Changes to MoD helicopter low level training rules
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. SASless does not have a point. Training oversees in areas like the US or Canada is not cost efficient. I'm sure you have all heard of this 'leaning' process, eh?
It was hard enough scraping together enough pennies for an EX in Morocco recently. Which was, by the way, essential training. We were limited to carrying only 20kgs of kit because we had to travel with a no frills, budget airline. I don't know about you but for a two week det my flying kit alone weighs more then 20kgs.
By the way, the locals woudn't allow us to low fly (gives the camels the hump!). Hmm, guess the only place to do it is in good ol' Blighty.
It was hard enough scraping together enough pennies for an EX in Morocco recently. Which was, by the way, essential training. We were limited to carrying only 20kgs of kit because we had to travel with a no frills, budget airline. I don't know about you but for a two week det my flying kit alone weighs more then 20kgs.
By the way, the locals woudn't allow us to low fly (gives the camels the hump!). Hmm, guess the only place to do it is in good ol' Blighty.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it would be cost effecient. The cost to human lifes isnt quantifiable.
Nope, the UK does not fit the requirement. The terrain is wrong, the weather precludes LF for the most part and there are too many innocent tax payers going about their daily business who tend to get in the way.
So, where shall we go? someone has already mentioned the USA / Canada. Any other suggestions? Northern Spain would be good. I did an Ex based at Zarragozza a few years ago - gotta be the longest runway in NATO there.
Nope, the UK does not fit the requirement. The terrain is wrong, the weather precludes LF for the most part and there are too many innocent tax payers going about their daily business who tend to get in the way.
So, where shall we go? someone has already mentioned the USA / Canada. Any other suggestions? Northern Spain would be good. I did an Ex based at Zarragozza a few years ago - gotta be the longest runway in NATO there.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The cost to human lifes isnt quantifiable"
You and I may not think so however the treasury I suspect has other ideas. The cost of a permenant training detachment overseas precludes it as a viable option. In order to maintain an overseas det and carry out our commitment to the UK/NATO defence requirement we would have to purchase new aircraft, employ more people etc.... I suspect that despite the training benefits of flying abroad (or not) it will never happen as it is more cost effective to pay compensation to the British public for damage caused than to fund a permenant overseas det.
Incidentally I believe we have a reciprocal agreement with other NATO countries that allows them to Low Fly here if we do so in their country so that would rule that out.
You and I may not think so however the treasury I suspect has other ideas. The cost of a permenant training detachment overseas precludes it as a viable option. In order to maintain an overseas det and carry out our commitment to the UK/NATO defence requirement we would have to purchase new aircraft, employ more people etc.... I suspect that despite the training benefits of flying abroad (or not) it will never happen as it is more cost effective to pay compensation to the British public for damage caused than to fund a permenant overseas det.
Incidentally I believe we have a reciprocal agreement with other NATO countries that allows them to Low Fly here if we do so in their country so that would rule that out.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here. 
How about moving more ac types to the Falklands and conduct low flying training there? Of course this will mean a great reduction in our capability as crews will only be able to fly above 500' in the UK but at least we won't upset the public. No more low fly bookings, no need for LFA's and think of how much money you will save. I mean with being down south for a couple of months at a time and then being on det for a wee while you won't have any chance to spend any of your hard earned cash. Oh and think of how many frequent flyer miles you will earn!!!
Cat inserted, pigeons flapping, AD taking cover!
How about moving more ac types to the Falklands and conduct low flying training there? Of course this will mean a great reduction in our capability as crews will only be able to fly above 500' in the UK but at least we won't upset the public. No more low fly bookings, no need for LFA's and think of how much money you will save. I mean with being down south for a couple of months at a time and then being on det for a wee while you won't have any chance to spend any of your hard earned cash. Oh and think of how many frequent flyer miles you will earn!!!
Cat inserted, pigeons flapping, AD taking cover!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all seem to be quoting the new 100ft limit from the press reports. Wait til rules are actually published through MOD Docs. I assure you that the press have not got it quite right!! surprise. Flying below 100ft is permitted for Specific exercises - read that as specific trg objectives. But you will all have to preplan your very low flying more.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all civvies are against LF, me for one.
Also, when I explained to some folk in my local just why the Chinooks were flying so low in this area, there was a general (if grudging and not 100%) acceptnce of the need. The general public really do not have any idea of why it is done and just see it as "playing about" until its explained.
Maybe a bit of money spent on a TV ad would be a better bet in getting the public more on-side than all the free LF videos moldering an a MoD filing cabinet?
Also, when I explained to some folk in my local just why the Chinooks were flying so low in this area, there was a general (if grudging and not 100%) acceptnce of the need. The general public really do not have any idea of why it is done and just see it as "playing about" until its explained.
Maybe a bit of money spent on a TV ad would be a better bet in getting the public more on-side than all the free LF videos moldering an a MoD filing cabinet?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new rules are out fella. A series of Training Areas have been established and are soon to be up and running. The new Low Flying areas and rules come into force 3 Oct 2005.
whilst we are discussing it, can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.
whilst we are discussing it, can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.
Last edited by southside; 22nd Sep 2005 at 12:39.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.
First off I thought the whole point of helo low flying was to get pax to somewhere where they can do their thing. If the first time said troops low fly is on a live op and they get airsick then they aren't going to be very combat effective. Therefore low flying with pax in this country is worthwhile as it gives the lads a chance to get used to what is a weird sensation as a pax.
Secondly whom were you refering to as pax? If it was cadets etc then I agree there is no need to do it
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can someone please tell the Chinook guys that Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous but against the rules.
Not sure why he maintains "Low Flying with passengers is not only dangerous", if it were dangerous surely no one would be allowed to do it. It amounts to an increased risk compared to flying higher.
Last edited by Twinact; 22nd Sep 2005 at 20:03.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am seriously considering my future as a member of pprune at the moment. Southside, where is this information of yours coming from, why are you privvy to rules that Chinook operators aren't, please give reference to your opinion, where does it say that passenger flying at low level is illegal, do you mean all flying or just some?. I am a member of a Chinook Sqn and I would not fly passengers of any kind if it were illegal or dangerous(operations excepted). We do not go about or business deliberately crashing into the ground or scaring horses for fun. We do our level best to work within JHC constraints and MOD low flying policy whilst providing a top rate service to the Army and Royal Marines. I do hope that this thread becomes a touch more sensible with posters backing up inflamitory and irresponsiple posts.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSP 550 - Passenger flying regs.
Maybe I was a bit harsh with the dangerous bit....apologies.
Good point mad eby above datum though.... seems like a sensible option to me. We already have the infrastructure to support that level of training. So, why not?
No excuses of ...its too cold/Far away/Miserable/No 5* hotels etc etc...
Maybe I was a bit harsh with the dangerous bit....apologies.
Good point mad eby above datum though.... seems like a sensible option to me. We already have the infrastructure to support that level of training. So, why not?
No excuses of ...its too cold/Far away/Miserable/No 5* hotels etc etc...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low flying does have tactical benefit. The US helos in Iraq get shot at more because of the height they fly at. The principle applies over all terrain types, not just the desert, therefore we should train over all terrain types, including Lincolnshire and Norfolk (Sun Tzu - He who aspires for peace should prepare for war). Banning low flying is therefore not an option.
Low flying is not easy - if it was, everyone would do it. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean we should stop doing it though; it merely means we should train better and more for it.
Low flying is an annoyance. People who live near airfields (I know, they should have looked before they bought) will be annoyed by a consant stream of low flying helicopters leaving the area.
Given then, that this is a difficult skill but is a requirement then I can see no reason not to keep on training it in a sensible manner which spreads the annoyance. I, for one, have been authorising to 100'/30' for transit to a sector of my route from which point I will be authorised to 50'/30' until the transit back to base. A part of the sortie is therefore dedicated to that particular skill set within a realistic tactical scenario. Another option is an IF transit to a low-level let-down point for a sector which is to be flown at low level, thereby combining skill sets and helping to expand capacity and improve cockpit organisation.
Those who would have us transit to northern Scotland every time we want to low fly should be prepared to foot the bill for the extra aircraft hours required with minimal training benefit. "It's too far away" seems like a fairly reasonable rebuttal.
Not convinced about the illegality of LF with pax - I'll need to check the 550 for that - but I do know that the JHCFOB allows it under certain circumstances. I realise that the 550 would take precedence, but it seems like a fairly huge error on someone's part to have such a contradiction.
Low flying is not easy - if it was, everyone would do it. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean we should stop doing it though; it merely means we should train better and more for it.
Low flying is an annoyance. People who live near airfields (I know, they should have looked before they bought) will be annoyed by a consant stream of low flying helicopters leaving the area.
Given then, that this is a difficult skill but is a requirement then I can see no reason not to keep on training it in a sensible manner which spreads the annoyance. I, for one, have been authorising to 100'/30' for transit to a sector of my route from which point I will be authorised to 50'/30' until the transit back to base. A part of the sortie is therefore dedicated to that particular skill set within a realistic tactical scenario. Another option is an IF transit to a low-level let-down point for a sector which is to be flown at low level, thereby combining skill sets and helping to expand capacity and improve cockpit organisation.
Those who would have us transit to northern Scotland every time we want to low fly should be prepared to foot the bill for the extra aircraft hours required with minimal training benefit. "It's too far away" seems like a fairly reasonable rebuttal.
Not convinced about the illegality of LF with pax - I'll need to check the 550 for that - but I do know that the JHCFOB allows it under certain circumstances. I realise that the 550 would take precedence, but it seems like a fairly huge error on someone's part to have such a contradiction.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exporting low flying sounds so amazingly easy to do - but it is completely unworkable for a vast variety of reasons.
1. We are the Royal Air Force (or Royal Navy or British Army - ie UK Sovereign Forces based in the UK) - for those unaware of recent events, our influence over the commonwealth has vastly reduced in the past few decades. Hence, should our lords and masters instruct the prospective governments of host nations of our newly exported low flying that they are to allow us to low fly at will, they are highly likely to be met with a 'f**k off your Britannic Majesties!'
2. The setting up of engineering, operations, legal framework, ac and personnel accomodation etc etc would be prohibitively high.
3. As current SH operators, many of us (me included) are already spending more than half the year deployed on ops. To be told that prior to every op deployment we have to spend a suitable time deployed in some god-forsaken part of the world, working back down to operational low flying heights, would be completely unnaceptable and would lead to an even bigger exodus than the Heli forces have faced over the past few years.
4. Low flying is such a perishable skill that it needs to be constantly practised to be effectively employed on ops - remember that we have not always had the luxury of 1-2 months warning for many of the ops that have been carried out in the past few years.
5. Low flying over any terrain involves a constant level of vigilance and concentration that can be improved by practice. The fact that you are flying over undulating grassland in practice and flat desert on ops only makes the handling task easier leaving more capacity for other tasks at hand.
As I've stated before, if we don't keep practicing it - the skill will fade and we will suffer more casualties as a result of CFIT.
1. We are the Royal Air Force (or Royal Navy or British Army - ie UK Sovereign Forces based in the UK) - for those unaware of recent events, our influence over the commonwealth has vastly reduced in the past few decades. Hence, should our lords and masters instruct the prospective governments of host nations of our newly exported low flying that they are to allow us to low fly at will, they are highly likely to be met with a 'f**k off your Britannic Majesties!'
2. The setting up of engineering, operations, legal framework, ac and personnel accomodation etc etc would be prohibitively high.
3. As current SH operators, many of us (me included) are already spending more than half the year deployed on ops. To be told that prior to every op deployment we have to spend a suitable time deployed in some god-forsaken part of the world, working back down to operational low flying heights, would be completely unnaceptable and would lead to an even bigger exodus than the Heli forces have faced over the past few years.
4. Low flying is such a perishable skill that it needs to be constantly practised to be effectively employed on ops - remember that we have not always had the luxury of 1-2 months warning for many of the ops that have been carried out in the past few years.
5. Low flying over any terrain involves a constant level of vigilance and concentration that can be improved by practice. The fact that you are flying over undulating grassland in practice and flat desert on ops only makes the handling task easier leaving more capacity for other tasks at hand.
As I've stated before, if we don't keep practicing it - the skill will fade and we will suffer more casualties as a result of CFIT.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't the RAF, AFC etc have a helicopter training base in the north of Scotland for example where the population is minimal. Almost no conflicts with anyone then. Would that not be realistic from a terrain point of view?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard...
The North of Scotland is very sparsely populated - because not many people want to live there. There are few jobs for wives/husbands and not many schools - hence quality of life for our families, if we were based there, would not be great.
If we just deployed there to do the exceptionally frequent training that would be required it would mean even more time away from our currently very pissed off families.
The Army (who SH generally work closely with) are mainly based in the south (Salisbury/Wilton/London/Hereford) so to work effectively with them we need to be based reasonably close.
Those who earn the most are benefiting most from the freedom won and maintained by the armed forces, why the f**k shouldn't they put up with a little helicopter noise from LL ac once in a while?
The North of Scotland is very sparsely populated - because not many people want to live there. There are few jobs for wives/husbands and not many schools - hence quality of life for our families, if we were based there, would not be great.
If we just deployed there to do the exceptionally frequent training that would be required it would mean even more time away from our currently very pissed off families.
The Army (who SH generally work closely with) are mainly based in the south (Salisbury/Wilton/London/Hereford) so to work effectively with them we need to be based reasonably close.
Those who earn the most are benefiting most from the freedom won and maintained by the armed forces, why the f**k shouldn't they put up with a little helicopter noise from LL ac once in a while?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, good thread from Lafyar Cokov.....he made 5 valid and reasonable points but there may be an asnwer to his problem.
Point 1 - The Falkland Islands
Point 2 - The Falkland Island
Point 3 - Youre in the miltary - get used to it. (and 6 months - get real for gawds sake. Half my oppos would dream of six months in the UK)
Point 4 - Falkland Islands
Point 5 - Falkland Islands.
Comments please.
Point 1 - The Falkland Islands
Point 2 - The Falkland Island
Point 3 - Youre in the miltary - get used to it. (and 6 months - get real for gawds sake. Half my oppos would dream of six months in the UK)
Point 4 - Falkland Islands
Point 5 - Falkland Islands.
Comments please.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance - if your command of the english language is epitomised by your response to a simple question then God forbid that you make any command decisions. I did not express any opinion but asked a simple straight forward question that perhaps even you could grasp. Yes I pay my taxes like everyone else and expect good value for money, I also expect those in service to provide a service for their Lords and Masters - the taxpayer. Yes deliverance, sad really, but you actually work for us.