Low Flying
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Everywhere and nowhere
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workinghard,
You need to balance the benefit obtained from training with the risks involved:
Flying low over rural areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, minimal risk to civilians on the ground (in an ejection)
Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!
Basically, it ain't worth it!
Kind of obvious, I thought.
You need to balance the benefit obtained from training with the risks involved:
Flying low over rural areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, minimal risk to civilians on the ground (in an ejection)
Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!
Basically, it ain't worth it!
Kind of obvious, I thought.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What real difference is there between an urban area and a rural area that would make such a great difference to low level fast jet operations? You have tall buildings in urban areas - you have tall trees, hills and buildings in rural areas. The aim is to fly above / around them and not hit them - same rules would apply whether urban or rural. Topography is topography, whether covered by crops or buildings. So why risk complaints of thousands (or worst case the lives of thousands) while training where you will get the same training value over less habitatd areas?
Similarly, surely your avetrage pilot would want to avoid population centres (unless of course they are the target), therefore avoid being seen and reported on / shot down?
Its already been mentioned that helo operations already train in the uban environment - the ones most likely to need to use that skill.
Similarly, surely your avetrage pilot would want to avoid population centres (unless of course they are the target), therefore avoid being seen and reported on / shot down?
Its already been mentioned that helo operations already train in the uban environment - the ones most likely to need to use that skill.
Try as hard as I might I can't for the life of me see how Working Hard is an anagram of Mike Hegland...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the question re simulators, they simply are not good enough for heli ops. The graphics simply are not good enough to hover on in an effective manner (there is no 2 o'clock daisy), and the handling is just not the same as the aircraft. You can use sims (certainly our one) for IF training and for emergency training, and even for fairly effective EW training, but for low flying, winching, fast roping and USL work it just doesn't cut the mustard.
The risk to population is the main reason we don't go practicing winching from the Oxo building or lifting loads in and out of Horseguards. We can do those things to purpose-built buildings where the risks are reduced. When it comes to urban heli training the hard bits are navigation (i.e. finding the target) and the actual hover work (as your references tend to be further away). We practice the both to these purpose built places.
The risk to population is the main reason we don't go practicing winching from the Oxo building or lifting loads in and out of Horseguards. We can do those things to purpose-built buildings where the risks are reduced. When it comes to urban heli training the hard bits are navigation (i.e. finding the target) and the actual hover work (as your references tend to be further away). We practice the both to these purpose built places.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a friend who did 6 months rotation as a trainee doctor in Guildford hospital's A&E dept. He has told me that about 20% of serious injuries (breaks and above) are equine related. There is an inherant risk involved by climbing on a horse. I do not discount that the accident in question is an awfully tragic - but scared pheasants startling horses have killed many more riders than low flying ac.
I'm not in any way anti-horse, my wife and I both ride, but I do find the horse community trying to ban low-flying as about as ridiulous as if we tried to ban power cables had we just flown into a set.... If either hadn't been there the accidents wouldn't have happened.
Just my 2p...for now.
I'm not in any way anti-horse, my wife and I both ride, but I do find the horse community trying to ban low-flying as about as ridiulous as if we tried to ban power cables had we just flown into a set.... If either hadn't been there the accidents wouldn't have happened.
Just my 2p...for now.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the whole UKLFS under threat? I have read that a massive portion of 7T is under threat due to UK power or some other pc energy company with hands firmly in politicians back pockets wanting to extend the already massive wind farms through out this region. So the locals loose ad hoc jet noise (notably less than 10/15/20 years ago) but them, their livestock and wildlife become driven insane by the constant humming of these monstrosities!?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise that many will be of like mind...but is anyone of sound mind surprised that we dont practice URBAN LOW FLYING?
Of course we'd all like to train as we fight, but we need - in peacetime - to balance risk with training value!
What's the alternative? Why not use real troops as targets....or get the infantry to bayonet cattle, or maybe our submarines could just sit in the channel, 'practicing' by sending 'the odd' merchant man to the sea bed. Workinghard, even if the training would be valuable you have to be sensible.
Moreover, what weapons could a FJ deliver at LL in the urban environment. Lots can be achieved from ML, but low level, with oblique trajectories in what is the most 'colateral intense' target area? Let's have a pause for (sound minded) thought.
As for rotary aircrew i'm sure urban low flying would be invaluable, but that doesn't mean that on balance it's worth the risk. Which, in turn, doesn't come close to meaning they'd be allowed to do it.
Of course we'd all like to train as we fight, but we need - in peacetime - to balance risk with training value!
What's the alternative? Why not use real troops as targets....or get the infantry to bayonet cattle, or maybe our submarines could just sit in the channel, 'practicing' by sending 'the odd' merchant man to the sea bed. Workinghard, even if the training would be valuable you have to be sensible.
Moreover, what weapons could a FJ deliver at LL in the urban environment. Lots can be achieved from ML, but low level, with oblique trajectories in what is the most 'colateral intense' target area? Let's have a pause for (sound minded) thought.
As for rotary aircrew i'm sure urban low flying would be invaluable, but that doesn't mean that on balance it's worth the risk. Which, in turn, doesn't come close to meaning they'd be allowed to do it.
I rather fancied dropping a WE177 from low level on a counter-value target... But we had to make do with photographing the odd grid ref instead.
I wonder how many horses our V-bumblers used to annoy at low level? Was on school CCF camp as a cadet many years ago on Exmoor and the local cattle didn't bat an eyelid whenever one of HM's tin triangles whispered quietly overhead at 300ft- ish!
I wonder how many horses our V-bumblers used to annoy at low level? Was on school CCF camp as a cadet many years ago on Exmoor and the local cattle didn't bat an eyelid whenever one of HM's tin triangles whispered quietly overhead at 300ft- ish!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Urban Low Flying..................used to be common place, day and NVG, in the land of the "boggy b@stard".............. till the onset of peace
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance - I was merely asking questions that have ellicited some surprising answers. Some of course are just plain stupid as one always gets on these sites but others do try and take the question(s) seriously. There are many pilots of all experiences who would like to know some of these things. I have made it clear that I dislike the effects of FJ low flying but am willing to learn and understand why it is necessary. The following responses do not help your cause and would be latched onto by many. The contributors by and large list themselves as mil pilots in their profiles. So it is not I that is necessarily in need of convincing but others who may get a different view on things.
"all flying is done with sole visual reference to the ground
no pilot would ever pay too much attention to what the
altimeter says anyway
We need to do low flying, simple
very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'
We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!
We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints
Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!"
Piss off joe public too much and you know the result.
WH
"all flying is done with sole visual reference to the ground
no pilot would ever pay too much attention to what the
altimeter says anyway
We need to do low flying, simple
very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'
We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!
We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints
Flying low over built-up areas = high training benefit, moderate risk to aircrew, substantial risk to civilians on ground (in an ejection), excessive disruption cause by noise, and a quick way to pi55-off joe public!"
Piss off joe public too much and you know the result.
WH
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We, as mlitary aircrew dont need to give you a reason as to why we need to low fly WorkingHard. Who are you to deserve a special brief on why we need to do it? Just keep paying your taxes and rather than question the means by which we provide your security, I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. If you want to know the 'official' justification for low flying, go to the RAF website or trawl through the MOD sources, this is after all a RUMOUR forum and therefore needs to be taken lightly.
I know that this is going to inflame your cleary narrow minded and polarised little brain, but quite frankly, I dont give a monkey's. Now kindly poke off and annoy someone else.
I dont expect a reply, although will undoubtedly receive one as you dont seem to be able to keep out of things which dont affect or concern you. Now why dont you go to the "company pilot" forum and let us worry about all things military.
Yours
DS
I know that this is going to inflame your cleary narrow minded and polarised little brain, but quite frankly, I dont give a monkey's. Now kindly poke off and annoy someone else.
I dont expect a reply, although will undoubtedly receive one as you dont seem to be able to keep out of things which dont affect or concern you. Now why dont you go to the "company pilot" forum and let us worry about all things military.
Yours
DS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DS - Reply as expected. I trust, no I know, you are not typical of todays military and whilst you list FJ as your occupation, I would be very surprised if you remained on any flight very long. Your annual assessment no doubt reflects your poor grasp of reality. As for things that dont concern me, well we all share the same airspace so any thing anyone else does in that airspace is of concern to us all. Despite your obvious ire we are not yet a military dictatorship.
WH
WH