Have strange thought processes.
Take offence at the strangest things.
Are unpredictable!
Can be noisy.
Can be well behaved - can be badly behaved.
Have odd people 'operating' them!



Helicopters are...
Strange and unpredictable machines.
Noisy.
Odd machines.
Can be unpredictable.
Have very odd people operating them!


The 2 are so varible and either mix without problem or don't! IU know of people who regularly fly into ranches without the horses even looking up. I also know of certain race horse trainers that have complained so loudly the local police air support units have 'avoid' areas around their stables.

I haven't really followed the story but can't see how a crew - mil or civilian can avoid a horse or group of horse out on a trek - stables are easily avoided but a 'mobile unit' - GET REAL!

My rather eldery horse - 16yrs - was spooked by sheep and cattle when I first had her - she'd been confined to a towny existance and had never seen these 'stange' creatures before!

And the only time I ve been thrown off in nearly 20 yrs of on and off riding was when she saw a reflection of herself in a wing mirror of a tractor! (pleased to say I ve yet to fall from a helo!!!).

[cyclic]

When you consider the amount of low flying carried out by military helicopters, and the amount of people taking part in equine activities in this crowded country, I think the British military have an incredibly good record.

Sometimes it is impossible to avoid every horse, every field containing a horse and every road, track, forest and bridleway with a horse and rider on it. I have nothing against horse riding, it is a free country, but as stated before horses are unpredictable at the best of times and accidents such as this are bound to happen when you cram this amount of people into a small island!

[sarboy w****r]

Justiciar,

Very good for dripping scarcasm, sarboy. If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, if I drive round a bend on the wrong side and smack into your car, killing everyone in it it wont be my fault because I didn't actually see you there!

As a lawyer with 22 years of experience, you of all people ought to know better than to follow an analogy to absurdity.

However, to take you up on this: if you were to drive around a bend on the wrong side of the road and then hit someone and kill them then you would be at fault. You would be at fault because you are not supposed to be on the wrong side of the road.

Back to this situation: if the helicopter had every right to be where they were (and that has not yet been established), then they were on the right side of the road!

I do not want to pre judge the issue as regards the cause of this tragedy. However, the simple homespun philosophy of 'accidents happen' is not going to wash in any enquiry the military may hold, in the inquest which will be held, and in any later court case.

Again I hesitate to question your undoubted legal skills, but I would have thought that 'misadventure' would quite aptly summarise what has happened here. And in legal terms, that is precisely what 'accidents happen' translates to.

I see that you have no experience (according to your profile) of operating at low level. Were you to have had such experience, you would appreciate what operating at 50' is like.

Military low flying is unpopular, it is noisy and civilians question the need for it. It will undoubtedly continue to generate complaints. That is, however, the price of living in a democracy.

However, you are right: we don't live in a dictatorship. Therefore our democracy puts in place checks and balances. One example of such checks and balances is the system of PMP and PMR areas (ask someone with military experience if you don't know what these are), as well as avoids that we (the military) abide by. Clearly we can't avoid everyone. Those that make the rules have decided where it is necessary to have such avoidance areas. If you live outside these areas then you have the following options:

1. Campaign to have your home covered by such an area (which may well be what will happen in this case, although sadly, too late for the family of the deceased).

2. If point 1 doesn't work: Grow up and accept that we need to low fly.

3. If point 2 doesn't work: Move house.

Note that this refers to 'necessary' low flying (and not ad hoc cavalier flypasts alluded to earlier). If you can't accept the brutal reality of points 2 or 3, then clearly 22 years of legal practice haven't kept you in touch with reality.

If I were to take any random civilian flying with me, in this country, on SAROPs, then I would have them crying in fear at the risks that are sometimes necessary to save life. To do this requires practice. No apologies from me for that, nor for the low flying I undertake. The same goes for my SH brethren.

SBW

[[email protected]]

Nice one SBW, very few if any people make low flying complaints against our nice yellow SAR helos because they realise that one day they might just need us to come and save them.

Unfortunately our SH bretheren do not have such a high profile and are seen as an unneccessary nuisance, especially as the Chinook is big and noisy.

Now those people may or may not agree with the politics of the invasion (sorry liberation) of Iraq but when British soldiers are sent to war by their government, they have to go and it is the Support Helicopter Sqns that will generally take them into battle.

If the complainers do not understand the need to practise low flying in UK so that they can get the said soldiers to the front line without getting shot down then they might as well campaign to shut all the military training areas where the infantry and tankies practise their skills - then our Army would be cr*p and no-one would need to go to war! Utopia......I think I have the grid reference for it somewhere in my 'out of touch with reality' nav bag.

[TeeS]

This is a nightmare for anyone involved in low level flying, especially when routes flown are unplanned. It is a relatively free country so we are allowed to ride just about anywhere, in reality no fly areas are not going to help (unless we are willing to ban all flying!) The problem is, when you see a horse (with or without rider), it is too late to do anything about it - a last minute turn to avoid just creates blade slap adding to the problem.

As a regular low flyer, and a parent of a horseriding daughter, I think we have to accept that there are dangers out there and just hope they don't affect our loved ones.

As a matter of interest, if I do see horses in time, I tend to make a gentle turn away and then turn back towards them as I come abeam. My belief is that this might 'tilt' the footprint away. I have no idea whether this makes any difference at all but at least I try! Any views on this theory?

TeeS

[sarboy w****r]

Precisely Crab. Yet yellow helicopters aren't exempt entirely either.

Let us take the situation two weeks ago when there was the need to transport an organ from north East Anglia to Italy for a young girl there. The transplant team flew into the London area and was then transferred to a hospital in northern East Anglia where they harvested the organ.

From this point they had 4 hours only to get the organ to Italy and implant it. A yellow helicopter was sent to ferry the transplant team to and from the hospital back to their aircraft in London.

The airfield manager at the airport of choice in London (not City, Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton) refused to let the yellow helicopter into the airfield for 'noise abatement reasons'. Apparently military aircraft are not permitted into this airfield at night. Yet civilian aircraft are. This was despite having been fully appraised of the urgency of the situation by the controlling authority in the northern UK (rescue callsign, organ on board, pretty F***ING urgent!). This then necessitated a considerably longer transit to go from the hospital to another airfield that was willing to take the Sea King (thank you Luton). And remember, the clock was counting down - there was only a period of 4 hours before the organ became useless. It was touch and go if the team got back to Italy in time...

Sometimes it is necessary to make noise, even if this means that people may be woken up or otherwise inconvenienced. You don't really seriously think our people actually want to be flying around at 0300, do you?

Some people make me sick...

SBW

[Say again s l o w l y]

SBW,
Next time anyone takes the gun club for a jaunt, get them to drop by that airfield manager's office on the way. I wonder what his reaction would have been had it been his daughter? What a t*sser!

I agree that it was tragic that someone was killed, but unfortunately it was just a terrible accident. Wrong place, wrong time......

[Justiciar]

Sarboy
I actually think we have more agreement that disagreement! I won't torture the analogy by taking it too much further; the point is not so much about rights to be somewhere or not - I have a right to cross to the other side of the road to overtake provided nothing is coming and I can see that, as opposed to take a risk that nothing is likely to be there. Likewise the military have a right to fly low in certain areas, but there will be occasions when although there is no positive restriction of low flying there is a risk, because of the locality, time of day etc. that someone may be injured. The law imposes a high (perhaps too high?) a duty on everyone to take care to avoid risk. The original post suggested this might be an area with large numbers of stables becase it is a horse racing area. If this was the case (and I don't know the area at all) and low flying took place then the pilot concerned might have to explain why he ignored an obvious risk.

Misadventure is an expression which has no obvious legal definition and only seems to apply in inquests. Yes, if this incident was not forseeable then it was indeed an accident and no blame would attach to the air crew concerned.

No I have no low level experience - neither will the coroner or any judge in any case which might result. Hence the need to reduce any complex technical issues to a point where they can be scrutinised in the legal context.

Lest there be any doubt, I am not one of the NIMBY brigade and on a personal basis see the strength of everything you and others have said regarding the problems and difficulties at operating at low level and the need to maintain those skills. Unfortunately there will always be a trade off between the need to exercise those skills and the interests of the people on the ground. I personally see the inconvenience as a price well worth paying for the skills our aircrews have. We in this country have allowed the complainers to have too much of a voice - the story of the refusal of an airfield to allow the landing of an aircraft on an emergency flight is shocking. Somehow I feel it would not have happened in any other country (in most of Europe it is actually an offence to fail to offer reasonable assistance to someone in trouble or danger!)