Low Flying Policy Criticised by Coroner
Problem is you'd have to be able to send the text upside down as well, if we're travelling north to south Mrs js reads the map upside down!.... why do wimmin do that? (that might need a jetblast thread though!). The MOD could also make money selling the same info to spotters,binka's etc....
PN could you ask them this weeks winning numbers too? ta!..
Seriously though regarding height estimation, I used to be quite good at it, it needed to be a type I was familiar with and in a location I knew in relation to the flight paths. I would regularly beat the complainant with the estimate, frequently by hundreds of feet!, maybe your atco used the same trick!
PN could you ask them this weeks winning numbers too? ta!..
Seriously though regarding height estimation, I used to be quite good at it, it needed to be a type I was familiar with and in a location I knew in relation to the flight paths. I would regularly beat the complainant with the estimate, frequently by hundreds of feet!, maybe your atco used the same trick!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm pleased the idea of zoning is seen to have some merit. On further thought the zones could be geographically limited and time separated on a set rota.
Most professional yards do more of their riding in the morning, but with so many people these days working part/flexi/shift hours the happy hackers (the girlies that Beagle so admires) might be riding any time during daylight. They might not find it so easy (esp. in winter) to time their rides with the LL programme.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naturally, there would have to be some give-and-take to make such a system work. You wouldn't plan to ride your horse on the road during the morning or evening rush 'hour', so why would you plan to ride during a notified low flying period? Perhaps novice riding could be planned during non-low flying periods, with the more experienced riders, who are better able to control their mounts, riding at any time of the day.
I like the SMS idea, but I suspect the more techno-reliant you made the system, the more potential for screw-ups there would be.
I think a simple time separation system (as suggested by Pontius) to deconflict controllable low flying-aversed activity and military low flying would be the best solution. It would be easy to publicise (internet, press, local radio), simple to understand and easily remembered.
I like the SMS idea, but I suspect the more techno-reliant you made the system, the more potential for screw-ups there would be.
I think a simple time separation system (as suggested by Pontius) to deconflict controllable low flying-aversed activity and military low flying would be the best solution. It would be easy to publicise (internet, press, local radio), simple to understand and easily remembered.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 28th Oct 2004 at 17:26.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "but the RAF does need to review the case for replacing some flying time with simulation - this is long overdue."
NO - if there is more money / time for extra simulation in addition to flying then fine, however there is no substitute for the real thing. Swapping flying hours for simulation time is a bad idea.
NO - if there is more money / time for extra simulation in addition to flying then fine, however there is no substitute for the real thing. Swapping flying hours for simulation time is a bad idea.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: somewhere in a 12x12
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dot-to-Dot
With the advent of so many local avoids, we are fast running out of places to fly anyway! The red blobs on maps are doing naughty things under the sheets, and next thing you know, you cant fly for more than 3 rotor spans without having to avoid someone/something! Any has already been said, the higher you fly, the greater the size of the noise footprint. I have seen no-win situations, but this is unreal! Us stick monkeys do try hard to avoid horses and riders. Contrary to some belief, we don't have competitions to see how many noise complaints we can get in a short period of time!
AND another thing:
I nearly have more simulator time than aircraft time. Does that mean that we have a simulator for going away to war then?
AND another thing:
I nearly have more simulator time than aircraft time. Does that mean that we have a simulator for going away to war then?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid your own OC Ops must carry the can for local avoids. They're local avoids for local people.
There certainly hasn't been any great proliferation of avoidances nationally and , as you know, many of those are there for your own flight safety.
There certainly hasn't been any great proliferation of avoidances nationally and , as you know, many of those are there for your own flight safety.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim
Absolutely ,
However, out here in the badlands, Heliopters need to be kept apart from SAMs HMGs, RPGs and small arms fire, and that too is a simple truth. We do this by low flying.
If the country wish us to continue to operate out here, surely we should be able to expect to train accordingly... after all the ground also has a PK of 1.
Wockas at 50 feet need to be kept apart from horses and that is the simple truth.Whatever it takes to do it must be done because we should not kill the people who pay the military to defend them.
However, out here in the badlands, Heliopters need to be kept apart from SAMs HMGs, RPGs and small arms fire, and that too is a simple truth. We do this by low flying.
If the country wish us to continue to operate out here, surely we should be able to expect to train accordingly... after all the ground also has a PK of 1.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I well understand the need for training (real not simulator) and agree that we must do all we can to prepare our troops for combat situations. I assume that low flying for both fixed and rotary wing in hostile environments is not just over open country. That being so you must be operationally able to deal with this. The question is therefore why in th UK is low flying restricted to open countryside? Why dont we see the fast jets and the helicopters operating at minimum authorised levels over large towns and cities? Would that not be proper preparation for combat?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may sound controversial but this is PPrune. Many of those contributing here have adopted the traditional aircrew defense of low flying saves lives and simulation can never replace live flying. They are absolutely correct!!
However, no one has raised the issue of how much [low flying] is enough. We do not have a low flying competancy target to achieve and generally can low fly as much as we want - true? When was the last time the DA or DFC told you that you were competent enough at LF and the transit should be flown at medium level. Those decisions tend to be dictated by the weather. In fact many self autorising units can do and go where they please. We are almost self-policing. But is there a regime that says young guys get x amount of LF while more experienced crews get less - no. Where does your sqn record an individual's LF stats?
Don't get me wrong, I love LF and it is an essential part of our job, but how can we justify it without knowing how much we do as individuals and how much we genuinely need.
As for simulators, I think we all know the answer to that. Its not real and it doesn't do what it says on the tin. The Inquest expert may have had 30 odd years helicopter experience but it was all in the North Sea oilrigs - not quite the same.
However, no one has raised the issue of how much [low flying] is enough. We do not have a low flying competancy target to achieve and generally can low fly as much as we want - true? When was the last time the DA or DFC told you that you were competent enough at LF and the transit should be flown at medium level. Those decisions tend to be dictated by the weather. In fact many self autorising units can do and go where they please. We are almost self-policing. But is there a regime that says young guys get x amount of LF while more experienced crews get less - no. Where does your sqn record an individual's LF stats?
Don't get me wrong, I love LF and it is an essential part of our job, but how can we justify it without knowing how much we do as individuals and how much we genuinely need.
As for simulators, I think we all know the answer to that. Its not real and it doesn't do what it says on the tin. The Inquest expert may have had 30 odd years helicopter experience but it was all in the North Sea oilrigs - not quite the same.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turnbull, whilst I hear what you are saying I dont agree with graduated low flying. For instance, an Army recce pilot spends probably 90% of their tactical flying at or below tree top height or sand-dune height. This is dictated by the nature of their tasks.
Chinook pilots, by the nature of their tasking cant fly below 50' due to the presence of an underslung load (in most cases).
All this controversy over an accidental death where helicopter met horse. We have been low flying in the UK since the 1930's. Are we now going to change tactics by cancelling low flying training in favour of doing it on a big TV screen? I hope not because the aircrew going to the front line will be totally unprepared for the "real thing". Let sleeping dogs lie and stop all this nonsense about "time zones" for low flying. The current low flying system has worked for many many years, there is no need to change it because of some bleeding heart, gut reaction.
No disrespect to the grieving family intended.
Chinook pilots, by the nature of their tasking cant fly below 50' due to the presence of an underslung load (in most cases).
All this controversy over an accidental death where helicopter met horse. We have been low flying in the UK since the 1930's. Are we now going to change tactics by cancelling low flying training in favour of doing it on a big TV screen? I hope not because the aircrew going to the front line will be totally unprepared for the "real thing". Let sleeping dogs lie and stop all this nonsense about "time zones" for low flying. The current low flying system has worked for many many years, there is no need to change it because of some bleeding heart, gut reaction.
No disrespect to the grieving family intended.
Unnecessary low flying has always been a thorny subject - fun though it might seem at the time.
I once queried why we wasted fuel doing lo-lo-lo transits to Wales from Wattisham to do our LLOLPI training in the 'toom rather than going hi-lo-hi to get another LLOLPI split in the area. No real answer - I feel that the transits were indeed unnecessary low flying.
As was the stupidity of a certain QWI who thought that a 3-ship low level transit from the North Sea to Wattisham at 2100 hrs one summer evening was sensible. Had the phones red hot with complaints at his few minutes of unnecessary low flying, that did. Then another idiot coasted in at low level in the wrong location and went underneath a hovering helicopter at Beccles airport which had a CAA checker on board....... Both came from the "We did it all the time in RAFG" school of thought.
I once queried why we wasted fuel doing lo-lo-lo transits to Wales from Wattisham to do our LLOLPI training in the 'toom rather than going hi-lo-hi to get another LLOLPI split in the area. No real answer - I feel that the transits were indeed unnecessary low flying.
As was the stupidity of a certain QWI who thought that a 3-ship low level transit from the North Sea to Wattisham at 2100 hrs one summer evening was sensible. Had the phones red hot with complaints at his few minutes of unnecessary low flying, that did. Then another idiot coasted in at low level in the wrong location and went underneath a hovering helicopter at Beccles airport which had a CAA checker on board....... Both came from the "We did it all the time in RAFG" school of thought.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KENNYR,
I assume what you mean by "graduated low flying" is an allocation of hours based on experience? Chinooks, like other SH, do fly below 50' IAW the JHC FOB - we don't always carry USL!
But at the moment we have no idea of who does what, once we do maybe we could discuss just how much we do need. The current practice is fill your boots - can we justify that approach?
I assume what you mean by "graduated low flying" is an allocation of hours based on experience? Chinooks, like other SH, do fly below 50' IAW the JHC FOB - we don't always carry USL!
But at the moment we have no idea of who does what, once we do maybe we could discuss just how much we do need. The current practice is fill your boots - can we justify that approach?
I had originally posted this on a thread in "Rotorheads":
"The Lincoln County air ambulance attended this riding accident. Most of the countryside around Middle and Market Rasen is difficult ground on which to carry out equine friendly ad hoc hems landings. Even with extended 500ft recces, it is not always possible to spot all the horses that seem to pop up all over the place in this well-known horse training and racing area.
It is a bit like trying to operate around the Newmarket area, but on a smaller scale."
Riding accidents make up about 8% of our callouts (80/1000 per year.) Calls to the Rasen area have always produced an uncomfortable feeling due livestock in area and the nature of the beast.
"The Lincoln County air ambulance attended this riding accident. Most of the countryside around Middle and Market Rasen is difficult ground on which to carry out equine friendly ad hoc hems landings. Even with extended 500ft recces, it is not always possible to spot all the horses that seem to pop up all over the place in this well-known horse training and racing area.
It is a bit like trying to operate around the Newmarket area, but on a smaller scale."
Riding accidents make up about 8% of our callouts (80/1000 per year.) Calls to the Rasen area have always produced an uncomfortable feeling due livestock in area and the nature of the beast.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Witney
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a line of argument on thread that simulated low flying is not realistic enough.
In the interests of true realism then, shouldn't the pony club be armed with Stinger missiles?
Clearly not, but be careful about the realism argument guys
In the interests of true realism then, shouldn't the pony club be armed with Stinger missiles?
Clearly not, but be careful about the realism argument guys
Ooh yes - put the story about that the little lovelies might be carrying concealed weapons and there'd be a sound reason to check that those weren't grenades hidden under their jumpers.......
Tabs please !
Interesting that there is no report that the coroner commented on the inadequacy of the helmet that the rider was wearing. It may well have been to the latest BS standard however the fact is that it was not capable of preventing the unfortunate death of the rider.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all under-estimate the "Trust Me Tony" plan.
1. Ban fox hunting.
2. Poor country folk loose their jobs, move to the big smoke.
3. Rich country folk have nobody to look after their horses.
4. Shoot horses, feed them to the poor people that are left.
Horse riding/Low flying risk no longer a problem - Trust Me.
Sorry for an inject of humour in what is an otherwise interesting thread.
1. Ban fox hunting.
2. Poor country folk loose their jobs, move to the big smoke.
3. Rich country folk have nobody to look after their horses.
4. Shoot horses, feed them to the poor people that are left.
Horse riding/Low flying risk no longer a problem - Trust Me.
Sorry for an inject of humour in what is an otherwise interesting thread.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Turnbull.
On many of the ac I have been on, and this excludes helos and tooms, we had set out basic training requirements. If this included 10 low level attacks in a given period then that dictated our need for low level training, we did not have to do X low level sorties. We did need a specific number of low level sories to accomplish TFR and fighter evasion but these were not mutually exclusive.
Then we had a limited number of flying hours in which to accomplish these evolutions. The more experienced we were judged the number of events required was reduced and the performance target was increased. We were typical allocated 20% less hours than the new crew. Not only that we picked up more overseas sorties where the high level transits ate into our reduced amount of flying hours. We had to train harder when we could.
Gash low level transits were denied partly from the fact we were limited to specific routes but also we needed to conserve fuel and fatigue.
In Beags case, dashing at low level across the UK was probably not good training whereas the fuel saved with a mdeium level transit may well have permitted more training in the play area.
Helo transits OTOH are probably a waste of flying time if the crew could otherwise be honing its cooperation skills.
True, in a very good simulator, the realism may well giev the pilot a first class training experience but what about the crew members? Will the door gunner also have a synchronised TV screen? Can the loadie peer out of one of the side windows to for a visual scan? Can the crew members talk the pilot through an evasive manoeuvre from a blind, to the pilot, threat?
We had a first class simulator in the Nimrod and it could shake it we did something wrong but you could never simulate the following intercom call:
"Captain, port beam, snort, 3 o'clock, two miles."
"Port beam you mean 9 o'clock."
"Captain negative, 3 o'clock, I'm looking out through the starboard beam window from the port beam seat."
Bboom!
On many of the ac I have been on, and this excludes helos and tooms, we had set out basic training requirements. If this included 10 low level attacks in a given period then that dictated our need for low level training, we did not have to do X low level sorties. We did need a specific number of low level sories to accomplish TFR and fighter evasion but these were not mutually exclusive.
Then we had a limited number of flying hours in which to accomplish these evolutions. The more experienced we were judged the number of events required was reduced and the performance target was increased. We were typical allocated 20% less hours than the new crew. Not only that we picked up more overseas sorties where the high level transits ate into our reduced amount of flying hours. We had to train harder when we could.
Gash low level transits were denied partly from the fact we were limited to specific routes but also we needed to conserve fuel and fatigue.
In Beags case, dashing at low level across the UK was probably not good training whereas the fuel saved with a mdeium level transit may well have permitted more training in the play area.
Helo transits OTOH are probably a waste of flying time if the crew could otherwise be honing its cooperation skills.
True, in a very good simulator, the realism may well giev the pilot a first class training experience but what about the crew members? Will the door gunner also have a synchronised TV screen? Can the loadie peer out of one of the side windows to for a visual scan? Can the crew members talk the pilot through an evasive manoeuvre from a blind, to the pilot, threat?
We had a first class simulator in the Nimrod and it could shake it we did something wrong but you could never simulate the following intercom call:
"Captain, port beam, snort, 3 o'clock, two miles."
"Port beam you mean 9 o'clock."
"Captain negative, 3 o'clock, I'm looking out through the starboard beam window from the port beam seat."
Bboom!