Low Flying Policy Criticised by Coroner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Flying Policy Criticised by Coroner
BBC Link
Text:
MoD criticised over woman's death
Heather Bell was a novice rider, the inquest heard
The Ministry of Defence failed to take sufficient precautions to prevent an accident where a woman was thrown from her horse, a jury has decided.
An inquest jury said not enough was done to reduce the risk of low-flying military aircraft to the public.
Heather Bell, 38, was riding with two friends in Middle Rasen, Lincs, when the horse bolted, hurling her to the ground after a Chinook passed overhead.
She was wearing protective gear but died from severe head injuries.
Detailed verdict
The jury agreed the noise from the low-flying RAF Chinook helicopter had contributed to Mrs Bell being thrown from her horse in June 2003.
The members responded to 16 questions set by coroner Stuart Fisher.
"The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and ...are not accountable for their deeds and actions.
Bell family statement
Under new inquest rules which allow a more detailed verdict where public organisations are involved, the jury at Market Rasen Festival Hall found the MoD's low-flying policy was "insufficient".
The jury had heard from witnesses and saw a reconstruction of the incident over eight days.
The MoD came in for criticism during the hearing and witnesses said the case is set to affect the way the RAF carries out low-level flying.
'More simulators'
The hearing produced ideas, including the possibility of horse riders wearing radio beacons visible to aircraft.
The Chinook, from a base in Hampshire, had clearance to fly down to 50ft and it was travelling at 120mph.
The jury did not criticise the crew, which flew within guidelines.
Simon Bell said if one life is saved, Heather's death will not be in vain.
It recommended the MoD and RAF made more use of simulators for training.
The military services said there was a review under way of flying practices.
In a statement after the inquest, Wing Commander Jon Taylor, of the RAF Directorate of Air Staff (Lower Airspace), said: "The death of Mrs Bell was a tragedy and the Ministry of Defence extends its deepest sympathy to her family.
"We have listened carefully to the findings of the inquest and will, of course, consider very seriously the recommendations of the coroner."
Mrs Bell's family released a statement which said: "The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and therefore as far as they are concerned, are not accountable for their deeds and actions.
"We have lost a much-loved daughter and a sister to her two brothers and nothing can ever take away the heartache that we feel.
The low-flying policy of Chinook helicopters was criticised.
"Our consolation is that she will always be remembered in the hearts and memories of all those who loved her."
The family revealed Mrs Bell had been an organ donor to three women. A bell at St Peter's and St Paul's Church, Middle Rasen, is to be dedicated to Mrs Bell, who was a keen churchgoer.
Her husband Simon said his 12-year-old daughter Emma would continue to ride horses and wanted to buy Midget, the horse her mother was riding when she died.
He said of the inquest verdict: "I think that anger has dissipated because we feel this inquiry has been thorough.
"That was our main objective from the start. Even if it just saves one life, her death will not be in vain.".
Text:
MoD criticised over woman's death
Heather Bell was a novice rider, the inquest heard
The Ministry of Defence failed to take sufficient precautions to prevent an accident where a woman was thrown from her horse, a jury has decided.
An inquest jury said not enough was done to reduce the risk of low-flying military aircraft to the public.
Heather Bell, 38, was riding with two friends in Middle Rasen, Lincs, when the horse bolted, hurling her to the ground after a Chinook passed overhead.
She was wearing protective gear but died from severe head injuries.
Detailed verdict
The jury agreed the noise from the low-flying RAF Chinook helicopter had contributed to Mrs Bell being thrown from her horse in June 2003.
The members responded to 16 questions set by coroner Stuart Fisher.
"The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and ...are not accountable for their deeds and actions.
Bell family statement
Under new inquest rules which allow a more detailed verdict where public organisations are involved, the jury at Market Rasen Festival Hall found the MoD's low-flying policy was "insufficient".
The jury had heard from witnesses and saw a reconstruction of the incident over eight days.
The MoD came in for criticism during the hearing and witnesses said the case is set to affect the way the RAF carries out low-level flying.
'More simulators'
The hearing produced ideas, including the possibility of horse riders wearing radio beacons visible to aircraft.
The Chinook, from a base in Hampshire, had clearance to fly down to 50ft and it was travelling at 120mph.
The jury did not criticise the crew, which flew within guidelines.
Simon Bell said if one life is saved, Heather's death will not be in vain.
It recommended the MoD and RAF made more use of simulators for training.
The military services said there was a review under way of flying practices.
In a statement after the inquest, Wing Commander Jon Taylor, of the RAF Directorate of Air Staff (Lower Airspace), said: "The death of Mrs Bell was a tragedy and the Ministry of Defence extends its deepest sympathy to her family.
"We have listened carefully to the findings of the inquest and will, of course, consider very seriously the recommendations of the coroner."
Mrs Bell's family released a statement which said: "The military are apparently not subject to the full laws of the land and therefore as far as they are concerned, are not accountable for their deeds and actions.
"We have lost a much-loved daughter and a sister to her two brothers and nothing can ever take away the heartache that we feel.
The low-flying policy of Chinook helicopters was criticised.
"Our consolation is that she will always be remembered in the hearts and memories of all those who loved her."
The family revealed Mrs Bell had been an organ donor to three women. A bell at St Peter's and St Paul's Church, Middle Rasen, is to be dedicated to Mrs Bell, who was a keen churchgoer.
Her husband Simon said his 12-year-old daughter Emma would continue to ride horses and wanted to buy Midget, the horse her mother was riding when she died.
He said of the inquest verdict: "I think that anger has dissipated because we feel this inquiry has been thorough.
"That was our main objective from the start. Even if it just saves one life, her death will not be in vain.".
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Society really is dumbing down, people want their rights to engage in dangerous pastimes but hold the government accountable if they have an accident
What happened to common sense and responsibility?
They should stick to playing checkers if they want to be safe. And even then their safety cannot be guaranteed..
What happened to common sense and responsibility?
They should stick to playing checkers if they want to be safe. And even then their safety cannot be guaranteed..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance - Is this quick enough? Just for the record I do not need a bandwagon on which to jump. I make my own observations and comments as I see it. Is that not what we are all entitled to do? As for this particular case I have already stated my views quite clearly but perhaps your reading is blinkered toward that which suits only you. Forgive me if I am wrong. I see your profile tells us very little about yourself (your right of course) but tell us all what your interest is in this. At least most contributors appear to be pilots/airmen of some description.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wee bit of sensitivity might not go astray here. While we may all probably agree that low flying is a fact of life, some unfortunate lady did die, and has left a grieving family. While the lawyers and other potentially uninformed people may openly state their piece, remember that the first P in pprune is professional, and while said Chinook crew are in no way to blame, WE, as professionals should be sympathetic to individuals such as her in incidents like this. That professionalism should extend to forums such as this.
I don't imply that we need to change our procedures or not banter when banter is due, warranted or appropriate, just maybe treat accidents like this with equal respect as if one of our own was fatally injured in a low flying accident.
Have a think about what you post on threads such as this.
thats all...
I don't imply that we need to change our procedures or not banter when banter is due, warranted or appropriate, just maybe treat accidents like this with equal respect as if one of our own was fatally injured in a low flying accident.
Have a think about what you post on threads such as this.
thats all...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
So what should the MOD do? The H&S Executive man gave a very balanced view. Over 4 years he said there had been some 114 deaths from riding accidents and about 34 were helicopter related. (Approx).
Is there a record of incidents or complaints involving horses?
Avoiding riding schools is one thing avoiding horse riding areas and bridle paths is something else.
With a smaller, expeditionary air force gravitating to southern and eastern England there will obviously be pressure from the helicopters for local low flying areas and avoidance of the long flog up to Sutherland etc.
One helicopter expert (40 years) said that the MOD must take action and that low flying at 50 feet was unnecessary. He said it was unnecessary as it was inadequate training for operational flying at 50 feet.
Maybe we should stop day time low level flying. Maybe we should agree time separation? Low fly between dawn and 10, ride like hell until 2 and low fly until 5. Ride from 5 until 8 and low fly until dark. If not applicable over the whole country maybe zoning could be used and notified?
Treating the horse fraternity the same way as we treat the microlight, parachute and other sensitive groups and share the scarce airspace is the way ahead.
An obvious zoning and time separation is during half-term holidays when younger, inexperienced riders may be more at risk.
Is there a record of incidents or complaints involving horses?
Avoiding riding schools is one thing avoiding horse riding areas and bridle paths is something else.
With a smaller, expeditionary air force gravitating to southern and eastern England there will obviously be pressure from the helicopters for local low flying areas and avoidance of the long flog up to Sutherland etc.
One helicopter expert (40 years) said that the MOD must take action and that low flying at 50 feet was unnecessary. He said it was unnecessary as it was inadequate training for operational flying at 50 feet.
Maybe we should stop day time low level flying. Maybe we should agree time separation? Low fly between dawn and 10, ride like hell until 2 and low fly until 5. Ride from 5 until 8 and low fly until dark. If not applicable over the whole country maybe zoning could be used and notified?
Treating the horse fraternity the same way as we treat the microlight, parachute and other sensitive groups and share the scarce airspace is the way ahead.
An obvious zoning and time separation is during half-term holidays when younger, inexperienced riders may be more at risk.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The point about simulation is, perhaps, not quite so valid in this case but the RAF does need to review the case for replacing some flying time with simulation - this is long overdue.
The point about simulation is, perhaps, not quite so valid in this case but the RAF does need to review the case for replacing some flying time with simulation - this is long overdue.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Nav
MOD DAS should have stats regarding complaint types. I don't think horse related complaints are in the majority, by any means. But as horses are naturally animals of flight, it would be odd if they didn't feature significantly among complaints.
I think the idea of time separation is a good one and would be beneficial not only to horse riding, but to any controllable activity that might be adversely affected by low flying. Those who chose to pursue their activities during low flying hours would then do so entirely at their own risk. It wouldn't stop complaints or claims for compensation, but it might prevent the occasional low flying related fatality and would give the MOD a stronger position from which to defend the low flying system.
Of course, such a move would reduce flexibility for low flying training, but low flying is becoming increasingly politically contentious and litigious, so restricting it further may be something we're going to have to get used to.
MOD DAS should have stats regarding complaint types. I don't think horse related complaints are in the majority, by any means. But as horses are naturally animals of flight, it would be odd if they didn't feature significantly among complaints.
I think the idea of time separation is a good one and would be beneficial not only to horse riding, but to any controllable activity that might be adversely affected by low flying. Those who chose to pursue their activities during low flying hours would then do so entirely at their own risk. It wouldn't stop complaints or claims for compensation, but it might prevent the occasional low flying related fatality and would give the MOD a stronger position from which to defend the low flying system.
Of course, such a move would reduce flexibility for low flying training, but low flying is becoming increasingly politically contentious and litigious, so restricting it further may be something we're going to have to get used to.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The coroner is actually not very happy with one of the pilots.
In his summing up to the jury he indicated that he had not been "too impressed" with the evidence given by the co-pilot who he felt was "suffering from selective memory loss"
This was of course after the co-pilot spouted the MOD party line about low level flying posing a risk to the public, a managed risk don't you know!!
This jury finding is going to cost the cash strapped MOD dearly.
The only comment I make is that once again the Human Rights acts have come into play on this one. The right to life of the horse rider takes priority over the requirements for low-level training.
I suspect that low level helicopter training days are numbered within the EU!!
In his summing up to the jury he indicated that he had not been "too impressed" with the evidence given by the co-pilot who he felt was "suffering from selective memory loss"
This was of course after the co-pilot spouted the MOD party line about low level flying posing a risk to the public, a managed risk don't you know!!
This jury finding is going to cost the cash strapped MOD dearly.
The only comment I make is that once again the Human Rights acts have come into play on this one. The right to life of the horse rider takes priority over the requirements for low-level training.
I suspect that low level helicopter training days are numbered within the EU!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorilla
Can you point me to the report you have seen which comments on the co-pilot please.
I find these comments of particular interest; if I or my crews are not given opportunity to practise low-level flight as their bread and butter, I would not be prepared to shoulder the risk of send ing them to operate in a hostile environment unprepared. The Americans have gone down the road of low-flying at 250-ish feet in their helos and look how many they have lost to enemy action in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our pilots also have a right to live too!
HPT
Can you point me to the report you have seen which comments on the co-pilot please.
The only comment I make is that once again the Human Rights acts have come into play on this one. The right to life of the horse rider takes priority over the requirements for low-level training.
Our pilots also have a right to live too!
HPT
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again "Joe Public" has shown its ignorance. Where did they get the "more simulator training" from? Any one in the business knows that nothing compares with the real thing. Sending aircrew into hostile territory with only simulator "flying" time would be criminal.
Simulators are good for sorting out the systems and the emergency drills but cant replace the actual flying at 50' or less.
Disband the Armoured Corps because their tracks damage the roads, disband the Infantry because they leave toxic rubber marks on the roads and countryside, disband the Navy because they disturb the fish and the whales and pollute the oceans. Where does it all stop!!!!
Simulators are good for sorting out the systems and the emergency drills but cant replace the actual flying at 50' or less.
Disband the Armoured Corps because their tracks damage the roads, disband the Infantry because they leave toxic rubber marks on the roads and countryside, disband the Navy because they disturb the fish and the whales and pollute the oceans. Where does it all stop!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're driving your car and you see a horse and rider ahead you slow down. If you don't you know you may scare the neddy which may then bolt and throw it's rider. If you did drive past at speed and the said consequences occurs you would be driving without due care (and if you tooted your horn as you went by probably dangerous driving aswell).
In my experience all helicopter pilots are fully aware of the dangers of spooking horses and will pull up/turn away if they see them. To carry on regardless despite seeing a rider would breach the duty of care owed to the rider and lead to a claim in negligence against the MoD (although to succeed the rider would have to show that the pilots did, or should have, seen him/her).
If the chopper crew do not see a rider because, for example, they are in a woodland or in a steep hedged lane, then there is no blame to attach to the crew. The issue instead is one of policy, i.e. what altitude military helicopters are allowed to fly, where, when and what notice should be given. I'm not qualified to comment on that aspect but agree that this is a very sad case, both for the deceased, her family and indeed the totally blameless crew.
In my experience all helicopter pilots are fully aware of the dangers of spooking horses and will pull up/turn away if they see them. To carry on regardless despite seeing a rider would breach the duty of care owed to the rider and lead to a claim in negligence against the MoD (although to succeed the rider would have to show that the pilots did, or should have, seen him/her).
If the chopper crew do not see a rider because, for example, they are in a woodland or in a steep hedged lane, then there is no blame to attach to the crew. The issue instead is one of policy, i.e. what altitude military helicopters are allowed to fly, where, when and what notice should be given. I'm not qualified to comment on that aspect but agree that this is a very sad case, both for the deceased, her family and indeed the totally blameless crew.
This thread has proved interesting for me for two main points, one, the missus and eldest daughter ride neddies, and two,a previous life dealing with civvy noise complaints.
Firstly horses are obviously potentially going to be spooked by anything from a piece of newspaper to a low flying heavier than air machine. I am assuming that Mrs Bell was riding using safety gear, however anyone who hangs around horses and their riders know that a good number do not, so where should we draw the line regarding personal safety, if some riders do not protect themselves?. It would be interesting to know how many of the 34 helicopter related incidents had safety gear on? As a civvy the time zoning of low level flying could have some benefit, but there will always be the problem of how to 'notify' those that need to know. Just defining a local night flying policy to local residents councils is bad enough, without trying to cover all riders in LFA's. If such a system were to come in to play, then perhaps notifications would be in mags such as Horse and Hounds and other publications targetted towards the horse riding community, in the way that firing range times are published in local rags. It was also interesting in that a week or so ago, riding my road legal motorcycle past a field of cows, they all took flight at the noise, I suppose the farmer would want to sue for me making the cows produce cheese!. It was not something I had considered before, despite slowing and usually stopping for horses, as my bike a converted motocrosser, normally sends horses absolutely barking mad.
I always have doubts about the reporting of low flying altitudes, from my experience in dealing with complaints. Invariably they are wrong and usually err on the low side of the altitude flown. I had access to SSR radar plots on a geographic database, so I could show a particular incident to the complainant. Obviously if it were possible to record military aircraft in a similar way, then it would act in two beneficial ways. Firstly it would enable accurate incident investigation to take place, secondly any flight violations that took place could be addressed. This would be impractical countrywide without massive investment, however for those incidents that took place within a MATZ for example, could be accurately investigated. This has the advantage of complainants near to airfields have their concerns/perceptions accurately addressed, and would build trust with local communities helping forward the case for allowing low-flying training. It may be that the cost of a fleetwide modification for a/c is prohibitive to allow them to be recorded, but if the Low Flying training is under threat in the future, there could be a case for dedicated units with only a few suitably equipped aircraft, to cover the lowest altitude elements of the training sylabus. This would have increased costs in terms of manpower, in transferring to this unit each time they need to fly low level (I'm thinking >50ft here) to maintain current. On a bleaker side I would guess that CFIT accidents may increase, and may potentially be concentrated on the 'low flying' special units I have outlined.
The ability to show an incident in 'replay' to an individual or a group, council or even a village hall (no doubt full of 'village people', who have local shops for local people), cannot be underestimated, as it rapidly disperses perceptions, and at the very least you end up discussing fact! If anyone want further info please feel free to contact by pm. One way forward for this family, may be that the MOD could somehow compensate them by offering to buy the horse Mrs Bell was riding, and that the daughter has expressed a desire to keep/own.
rgds js
PS. The family always enjoy the Northumbrian Airshow's south of Coquet island, keep up, or should I say 'down'?
, the good work!
Firstly horses are obviously potentially going to be spooked by anything from a piece of newspaper to a low flying heavier than air machine. I am assuming that Mrs Bell was riding using safety gear, however anyone who hangs around horses and their riders know that a good number do not, so where should we draw the line regarding personal safety, if some riders do not protect themselves?. It would be interesting to know how many of the 34 helicopter related incidents had safety gear on? As a civvy the time zoning of low level flying could have some benefit, but there will always be the problem of how to 'notify' those that need to know. Just defining a local night flying policy to local residents councils is bad enough, without trying to cover all riders in LFA's. If such a system were to come in to play, then perhaps notifications would be in mags such as Horse and Hounds and other publications targetted towards the horse riding community, in the way that firing range times are published in local rags. It was also interesting in that a week or so ago, riding my road legal motorcycle past a field of cows, they all took flight at the noise, I suppose the farmer would want to sue for me making the cows produce cheese!. It was not something I had considered before, despite slowing and usually stopping for horses, as my bike a converted motocrosser, normally sends horses absolutely barking mad.
I always have doubts about the reporting of low flying altitudes, from my experience in dealing with complaints. Invariably they are wrong and usually err on the low side of the altitude flown. I had access to SSR radar plots on a geographic database, so I could show a particular incident to the complainant. Obviously if it were possible to record military aircraft in a similar way, then it would act in two beneficial ways. Firstly it would enable accurate incident investigation to take place, secondly any flight violations that took place could be addressed. This would be impractical countrywide without massive investment, however for those incidents that took place within a MATZ for example, could be accurately investigated. This has the advantage of complainants near to airfields have their concerns/perceptions accurately addressed, and would build trust with local communities helping forward the case for allowing low-flying training. It may be that the cost of a fleetwide modification for a/c is prohibitive to allow them to be recorded, but if the Low Flying training is under threat in the future, there could be a case for dedicated units with only a few suitably equipped aircraft, to cover the lowest altitude elements of the training sylabus. This would have increased costs in terms of manpower, in transferring to this unit each time they need to fly low level (I'm thinking >50ft here) to maintain current. On a bleaker side I would guess that CFIT accidents may increase, and may potentially be concentrated on the 'low flying' special units I have outlined.
The ability to show an incident in 'replay' to an individual or a group, council or even a village hall (no doubt full of 'village people', who have local shops for local people), cannot be underestimated, as it rapidly disperses perceptions, and at the very least you end up discussing fact! If anyone want further info please feel free to contact by pm. One way forward for this family, may be that the MOD could somehow compensate them by offering to buy the horse Mrs Bell was riding, and that the daughter has expressed a desire to keep/own.
rgds js
PS. The family always enjoy the Northumbrian Airshow's south of Coquet island, keep up, or should I say 'down'?
, the good work!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please also bear in mind that in the case of a late visual sighting of a horse/rider, the crew's best course of action may be to avoid a pull up or aggressive turn - often the noise produced by doing so is far greater than continued "level" flight - although the rider probably doesn't realise that!
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HPT
I don't disagree with you, I merely say on here that which the coroner had said. This particular inquest is the first in this county since a landmark House of Lords ruling earlier this year. It concerns the Human Rights Acts and employees of the State.
Check your PM's!!
TG
I don't disagree with you, I merely say on here that which the coroner had said. This particular inquest is the first in this county since a landmark House of Lords ruling earlier this year. It concerns the Human Rights Acts and employees of the State.
Check your PM's!!
TG
Last edited by The Gorilla; 28th Oct 2004 at 14:29.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many people, not enough dentists, a President punching above his weight everywhere he can, everyone blaming every mistake they make or accident they have on someone else...
Anyone seen the new series of Little Britain?
Yeah but no but..
Anyone seen the new series of Little Britain?
Yeah but no but..
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
That's Benson b*ggered then
Is there a possible technical solution to this problem, though?
Most riders carry mobiles, and mobiles already (and it will improve with GPS chipsets in the handset) can be located (approximately) if they are on and in contact with a base station (ie, you've got 1+ bars showing).
LL flights outside military training areas could be pre planned, and the waypoints logged on a central database. Every xx minutes during daylight hours those routes are scanned, and SMS messages sent to handsets within the probable routes with a warning message.
These messages could be reverse charged (ie to the user), and they could be automatically activated by the user sending a message to the server, by SMS, email, or web browser, so they only get messages for say three hours at a time.
Most of this is avaialable off the shelf - I'm less sure about the LL planning side as it's 25 years since I flew one of Aunty Betty's a/c LL.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
Certainly this would be disliked where the weather or activity require a different time/zone but that is what its all about. Even in a war zone it is never freeplay.
Lincolnshire could, for instance, be low flying 09-12 whereas the counties en route from the helo base could be 06-09 so all helicopters fly out in one zone and the switch to another helicopter zone. Somat like that anyway but such details would be well above my pay grade and away from my experience.
Regarding height estimation, this week we had the 'correct' identification of the potential offender and the complainant, an air traffic controller and the crew all stated that the height was 250 feet. Was this a first?
Certainly this would be disliked where the weather or activity require a different time/zone but that is what its all about. Even in a war zone it is never freeplay.
Lincolnshire could, for instance, be low flying 09-12 whereas the counties en route from the helo base could be 06-09 so all helicopters fly out in one zone and the switch to another helicopter zone. Somat like that anyway but such details would be well above my pay grade and away from my experience.
Regarding height estimation, this week we had the 'correct' identification of the potential offender and the complainant, an air traffic controller and the crew all stated that the height was 250 feet. Was this a first?