Changes to MoD helicopter low level training rules
That's great southside - 'Off you go to war boys, some won't be coming back because we can't be arsed to train you properly'.
Attrition rates might be 'acceptable' when you are sat in a comfy office far from the front line but not when you are sent off to become one of the statistics.
If you can fly really high and fast then I agree you are safer but helicopters have to do their job close to the ground - strangely the troops don't want to get out at 500' !
Attrition rates might be 'acceptable' when you are sat in a comfy office far from the front line but not when you are sent off to become one of the statistics.
If you can fly really high and fast then I agree you are safer but helicopters have to do their job close to the ground - strangely the troops don't want to get out at 500' !
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, m o s t l y
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawbury has 1 dedicated low-level training sortie then straight back into the Nav - which is mixed but mostly done at low-level, but at the end of the day is used as navigation training as opposed to LL flying. Worst case?? £10K per pilot.
The airframe cost alone to the Americans of being shot down (not running out of ability) of Iraq and Afghan runs into hundreds of millions of pounds (not dollars!). PM me for details if you'd like...
Southside you're talking out of your ar5e.
The airframe cost alone to the Americans of being shot down (not running out of ability) of Iraq and Afghan runs into hundreds of millions of pounds (not dollars!). PM me for details if you'd like...
Southside you're talking out of your ar5e.
Deliverance!
Quote: Aunty Betty owns the land we fly over.
Oh really, she owns all the land in UK does she-I don't think so-oh and by the way, can you fly over her houses at 50'; no cos they've got red blobs on them have they not.
Quote: Aunty Betty owns the land we fly over.
Oh really, she owns all the land in UK does she-I don't think so-oh and by the way, can you fly over her houses at 50'; no cos they've got red blobs on them have they not.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
While you are all flaming Southside, he possibly picked up the wrong end as helicopter low flying is what the thread is really about.
And on that note the low flying comlaint issue we were discussing yesterday in a nature reserve was not about Aunty Betty's toys anyway but Uncle Sams.
And on that note the low flying comlaint issue we were discussing yesterday in a nature reserve was not about Aunty Betty's toys anyway but Uncle Sams.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Deliverance,
I would hazard a guess that the millions southside is talking about start with the additional wear and tear hence reduced airframe life and greater maintenance and replacement costs.
Then you get the cost arising from low level accidents, thankfully fewer and less life threatening than in the 60s and 70s. During the cold war with virtually no combat flying all the costs fell during training and none during operations - except in Vietnam.
That is where the US switched their game. They were taking SAC pilots, converting them to FJ and sending them to war. Although they had flown at LL there was no way you would have considered them LL Operational to the same extent as a modern mud sqn training for war. I am not denigrating the SAC pilots, simply suggesting that the USAF increased the size of their aircrew pool to such an extent that giving them all low level training was too expensive when the better option was a SEAD package.
I would hazard a guess that the millions southside is talking about start with the additional wear and tear hence reduced airframe life and greater maintenance and replacement costs.
Then you get the cost arising from low level accidents, thankfully fewer and less life threatening than in the 60s and 70s. During the cold war with virtually no combat flying all the costs fell during training and none during operations - except in Vietnam.
That is where the US switched their game. They were taking SAC pilots, converting them to FJ and sending them to war. Although they had flown at LL there was no way you would have considered them LL Operational to the same extent as a modern mud sqn training for war. I am not denigrating the SAC pilots, simply suggesting that the USAF increased the size of their aircrew pool to such an extent that giving them all low level training was too expensive when the better option was a SEAD package.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall I explain the money bit? Well, last year in just LFA 1,2 and 3 the MOD used 23,726 flying hours. Yep, thats right, 23,726 hours and thats just LFA 1,2 and 3.
Now Im not sure how much it is an hour to fly a Chinook or a Lynx but I know how much it costs to fly a Merlin and a Seaking and so as a rough guess I reckon the tax payer forked out the tune of well over £10 million. Thats just LFA 1,2 and 3. I haven't got the time to try and work out the rest.
Now those hours are hours booked, not hours flown and so letssay that the utilisation was only 50%....thats still a hefty £5,000,000.
At the moment the entire UK is available as a low flying training area ( with a few exceptions). Why don't we go back to the routines we had prior to 1979 (for those of yu who remember - Beagle will, I'm sure)
Prior to 1979 you could only LF in certain, designated areas. Only the Sqdn hierarchy could authorise LF. Consequently Low Flying was taken much more seriously then than it is now. Now, just about anyone can authorise Low Flying and you can Low fly just about anywhere you want to. If Low flying is such an important skill (as many of you are suggesting) then we need to take it more seriously.
Now Im not sure how much it is an hour to fly a Chinook or a Lynx but I know how much it costs to fly a Merlin and a Seaking and so as a rough guess I reckon the tax payer forked out the tune of well over £10 million. Thats just LFA 1,2 and 3. I haven't got the time to try and work out the rest.
Now those hours are hours booked, not hours flown and so letssay that the utilisation was only 50%....thats still a hefty £5,000,000.
At the moment the entire UK is available as a low flying training area ( with a few exceptions). Why don't we go back to the routines we had prior to 1979 (for those of yu who remember - Beagle will, I'm sure)
Prior to 1979 you could only LF in certain, designated areas. Only the Sqdn hierarchy could authorise LF. Consequently Low Flying was taken much more seriously then than it is now. Now, just about anyone can authorise Low Flying and you can Low fly just about anywhere you want to. If Low flying is such an important skill (as many of you are suggesting) then we need to take it more seriously.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southside.
You are absolutely clueless. The Spams lose helis because they are shot down by flying IN the threat band for EVERYTHING, not because they're at low level... because they're NOT at low level.
Our helis try and fly BELOW the threat band for everything they can. And, generally, it works.
It's people like you who think tactics are little white mints.
In my career, I've lost arond 12 colleagues in flying related accidents. NOT ONE, count them, has died as a direct (or indirect) result of low flying.
Luck? Maybe.
Because we're practiced and current. More than likely. If you can go at FL nosebleed and warp-factor snot, then all fine and dandy. For us rotary mates who can't, then LL flying is THE ONLY way, apart from technical wizardry, we can avoid being shot down.
Low flying in helicopters has a very low attrition rate because we practice it regularly. Stop that practice, apart from pre-op training, and I'd put money on it increasing...
You are absolutely clueless. The Spams lose helis because they are shot down by flying IN the threat band for EVERYTHING, not because they're at low level... because they're NOT at low level.
Our helis try and fly BELOW the threat band for everything they can. And, generally, it works.
It's people like you who think tactics are little white mints.
In my career, I've lost arond 12 colleagues in flying related accidents. NOT ONE, count them, has died as a direct (or indirect) result of low flying.
Luck? Maybe.
Because we're practiced and current. More than likely. If you can go at FL nosebleed and warp-factor snot, then all fine and dandy. For us rotary mates who can't, then LL flying is THE ONLY way, apart from technical wizardry, we can avoid being shot down.
Low flying in helicopters has a very low attrition rate because we practice it regularly. Stop that practice, apart from pre-op training, and I'd put money on it increasing...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't comment on the difference between 50' and 100' as am only a humble SAR boy... but do think it should be pointed out that this new system with the amount of time it takes to sort out a low level booking now, does seem to encourage people to go up in the sort of areas ( above 500ft, below the zero degree isotherm when like me you've got bugger all icing clearance) where your a lot more likely to bump into a lot more traffic (our fast jet brethren for a start)
Once again just a thought, and of course on actual SAR ops all low level bookings can be done retrospectively.
Once again just a thought, and of course on actual SAR ops all low level bookings can be done retrospectively.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southside - I assume you are now just trying to provoke a reaction to you utter tosh (I believe the youths on these new-fangled interweb thingy chat houses call it 'Flaming' - so check out my lingo.....).
Just in case you aren't I would suggest you read some of your own posts and try to work out the logic in them.
Are you truly saying that if 'Low Flying was taken more seriously' then there would be less of it??? Surely if it was taken more seriously there should be more - it is such and important skill (to SH/AH anyway - obviously not to pingers, baggers and SAR like yourself!) that in needs (yes NEEDS!!) to be perfected to such a level where it is not a novelty, where the whole crew feel natural at operating at that environment and where mission details can be concentrated on - not worrying about whether you are going to hit wires, trees, masts etc. Only constant exposure to the environment can breed this familiarity.
Seondly you state that low flying cost £5,000,000 last year. The only logical upshot of your argument is that if low flying was more restricted then that figure would be saved. More tosh - the flying would have to be done anyway - last year most aircrew flew below their NATO standard 15 hours a month. This flying has to take place - it would just move higher, we would have more collisions with our fj bretheren and the training would be worth less.
When low-flying was restricted to certain routes its value was limited - there was no real development in navigation as the routes soon became known and the navigation part of the exercise was easy - hence the capacity of those operating at low level was not being expanded as it should. Also - if a person happened to be living under one of those low level routes then they would experience much more than their fair share of noise - surly it is better to spread the effects more thinly throughout the countryside rather than always annoy the same houses.
I'm glad you finally agree in your last paragraph that low flying IS such an important skill - but so is landing. It is fundamental to our day to day operations. Why therefore should it only be authorised by the Sqn hierachy. I agree that we have to be careful that we do not APPEAR to be abusing the low flying system (I say appear because I don't believe that anybody abuses it - however, the bad press put out by detractors from our primary task, like yourself, sometimes try to paint a picture of the military aircrew who have to practice this essential skill, as mavericks), and each low flying sortie must be justifiable and planned to ensure that the maximum training benefit is exuded from it.
Now call the fire-brigade to put out the flames!!!
Just in case you aren't I would suggest you read some of your own posts and try to work out the logic in them.
Are you truly saying that if 'Low Flying was taken more seriously' then there would be less of it??? Surely if it was taken more seriously there should be more - it is such and important skill (to SH/AH anyway - obviously not to pingers, baggers and SAR like yourself!) that in needs (yes NEEDS!!) to be perfected to such a level where it is not a novelty, where the whole crew feel natural at operating at that environment and where mission details can be concentrated on - not worrying about whether you are going to hit wires, trees, masts etc. Only constant exposure to the environment can breed this familiarity.
Seondly you state that low flying cost £5,000,000 last year. The only logical upshot of your argument is that if low flying was more restricted then that figure would be saved. More tosh - the flying would have to be done anyway - last year most aircrew flew below their NATO standard 15 hours a month. This flying has to take place - it would just move higher, we would have more collisions with our fj bretheren and the training would be worth less.
When low-flying was restricted to certain routes its value was limited - there was no real development in navigation as the routes soon became known and the navigation part of the exercise was easy - hence the capacity of those operating at low level was not being expanded as it should. Also - if a person happened to be living under one of those low level routes then they would experience much more than their fair share of noise - surly it is better to spread the effects more thinly throughout the countryside rather than always annoy the same houses.
I'm glad you finally agree in your last paragraph that low flying IS such an important skill - but so is landing. It is fundamental to our day to day operations. Why therefore should it only be authorised by the Sqn hierachy. I agree that we have to be careful that we do not APPEAR to be abusing the low flying system (I say appear because I don't believe that anybody abuses it - however, the bad press put out by detractors from our primary task, like yourself, sometimes try to paint a picture of the military aircrew who have to practice this essential skill, as mavericks), and each low flying sortie must be justifiable and planned to ensure that the maximum training benefit is exuded from it.
Now call the fire-brigade to put out the flames!!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Lafyar Cokov
I guess 'flaming' is very appropriate on this Mil section as in 'shot down in flames.'
I guess 'flaming' is very appropriate on this Mil section as in 'shot down in flames.'
