(UK) Military 250kt limit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does seem to be a them and us situation here for some reason. Let us just consider why the RAF seem to want GA kept above 1000 or 1500 or 2000 whatever. So that GA does not conflict with the LL operations? O.K. so what happens when the FJ pull a high energy manoeuvre straight up from 250ft. Where do you want GA to be then? I would not dream of flying around at anything less than 1000ft except for T/O and landing but what about the T/O and land? Are you going to avoid the known airfields and landing strips. If the answer is yes then please tell us all when this amazing change took place? We all make mistakes and we all must learn from them so please don't be so arrogant as to effectively tell GA to keep out of your way. You are there solely for the benefit of the people who pay your costs - us.
If the legislators in their wisdom decide on 250k max then hard luck, live with it. Before you try and "shoot me down", I dont think it sensible either but learn to live with the laws as written
If the legislators in their wisdom decide on 250k max then hard luck, live with it. Before you try and "shoot me down", I dont think it sensible either but learn to live with the laws as written
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waffles
Quote " Currently, I believe, the RAF is the only force worldwide that regularly participates in low flying training to an operational level and therefore are world leaders in the field."
Unfortunately your belief is not founded. I could name 20+ Air Forces that use low flying as part of their operational doctrine, unfortunately not enough space or time to dwell on that point....might want to go to page 2 of the "low flying Omani Jags" or the "shocking examples of low flying" threads to get a sample of what I am talking about.
Some noteworthy low flying by the US occurs in Northern Australia with the B52's training, I used to stand on my roof watching the Buff's smoke around the back of my hometown at zot feet. Worthy of mention of course is the RAAF F111's which live off being at low level! Up until the recent demize of the RNZAF Air Attack Force, I think the Kiwi's would probably take the cake for operational low flying.....I think the RAN and RNZN certainly would vouch for that after the shipstrike waz ups. Made for great video too!
Unfortunately your belief is not founded. I could name 20+ Air Forces that use low flying as part of their operational doctrine, unfortunately not enough space or time to dwell on that point....might want to go to page 2 of the "low flying Omani Jags" or the "shocking examples of low flying" threads to get a sample of what I am talking about.
Some noteworthy low flying by the US occurs in Northern Australia with the B52's training, I used to stand on my roof watching the Buff's smoke around the back of my hometown at zot feet. Worthy of mention of course is the RAAF F111's which live off being at low level! Up until the recent demize of the RNZAF Air Attack Force, I think the Kiwi's would probably take the cake for operational low flying.....I think the RAN and RNZN certainly would vouch for that after the shipstrike waz ups. Made for great video too!
Last edited by Fox3snapshot; 28th Aug 2003 at 23:11.
Jackonicko, sorry about all that hovering, but we have to do it, as picking up an underslung load more than about 0.1 kts gets a bit sporty. And the Merlins are only quiet because there normally aren't any serviceable. And we don't do "the bulk" of our night flying training for the "shortest, hottest nights of the year", you only notice it more then, for the rest of the year we do start and finish earlier, because, believe me, we don't like flying at o-dark-hundred in the morning any more than you do!
LOL
PCD
LOL
PCD
Don't apologise PlasticCabDriver.
Anyone who buys a property near an active airfield has no right to complain. Anyone who isn't a nimby in his spare time would know this though!
Anyone who buys a property near an active airfield has no right to complain. Anyone who isn't a nimby in his spare time would know this though!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIND UP?
Methinks Top Down (topic starter) may have been causing mischief with the original post!
I think we sometimes forget that there is only a very limited amount of airspace for us to fly at low level in the UK. A 250kt LL limit over most of the FIR would still need large areas of exemption to allow mil LL trg to continue.
The Americans have the distinct advantage of some of the largest military trg areas in the world, so limits outside these may not have much of an impact on their trg opportunities. Banning flying above 250kts LL over Northumberland/Wales/Scotland/The Lake District would have a considerable impact on ours!
I think we sometimes forget that there is only a very limited amount of airspace for us to fly at low level in the UK. A 250kt LL limit over most of the FIR would still need large areas of exemption to allow mil LL trg to continue.
The Americans have the distinct advantage of some of the largest military trg areas in the world, so limits outside these may not have much of an impact on their trg opportunities. Banning flying above 250kts LL over Northumberland/Wales/Scotland/The Lake District would have a considerable impact on ours!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anybody watched "crowded skies" a few weeks ago there was an incident where a fast jet nearly collided with a passenger aircraft that was flying from Newcastle Airport. I fthe number of near misses increases then there is bound to be a mid air collision and that probably one of the reasons for bringing the speed down to 250 kts.
It seems to me what people here are trying to say is that LL trg is far more important to the UK as a country than expanding regional airports and developing economic benifits to those areas that more civil aviation would create.
Would it not be easier if Military Jets that are carrying out LL trg were based around the areas they were practicing ie Scotland and the Lake District thereby not comnflicting with ciivilian flight paths by flying up from East Anglia or East Midlands. It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there.
It seems to me what people here are trying to say is that LL trg is far more important to the UK as a country than expanding regional airports and developing economic benifits to those areas that more civil aviation would create.
Would it not be easier if Military Jets that are carrying out LL trg were based around the areas they were practicing ie Scotland and the Lake District thereby not comnflicting with ciivilian flight paths by flying up from East Anglia or East Midlands. It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there.
TR,
I moved here when it was nothing but the Queens Flight and some mysteriously inactive Andovers, and actually the noise doesn't often bother me (I'm a late bird and sleep the sleep of the just), so I'm not too fussed. You have to take things on balance, after all, and lower house prices are nice to have, in what is a lovely part of the world. But I do mind the neighbours whining on about it (and even Mrs JN.....)
And many people do move in next to active airfields and then bitch, whine, try to get them closed and then become very hostile to the RAF. I'm just suggesting that it may be worth doing a tad more to avoid giving them ammunition.
PCB,
Having to pick up underslung loads in the hover? Whatever next? You absolute poof! I'm going to be watching for you to prove yourself to be a 'real man' now, racing along the runway trying to snatch a load from the back of a speeding truck. Three times in a row and you've won a pint at the King Billy!
JN
I moved here when it was nothing but the Queens Flight and some mysteriously inactive Andovers, and actually the noise doesn't often bother me (I'm a late bird and sleep the sleep of the just), so I'm not too fussed. You have to take things on balance, after all, and lower house prices are nice to have, in what is a lovely part of the world. But I do mind the neighbours whining on about it (and even Mrs JN.....)
And many people do move in next to active airfields and then bitch, whine, try to get them closed and then become very hostile to the RAF. I'm just suggesting that it may be worth doing a tad more to avoid giving them ammunition.
PCB,
Having to pick up underslung loads in the hover? Whatever next? You absolute poof! I'm going to be watching for you to prove yourself to be a 'real man' now, racing along the runway trying to snatch a load from the back of a speeding truck. Three times in a row and you've won a pint at the King Billy!
JN
Fair point there, JN.
---------------------------------------
Are you having a laugh or what, hangar 35?
Are you not content with the extent we have gone to, to take FJ flying away from the public?
Valley, Lossiemouth for starters?
You haven't thought that one through have you? How many people employed by FJ bases in England will thank you, if all our FJ assets are moved away to the wilderness?
---------------------------------------
Are you having a laugh or what, hangar 35?
Are you not content with the extent we have gone to, to take FJ flying away from the public?
Valley, Lossiemouth for starters?
It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there.
Keep your eyes open
When flying at low level, FJ crews normally utilise their eyes to the maximum - to avoid all obstacles including the ground, bogeys and civvy aircraft. Of course the FJ crew are normally checking six most of the time, but they do look everywhere. Dropping their max speed not only drops realism, but also affects performance and safety. Lookout is a highly stressed part of military aviation, and it can be more effective if all types of aircraft use it (including the bug smashers). And I've been involved in enough civvy ops to see how poor this is sometimes utilised... Believe it or not, I was working in a low level survey company where we would 'Terrain Follow' at 160ftAGL for up to 6hrs per day, and my 'captain' would read a novel whilst flying. This is obviously an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.
Last edited by Runaway Gun; 30th Aug 2003 at 01:31.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway Gun
I hope the novel your "captain" was reading wasn't "How to fly a Cessna 172 in five easy steps"
Step 1 - Get in plane, put on Ray Bans
Step 2 - turn keys, make engine sound really loud
Step 3 - look for a really long straight bit of turf or road and go like the clappers till the wheels leave the ground and moo cows look little,
Step 4 - fulfill all your boyhood fantasies and crash into clouds,
Step 5 - try and find the same piece of turf or road you left from, make the engine noise really soft...and hope like hell you can find the same parking spot you left from!
Step 1 - Get in plane, put on Ray Bans
Step 2 - turn keys, make engine sound really loud
Step 3 - look for a really long straight bit of turf or road and go like the clappers till the wheels leave the ground and moo cows look little,
Step 4 - fulfill all your boyhood fantasies and crash into clouds,
Step 5 - try and find the same piece of turf or road you left from, make the engine noise really soft...and hope like hell you can find the same parking spot you left from!
As cunning as three foxes
Fox, please check your PMs.
It was in a twin Aerocommander actually, but the principles are the same.
I think you may have forgotten a few chapters:
6. Don't do any engine run ups or wait for the oil temp to rise.
7. Don't check NOTAMs
8. Berate any other crew members when they offer advice, because you have lived longer than them in this game !!!!
9. Don't check the fuel remaining - ASSUME.
NB. I am not attacking the civvy pilot community as a whole, it's just a few rotten apples.
It was in a twin Aerocommander actually, but the principles are the same.
I think you may have forgotten a few chapters:
6. Don't do any engine run ups or wait for the oil temp to rise.
7. Don't check NOTAMs
8. Berate any other crew members when they offer advice, because you have lived longer than them in this game !!!!
9. Don't check the fuel remaining - ASSUME.
NB. I am not attacking the civvy pilot community as a whole, it's just a few rotten apples.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3 SS
You are correct in the critisim of whoever stated that the RAF are the 'expert' in low flying. The Kiwis, while may be so called 'experts' in flying at 50', may have to question the rationale as to the reasoning behind same - but that is not the purpose of this thread, the LF Oman Jag prove that there are others who fly VeryVery Low - albeit for fun factor rather than a realistic operational purpose. The point is that there are a number of 'professional' low flying operatiors - and those who no other Air-Force exposure than the RAF are often one-eyed in their opinion of others. The simple fact remains is that the RAF need to fly low at realistic speeds [albeit slow at 420 - 480 Kts] AND they are normally unable to accept critisism of their modus operation.
Furthermore, the UK general public [or those who are interested] often express their opinion based on WW2 [Battle of Britain et al] experience. Hats off to those who learned lessons from same - but the world has moved forward since then. All too often I see comments portraying RAF at 'Experts' in lots of stuff when really they are often 'competent' and sometimes 'leaders' in the field, but flexibility [a term often bandied around in RAF circles] is unfortunately lacking.
Although this thread is about the UK LFS, the inuendo is that the Brits do things better, when actually they are sometimes ignorant of the rest of the world - just as the USAF is at times [and everyone else for that matter!!]
By the way - fly safe and LOOK OUT....
.
You are correct in the critisim of whoever stated that the RAF are the 'expert' in low flying. The Kiwis, while may be so called 'experts' in flying at 50', may have to question the rationale as to the reasoning behind same - but that is not the purpose of this thread, the LF Oman Jag prove that there are others who fly VeryVery Low - albeit for fun factor rather than a realistic operational purpose. The point is that there are a number of 'professional' low flying operatiors - and those who no other Air-Force exposure than the RAF are often one-eyed in their opinion of others. The simple fact remains is that the RAF need to fly low at realistic speeds [albeit slow at 420 - 480 Kts] AND they are normally unable to accept critisism of their modus operation.
Furthermore, the UK general public [or those who are interested] often express their opinion based on WW2 [Battle of Britain et al] experience. Hats off to those who learned lessons from same - but the world has moved forward since then. All too often I see comments portraying RAF at 'Experts' in lots of stuff when really they are often 'competent' and sometimes 'leaders' in the field, but flexibility [a term often bandied around in RAF circles] is unfortunately lacking.
Although this thread is about the UK LFS, the inuendo is that the Brits do things better, when actually they are sometimes ignorant of the rest of the world - just as the USAF is at times [and everyone else for that matter!!]
By the way - fly safe and LOOK OUT....
.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJR,
Always appreciate feedback. I will add though that the purpose of the Kiwi's Low flying was fundemental to one of the tasks they were carrying out regularly ie.Ship Strike for the RAN and RNZN.
As the Brits found out in Argentina...even a dumb bombing A4 can reap havoc on a flotilla (HMS ARDENT hit by MK82 Snakeye and the sinking of the HMS Antelope). To higlight the altitude issues here I have provided an extract from the Argentine A4 Briefing:
HMS ARDENT MISSION DEBRIEF
* DATE:
May 21, 1982, 15:01 Argentine time (H + 3).
* TARGET:
Type 21 British frigate located 2 miles north of the West Island ( Bah'a Ruiz Puente en el Estrecho de San Carlos).
* ATTACK GROUP:
1st Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-307 Capitan de Corbeta Alberto Jorge Philippi
o Skyhawk 3-A-312 Teniente de Nav'o José César Arca
o Skyhawk 3-A-314 Teniente de Fragata Gustavo Marcelo Márquez
2nd Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-301 Teniente de Navio Benito I. Rótolo.
o Skyhawk 3-A-305 Teniente de Navio Carlos Lecour.
o Skyhawk 3-A-306 Teniente de Navio Roberto Sylvester.
* WEAPON LOAD:
Four Mark 82, 500 pound Snakeye bombs per plane.
Two hundred 20mm rounds per plane.
Three 300-gallon external fuel tanks per plane.
* ATTACK ROUTE:
Approach the target below 50 feet altitude.
Climb to 300 feet to drop weapons.
Drop with 250-millisecond interval.
Approach angle, 30º separation between aircraft.
Perhaps some of the Kiwi knucks can provide a more operational perspective on these issues, after all it was their bread and butter.....I just went along for the ride!
Always appreciate feedback. I will add though that the purpose of the Kiwi's Low flying was fundemental to one of the tasks they were carrying out regularly ie.Ship Strike for the RAN and RNZN.
As the Brits found out in Argentina...even a dumb bombing A4 can reap havoc on a flotilla (HMS ARDENT hit by MK82 Snakeye and the sinking of the HMS Antelope). To higlight the altitude issues here I have provided an extract from the Argentine A4 Briefing:
HMS ARDENT MISSION DEBRIEF
* DATE:
May 21, 1982, 15:01 Argentine time (H + 3).
* TARGET:
Type 21 British frigate located 2 miles north of the West Island ( Bah'a Ruiz Puente en el Estrecho de San Carlos).
* ATTACK GROUP:
1st Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-307 Capitan de Corbeta Alberto Jorge Philippi
o Skyhawk 3-A-312 Teniente de Nav'o José César Arca
o Skyhawk 3-A-314 Teniente de Fragata Gustavo Marcelo Márquez
2nd Section:
o Skyhawk 3-A-301 Teniente de Navio Benito I. Rótolo.
o Skyhawk 3-A-305 Teniente de Navio Carlos Lecour.
o Skyhawk 3-A-306 Teniente de Navio Roberto Sylvester.
* WEAPON LOAD:
Four Mark 82, 500 pound Snakeye bombs per plane.
Two hundred 20mm rounds per plane.
Three 300-gallon external fuel tanks per plane.
* ATTACK ROUTE:
Approach the target below 50 feet altitude.
Climb to 300 feet to drop weapons.
Drop with 250-millisecond interval.
Approach angle, 30º separation between aircraft.
Perhaps some of the Kiwi knucks can provide a more operational perspective on these issues, after all it was their bread and butter.....I just went along for the ride!
Last edited by Fox3snapshot; 30th Aug 2003 at 04:55.
What does FIGJAM stand for?
LJR,
I have to agree with many of your comments here.
Having served with numerous air forces (and worked with pilots from many others) there is a common theme running through their self-appraisals: "We are the world's best at ..... this". Normally it's the world's greatest military aviators, but it regularly continues to "world's greatest low flying experts", "NVG operators", or "Highest Mooners in an F14 - RIP".
Of course I believe that there still is a need for low operational flying and training, yet I am also aware that it is not the answer to all delivery profiles. Every conflict will be different, and it is impossible to predict what tactics will no longer ever be required again. As you are no doubt aware, low flying is a skill which pilots require constant practise to remain safe. Flying at 100ft for the first time was a quite a bit of an eye-opener, yet after qualifying at 50ft (which brightened my peepers even more) I found that 100ft was relatively easy going, and it certainly freed up my little bit of SA. Last time I flew a little jet at low level (after a break of a few years) I was a lot less comfortable than I had been in my "prime". The more it's practised in peacetime, the safer it'll be utilised in times of need.
The same point (and more) goes for limiting airspeed to a ridiculous 250kts.
I have to agree with many of your comments here.
Having served with numerous air forces (and worked with pilots from many others) there is a common theme running through their self-appraisals: "We are the world's best at ..... this". Normally it's the world's greatest military aviators, but it regularly continues to "world's greatest low flying experts", "NVG operators", or "Highest Mooners in an F14 - RIP".
Of course I believe that there still is a need for low operational flying and training, yet I am also aware that it is not the answer to all delivery profiles. Every conflict will be different, and it is impossible to predict what tactics will no longer ever be required again. As you are no doubt aware, low flying is a skill which pilots require constant practise to remain safe. Flying at 100ft for the first time was a quite a bit of an eye-opener, yet after qualifying at 50ft (which brightened my peepers even more) I found that 100ft was relatively easy going, and it certainly freed up my little bit of SA. Last time I flew a little jet at low level (after a break of a few years) I was a lot less comfortable than I had been in my "prime". The more it's practised in peacetime, the safer it'll be utilised in times of need.
The same point (and more) goes for limiting airspeed to a ridiculous 250kts.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risky Training
I think calling the Lake District (in England by the way), North Yorkshire( also in England) and Scotland the wilderness is a pretty arrogant thing to say and what you are saying is you could not care less if blew their roofs off or killed their livestock and genrally made their life a misery. Like I said if these people are having to put up with this then should see some benifits. If this means moving equipment and personnel from bases such as Marham to say Lossiemouth or Leuchars so be it.
Sir your loyal obedient servant
I think calling the Lake District (in England by the way), North Yorkshire( also in England) and Scotland the wilderness is a pretty arrogant thing to say and what you are saying is you could not care less if blew their roofs off or killed their livestock and genrally made their life a misery. Like I said if these people are having to put up with this then should see some benifits. If this means moving equipment and personnel from bases such as Marham to say Lossiemouth or Leuchars so be it.
Sir your loyal obedient servant
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember that it was at the very least proposed that there would be a blanket 250kt limit below 10,000ft for all VFR and IFR traffic, military or civil, that wasn't legitimately using the military LFS. This was at about the same time that the 540/480/420kt limits within the LFS were introduced.
Is my memory wrong? Did it or didn't it happen?
Is my memory wrong? Did it or didn't it happen?
Hangar 35, the crux of your argument was that you thought it would be easier if.... "Military Jets that are carrying out LL trg were based around the areas they were practicing ie Scotland and the Lake District thereby not conflicting with ciivilian flight paths by flying up from East Anglia or East Midlands. It would also create more jobs in those areas and thereby less hostility from locals living there."
Easier for who? Some gash PPL who wants to tool around at LL, or the nation's defenders transiting back and forth to the tac areas from Marham, Coltishall, Leeming etc?
It seems obvious economics to me that if you remove 'n' number of jobs from the economy of Norfolk while creating 'the same number in the wilderness (sorry, but that's just what anywhere north of Birmingham is!), then there is NO NET GAIN OVERALL
Accusing me of arrogance is pretty rich when you think that LL is just a toy for us to 'blow peoples roofs off', and random PPL/CPL flying somehow benefits the nation's welfare and economy to a greater extent than military training.
Easier for who? Some gash PPL who wants to tool around at LL, or the nation's defenders transiting back and forth to the tac areas from Marham, Coltishall, Leeming etc?
It seems obvious economics to me that if you remove 'n' number of jobs from the economy of Norfolk while creating 'the same number in the wilderness (sorry, but that's just what anywhere north of Birmingham is!), then there is NO NET GAIN OVERALL
Accusing me of arrogance is pretty rich when you think that LL is just a toy for us to 'blow peoples roofs off', and random PPL/CPL flying somehow benefits the nation's welfare and economy to a greater extent than military training.
Liam G,
Re: The King Billy.
Yes, unfortunately 'Conehead' has gone, taking with him the farm implements and furniture, and all those festering plasters on his unusually shaped cranium.
No more walking in at 9.45 on a quiet winter evening to be told: "******! I was just hoping to close."
No more waiting at the front of a huge queue while he went to watch your pasty going round and round in the microwave.... (What serve someone else while waiting? You jest.)
No more ostentatious refusal to notice people he didn't approve of as they tried to get a drink (usually BMW drivers or any kind of yuppies).
The place serves more than cheese rolls and pasties, now, but to me it's lost much of the charm and character. Play equipment in the garden doesn't help, and they now have pumps on the bar for some of the beers. Pumps! And they sell lager......
But what a fantastic view!
Even though that amazingly gorgeous bar maid (you know, the one with the gorgeous eyes, dazzling smile, pretty face and flirtatious manner - but with no apparent space for internal organs, unless they were mounted much higher and further forward than usual) has also departed......
Re: The King Billy.
Yes, unfortunately 'Conehead' has gone, taking with him the farm implements and furniture, and all those festering plasters on his unusually shaped cranium.
No more walking in at 9.45 on a quiet winter evening to be told: "******! I was just hoping to close."
No more waiting at the front of a huge queue while he went to watch your pasty going round and round in the microwave.... (What serve someone else while waiting? You jest.)
No more ostentatious refusal to notice people he didn't approve of as they tried to get a drink (usually BMW drivers or any kind of yuppies).
The place serves more than cheese rolls and pasties, now, but to me it's lost much of the charm and character. Play equipment in the garden doesn't help, and they now have pumps on the bar for some of the beers. Pumps! And they sell lager......
But what a fantastic view!
Even though that amazingly gorgeous bar maid (you know, the one with the gorgeous eyes, dazzling smile, pretty face and flirtatious manner - but with no apparent space for internal organs, unless they were mounted much higher and further forward than usual) has also departed......