Changes to MoD helicopter low level training rules
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance you need to have a better understanding of the British "constitution".
I am sorry to tell you that the Queen is a constitional Head of Stae with very restricted roles. The power lies in the hands of parliament. You may have been given a Queens commission, as did a great many of us, but it is the taxpayer who pays you and it is parliament which decides your fate as a military serving man.
Now as I was not arguing but asking a simple question, to which some have responded with argued reason, it is not I that was picking holes but yourself. Why not come off your righteous perch and get into the real world?
I am sorry to tell you that the Queen is a constitional Head of Stae with very restricted roles. The power lies in the hands of parliament. You may have been given a Queens commission, as did a great many of us, but it is the taxpayer who pays you and it is parliament which decides your fate as a military serving man.
Now as I was not arguing but asking a simple question, to which some have responded with argued reason, it is not I that was picking holes but yourself. Why not come off your righteous perch and get into the real world?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people have a very serious misunderstanding about not just low flying, but about life itself.
1. Low flying is a very perishable skill. It requires constant training to be good and safe. The majority is best carried out within range your home base for obvious reasons. Fast jets may be capable of zooming off to the north of Scotland on a daily basis to fly low, but Helos and Hercs etc just cannot.
2. This basic level of low level training is supplemented by focused training throughout the year. In the Navy's case this consists of exercises well north of the arctic circle for Arctic training (clockwork) Saif Serea for Desert training and so on. By doing this we remain current in the various theatres in which we may be expected to fight.
3. Nobody complains about these exercises, as we recognise the need, just as we don't complain about being sent to the Falklands/Iraq/Sierra Leone/Afghanistan/ to fight a war.
4. However, the idea that we should all live in the Falklands just so you do not have to occasionally hear the oh so distressing sound of an aircraft is frankly laughable.
5. Whilst it is unfortunate that a horse rider died, I have to be frank and say that the responsibility is 100% on the rider who decides to take up a dangerous sport, and quite frankly I would be prepared to sacrifice a great many more riders in the interests of keeping alive more of my mates during war.
6. A Chinook is just as noisy at 100ft as at 50ft, or even 300ft
7. We have retention and recruitment problems as it is. Do you think moving the entire aviation department of the military to the @rse end of the back of beyond will help?
1. Low flying is a very perishable skill. It requires constant training to be good and safe. The majority is best carried out within range your home base for obvious reasons. Fast jets may be capable of zooming off to the north of Scotland on a daily basis to fly low, but Helos and Hercs etc just cannot.
2. This basic level of low level training is supplemented by focused training throughout the year. In the Navy's case this consists of exercises well north of the arctic circle for Arctic training (clockwork) Saif Serea for Desert training and so on. By doing this we remain current in the various theatres in which we may be expected to fight.
3. Nobody complains about these exercises, as we recognise the need, just as we don't complain about being sent to the Falklands/Iraq/Sierra Leone/Afghanistan/ to fight a war.
4. However, the idea that we should all live in the Falklands just so you do not have to occasionally hear the oh so distressing sound of an aircraft is frankly laughable.
5. Whilst it is unfortunate that a horse rider died, I have to be frank and say that the responsibility is 100% on the rider who decides to take up a dangerous sport, and quite frankly I would be prepared to sacrifice a great many more riders in the interests of keeping alive more of my mates during war.
6. A Chinook is just as noisy at 100ft as at 50ft, or even 300ft
7. We have retention and recruitment problems as it is. Do you think moving the entire aviation department of the military to the @rse end of the back of beyond will help?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some valid points from all, but I really do hope Total Wa(n*e)r hasn't returned.
As an HWI/EWI/QHTI I agree that the benefit of flying at 50' as opposed to 100' is minimal over most terrain, but those who need to know that sometimes you're glad of any granite/treeline you can get.
Open source suggests that the latest seekers do not mind whether you at 50' as opposed to 100' anyway and Abdul is unlikely to spot you that much earlier, the threat band analysis supports this.
Flying at 50', whilst significantly reducing safety margins and reaction times in the event of a system failure, can offer tactical benefit and should be practiced, but not in my opinion in what could be termed 'transit flying'.
I was appalled to see SH mates on a cross country straight line Nav at 50', planned and flown on a 1/4 mil map. Little regard given to settlements and no reaction time to alot that wasn't marked on the map (and in reality would you blindly fly near settlements in potentially hostile terrain?). Lazy and highly counter productive in my opinion.
There is a time and a place (plenty of it - the plain, exmoor, dartmoor, SW peninsula etc, etc, etc
We can aid ourselves with a well thought out and pragmatic approach, reducing the chance of upset to Maj Farquarharson and his fat black lab AND giving us the most tactically realistic LL training we can.
As an HWI/EWI/QHTI I agree that the benefit of flying at 50' as opposed to 100' is minimal over most terrain, but those who need to know that sometimes you're glad of any granite/treeline you can get.
Open source suggests that the latest seekers do not mind whether you at 50' as opposed to 100' anyway and Abdul is unlikely to spot you that much earlier, the threat band analysis supports this.
Flying at 50', whilst significantly reducing safety margins and reaction times in the event of a system failure, can offer tactical benefit and should be practiced, but not in my opinion in what could be termed 'transit flying'.
I was appalled to see SH mates on a cross country straight line Nav at 50', planned and flown on a 1/4 mil map. Little regard given to settlements and no reaction time to alot that wasn't marked on the map (and in reality would you blindly fly near settlements in potentially hostile terrain?). Lazy and highly counter productive in my opinion.
There is a time and a place (plenty of it - the plain, exmoor, dartmoor, SW peninsula etc, etc, etc
We can aid ourselves with a well thought out and pragmatic approach, reducing the chance of upset to Maj Farquarharson and his fat black lab AND giving us the most tactically realistic LL training we can.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as general low flying is concerned there is a defined need for it and, as the number of aircraft reduce in the fleets the burden of inconvenience will also reduce. It is important however that restrictions on when and where low flying occurs are kept to a minimum so as to spread the burden as wide as possible.
As for night flying the same rational applies. The one thing I haven't picked up on throughout the thread, and I apologise if it has been mentioned, is that as much as it can be inconvenient to the local populace, it is just so to the air and ground crews involved. I would challenge anyone to find many servicemen or women who would choose to do this on a regular basis given that they will probably have their own families sat at home waiting for them. It remains the case however that these people will continue to maintain their proffesionalism and skill sets to ensure they are able to carry out their duties when their country (and the local populace) requires them so to do.
Given that flying hours are reducing it is important to squeeze every ounce of training benefit from every hour available so if that means that low level is achieved during a transit then it should happen. If it does not then the tax payer is not achieving maximum value for the pounds he or she is already spending for the transit. If it is not achieved during that transit then a further sortie will have to be scheduled for those aims at additional cost. That said it requires sufficient planning and attention to detail in order to achieve that benefit!
all IMHO
HEDP
As for night flying the same rational applies. The one thing I haven't picked up on throughout the thread, and I apologise if it has been mentioned, is that as much as it can be inconvenient to the local populace, it is just so to the air and ground crews involved. I would challenge anyone to find many servicemen or women who would choose to do this on a regular basis given that they will probably have their own families sat at home waiting for them. It remains the case however that these people will continue to maintain their proffesionalism and skill sets to ensure they are able to carry out their duties when their country (and the local populace) requires them so to do.
Given that flying hours are reducing it is important to squeeze every ounce of training benefit from every hour available so if that means that low level is achieved during a transit then it should happen. If it does not then the tax payer is not achieving maximum value for the pounds he or she is already spending for the transit. If it is not achieved during that transit then a further sortie will have to be scheduled for those aims at additional cost. That said it requires sufficient planning and attention to detail in order to achieve that benefit!
all IMHO
HEDP
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some sound points from HEDP. Not quite sure about the Night Flying bit. Down here in Kernew, we Night fly Mondays and Tuesdays and then get the other 5 nights at home with the family - seems to suit everyone.
And I thought that Flying hours were being Increased, not reduced. In fact we have had our Flying rate increased by some 18% from last year.
Good point about the transit though. We need to gain maximum training benefit from every minute of our flying hours.
And I thought that Flying hours were being Increased, not reduced. In fact we have had our Flying rate increased by some 18% from last year.
Good point about the transit though. We need to gain maximum training benefit from every minute of our flying hours.
So, to recap -
1. an unfortunate incident occurs and a woman is thrown from her horse after it is spooked by a helicopter.
2. The coroner (not an aviator or in the military) makes a series of criticisms about MOD LF policy.
3. Instead of being robust in defence of LF, MOD rolls over and initially looks at all sorts of ridiculous ways of making horses more conspicuous to heli crews (including avalanche transmitters which have a range of about 30').
4. Then since none of the ideas are vaguely viable, a system of filing post flight route maps for helicopters is trialled and again proves unworkable and utterly pointless (except as a means to hang a guilty crew in the event of another horse-spooking).
5. So, some bright spark comes up with Helicopter Training Areas (HTAs) around the country where helis can low fly without submitting map traces (there are still lots of horse riders inside the HTAs so this doesn't help the potential conflict). So a heli crew must now get an LFA booking and an HTA booking (and an MFTA booking if in Snowdonia) and none of these will prevent another horse-riding accident.
6. And, because this is so high profile and important, the rules (MIL AIP) are changed and the coordinates of the HTAs promulgated in CALF but in the new section in the AIP, no-one could be bothered to put in a map (not even a simple graphic outline) of the HTAs. The HTA boundaries are all but invisible on the LFC and calfing the SACs makes them almost illegible and unuseable.
What a feat of @rse and a pointless waste of time. I believe the appropriate staffspeak description would be 'nugatory effort'.
1. an unfortunate incident occurs and a woman is thrown from her horse after it is spooked by a helicopter.
2. The coroner (not an aviator or in the military) makes a series of criticisms about MOD LF policy.
3. Instead of being robust in defence of LF, MOD rolls over and initially looks at all sorts of ridiculous ways of making horses more conspicuous to heli crews (including avalanche transmitters which have a range of about 30').
4. Then since none of the ideas are vaguely viable, a system of filing post flight route maps for helicopters is trialled and again proves unworkable and utterly pointless (except as a means to hang a guilty crew in the event of another horse-spooking).
5. So, some bright spark comes up with Helicopter Training Areas (HTAs) around the country where helis can low fly without submitting map traces (there are still lots of horse riders inside the HTAs so this doesn't help the potential conflict). So a heli crew must now get an LFA booking and an HTA booking (and an MFTA booking if in Snowdonia) and none of these will prevent another horse-riding accident.
6. And, because this is so high profile and important, the rules (MIL AIP) are changed and the coordinates of the HTAs promulgated in CALF but in the new section in the AIP, no-one could be bothered to put in a map (not even a simple graphic outline) of the HTAs. The HTA boundaries are all but invisible on the LFC and calfing the SACs makes them almost illegible and unuseable.
What a feat of @rse and a pointless waste of time. I believe the appropriate staffspeak description would be 'nugatory effort'.
R1a, thanks, I was amending my post as you sent yours.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it is unfortunate that a horse rider died, I have to be frank and say that the responsibility is 100% on the rider who decides to take up a dangerous sport, and quite frankly I would be prepared to sacrifice a great many more riders in the interests of keeping alive more of my mates during war.
Surely if the rider was in Lincolnshire, she would have been aware of the increased liklihood of aircraft activity in that region. Nevertheless the liklihood of a horse being spooked by an ac, the rider being thrown and then the rider dieing as a result of their injuries must be extremely small. For the MOD to consider adjusting its practices to mitigate against an event, the odds of which with are so small, just seems absurd. Would the best approach be to continue as we were but incourage the horse riding community to become more aware of low flying ac?
Would BA or Virgin or any other civilian operator adjust the way they approach airports if a similar incident were to occur under the flight path to Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted for example?
Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, however, it strikes me as another occasion where the Military is being hammered because the general public can't grasp why what we do is important.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... the same as it ever was.
The Mod has issued guidance to horse riders re low-flying ac and advised that they should wear hi-viz vests. You can't move round our place for hi-viz vest wearing riders. Oh no, wait a minute...
IMHO, this won't actually affect the price of fish a great deal. Our LF habits won't actually change that much (as has been alluded to, most heli flying is done at or above 100' anyway) and the addition of putting in our route WPs to LFBC is little more than a pain in the backside.
The whole thing smacks of the MoD having to be seen to do something to minimise the risk to riders. The "Hotline" is a classic case of this. Mrs Miggins plans a ride at 1100 and calls the Hotline at 0900 to be told there's nothing to affect in the area. She then goes riding, safe in the knowledge that there's no risk, and lo, she gets frightened fartless by the 4-bag of Chinooks going over the top that booked in at 0930. How do you spell "futile" again? AND, despite checking, a horse is no less frightened by a diverted or (perish the thought) lost ac...
Once the dust has settled, I think we will barely remember how we used to do it. The alarming thing is, however, the intent of it all. Undoubtedly (and of course, sadly) other riders will be thrown by horses spooked by LF ac in the future. What's the next step? I'll let you draw your own conclusions...
Fact: 31 riders have been killed as a direct result of road traffic in the past 4 years... I didn't see a new "car booking procedure" in the Highway Code, or even a "Badly Driven Car" Hotline...
Link: http://www.horseawareness.co.uk/rdinc.htm
The Mod has issued guidance to horse riders re low-flying ac and advised that they should wear hi-viz vests. You can't move round our place for hi-viz vest wearing riders. Oh no, wait a minute...
IMHO, this won't actually affect the price of fish a great deal. Our LF habits won't actually change that much (as has been alluded to, most heli flying is done at or above 100' anyway) and the addition of putting in our route WPs to LFBC is little more than a pain in the backside.
The whole thing smacks of the MoD having to be seen to do something to minimise the risk to riders. The "Hotline" is a classic case of this. Mrs Miggins plans a ride at 1100 and calls the Hotline at 0900 to be told there's nothing to affect in the area. She then goes riding, safe in the knowledge that there's no risk, and lo, she gets frightened fartless by the 4-bag of Chinooks going over the top that booked in at 0930. How do you spell "futile" again? AND, despite checking, a horse is no less frightened by a diverted or (perish the thought) lost ac...
Once the dust has settled, I think we will barely remember how we used to do it. The alarming thing is, however, the intent of it all. Undoubtedly (and of course, sadly) other riders will be thrown by horses spooked by LF ac in the future. What's the next step? I'll let you draw your own conclusions...
Fact: 31 riders have been killed as a direct result of road traffic in the past 4 years... I didn't see a new "car booking procedure" in the Highway Code, or even a "Badly Driven Car" Hotline...
Link: http://www.horseawareness.co.uk/rdinc.htm
Last edited by ProfessionalStudent; 8th Oct 2005 at 12:57.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, m o s t l y
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the current state of Government popularity, the MoD has to be seen to be doing everything to help out the public. Hopefully the new rules won't affect our flying too much - just how many people do we actually think are going to ring the "hover horse hotline"? (I'm copyrighting that)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go back 20 years or so and the country had lots of separate low flying areas. There was a main route going round the country and link routes into the low flying areas.
Lots of nuisance etc for those living in each of the areas, main and link routes. The system changed to effectively cover the country with areas thus spreading the load and established OLF areas in sparsely populated areas.
Designate separate areas for heli type OLF flying and, apart from transit times, I wonder how long before the number of complaints rise in those areas requiring another shift of area?
Lots of nuisance etc for those living in each of the areas, main and link routes. The system changed to effectively cover the country with areas thus spreading the load and established OLF areas in sparsely populated areas.
Designate separate areas for heli type OLF flying and, apart from transit times, I wonder how long before the number of complaints rise in those areas requiring another shift of area?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that's bugging me is that the overwhelming majority of us firmly believe in the importance and benefits of LL training but the Americans seem to differ. An earlier post stated:
We fly in the same theatres against the same threats as the US. Why do they not train for it? It can't be the nuisance factor as they have massive amounts of training acreage in their own back yard. I would find it hard to believe they don't do it on cost grounds. Perhaps they place too much faith in their overwhelming firepower and airspace denial capabilities, to the extent that they do not consider NOE tactically necessary. Or maybe they see their losses as an acceptable risk that does not require investment in additional training hours to reduce.
Discuss.
TOG
If we are not careful we will end up like the Americans where low flying is a 'Special Ops' skill only
Discuss.
TOG
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bluntend
<<I may be way off the mark on some of the flying specifics, but I really can't grasp how this case even got to court.>>
Coroner's court Sir. No question that a sudden death has to be heard in a coroner's court.
<<I may be way off the mark on some of the flying specifics, but I really can't grasp how this case even got to court.>>
Coroner's court Sir. No question that a sudden death has to be heard in a coroner's court.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americans conducted a study into Low Flying in the Late 70's and (quite rightly) concluded that the expense of conducting Low Flying traing didn't justify the means.
Its cheaper to accept the loss of a few aircraft and crews than to train everyone with a skill which quite frankly doesn't work.
Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').
The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.
Its cheaper to accept the loss of a few aircraft and crews than to train everyone with a skill which quite frankly doesn't work.
Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').
The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southside
Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').
and
The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.
To use your word - TOSH. In a helicopter, it's bloody vital. Terrain, trees,etc are the ultimate jammer. It's not rocket science (pun intended). I'm sure those that fly FJ would agree, but they can also fly high enough to evade stuff - we can't.
Yes, low flying happens to be fun, but it's also a vital and perishable skill. Ask anyone who's flown sausage side. Just why is it do you think that the Yanks have so many shot down?
Low Flying is good fun. Thats it. There is no operational benefit from whazzing around at 50' (100').
and
The concept that we fly low to fly under radar beams is frankly tosh. Modern radars can see you manning up never mind low flying. Flying low puts you inside the threat band of many SA's and SAM's as well as placing you in a difficult and dangerous position.
To use your word - TOSH. In a helicopter, it's bloody vital. Terrain, trees,etc are the ultimate jammer. It's not rocket science (pun intended). I'm sure those that fly FJ would agree, but they can also fly high enough to evade stuff - we can't.
Yes, low flying happens to be fun, but it's also a vital and perishable skill. Ask anyone who's flown sausage side. Just why is it do you think that the Yanks have so many shot down?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats why the Americans canned it. The attrition rate was cheaper than the millions spent on LF practice.
Ive been involved in many operations since I joined in 1980. Ive been shot at (hit once - Small arms (should have been higher))
In GW1 we lost most aircraft whilst they were below 500'. In the FI's all the aircraft we lost were at low level. Those aircraft flying high were safe.
So, why do we need to low fly and in particular, why practice LF in the UK?
Ive been involved in many operations since I joined in 1980. Ive been shot at (hit once - Small arms (should have been higher))
In GW1 we lost most aircraft whilst they were below 500'. In the FI's all the aircraft we lost were at low level. Those aircraft flying high were safe.
So, why do we need to low fly and in particular, why practice LF in the UK?