Low level fast jets over Silverstone 25/6
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post was, of course, slightly tongue in cheek, but the underlying point is valid.
Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago, the public reaction would most likely have been along the lines of: 'What a fantastic sight! Highly trained professionals going about their job. I'm sure they know what they're doing'.
These days there is a very vocal minority opposing military flying (and numerous other issues) whose opinions are often amplified by the media. Additionally lay persons are more comfortable expressing opinion on subject outside their expertise. Couple that with our modern risk-averse blame-culture, where any opportunity for litigation and compensation is exploited, and we have a problem on our hands.
A few people who, in their maybe well-meaning but ultimately uninformed opinion, consider an overflight to be dangerous, are given credibilty by the media, and before you know it you have a tabloid campaign, a knee-jerk appeasement from MoD and another red dot on the avoids chart, which slowly but surely is expanding into one large UK-shaped avoid.
A recent example would be the Heather Bell / horse / Chinook incident, which resulted in restrictions imposed on RW low flying, which do little to enhance safety, but go some way to temporarily appeasing the objectors, all at the expense of training value. Likewise the recent tabloid outrage over the inclusion of an 'unairworthy' Nimrod in the London flypast.
The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"', although as the Heather Bell saga demonstrated, in many cases the public do not wish to be educated. Should the RAF change its ways to accommodate such a state of affairs?
Perhaps Powerless could explain why exactly some people thought the overflight was dangerous.
Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, I have no idea what the FJs were doing near Silverstone yesterday.
Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago, the public reaction would most likely have been along the lines of: 'What a fantastic sight! Highly trained professionals going about their job. I'm sure they know what they're doing'.
These days there is a very vocal minority opposing military flying (and numerous other issues) whose opinions are often amplified by the media. Additionally lay persons are more comfortable expressing opinion on subject outside their expertise. Couple that with our modern risk-averse blame-culture, where any opportunity for litigation and compensation is exploited, and we have a problem on our hands.
A few people who, in their maybe well-meaning but ultimately uninformed opinion, consider an overflight to be dangerous, are given credibilty by the media, and before you know it you have a tabloid campaign, a knee-jerk appeasement from MoD and another red dot on the avoids chart, which slowly but surely is expanding into one large UK-shaped avoid.
A recent example would be the Heather Bell / horse / Chinook incident, which resulted in restrictions imposed on RW low flying, which do little to enhance safety, but go some way to temporarily appeasing the objectors, all at the expense of training value. Likewise the recent tabloid outrage over the inclusion of an 'unairworthy' Nimrod in the London flypast.
The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"', although as the Heather Bell saga demonstrated, in many cases the public do not wish to be educated. Should the RAF change its ways to accommodate such a state of affairs?
Perhaps Powerless could explain why exactly some people thought the overflight was dangerous.
Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, I have no idea what the FJs were doing near Silverstone yesterday.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"that said, if you're going to break the rules, you'd better be very sure you know what you're doing."
Damn it, there's a rule book ...? So THAT's where I'm going wrong.
I'm so glad that we have 'knobcheese journos' to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Damn it, there's a rule book ...? So THAT's where I'm going wrong.
I'm so glad that we have 'knobcheese journos' to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap 62
I am very aware of the difference in a fly past and an overflight. However in plain Joe Public language, they are one and the same... that's the point.
Joe Public does not understand the rules the military play by and as others have said here it is very difficult to judge distances etc from the ground... even trained aircrew would get it wrong more often than not... though because they have the knowledge, their minds would work slightly differently in that instaed of the first thought being "thats surely not safe" (the way Joe Public would think), a seasoned person would be thinking from the angle that it was a well briefed and executed flight!
It is partly the difference in mindset that is the problem... educating the public is an ongoing task and needs to be done to keep them onside - and more to the point, to get them to rekindle the pride they used to have in the Armed Forces as near back as the 80's.
I am very aware of the difference in a fly past and an overflight. However in plain Joe Public language, they are one and the same... that's the point.
Joe Public does not understand the rules the military play by and as others have said here it is very difficult to judge distances etc from the ground... even trained aircrew would get it wrong more often than not... though because they have the knowledge, their minds would work slightly differently in that instaed of the first thought being "thats surely not safe" (the way Joe Public would think), a seasoned person would be thinking from the angle that it was a well briefed and executed flight!
It is partly the difference in mindset that is the problem... educating the public is an ongoing task and needs to be done to keep them onside - and more to the point, to get them to rekindle the pride they used to have in the Armed Forces as near back as the 80's.
Last edited by anotherthing; 26th Jun 2008 at 09:15.
> The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"',
Quite so.
I very much wish someone would write a book as otherwise the only information available to anyone - journo or not - is "Tornado Down" et al (and yes many do mention breaking low flying rules). If you object, counter-publish, please!
But seriously - I've long bemoaned the lack of reference on this subject. It's tough to portray the RAF in popular culture because it's tough to find out how it really works.
P
Quite so.
I very much wish someone would write a book as otherwise the only information available to anyone - journo or not - is "Tornado Down" et al (and yes many do mention breaking low flying rules). If you object, counter-publish, please!
But seriously - I've long bemoaned the lack of reference on this subject. It's tough to portray the RAF in popular culture because it's tough to find out how it really works.
P
From the responses I guess I won't bother asking anything in future. Thanks
If you ask a decent question and expect an INTELLIGENT answer, well once in a blue moon you may be lucky.
It seems that most posters DO NOT "RTFQ" and go right off on a tangent pushing their own barrow, and obviously have far too much time on their hands.
Please remain on the forum, as every now and then there are useful responses.
I will now put on my flak jacket and batten down the hatches for incoming.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F.O.M.S. "Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago" you are of course quite correct BUT in that time period you did not have the luixury of the whole UK being declared a low fly zone. I believe in general the vast majority of joe public is right behind the services but the arrogance shown by some, including contributors on this thread, just shows why a large amount of contempt is creeping in. Certainly many decades ago the RAF taught that no matter what badge of rank was worn RESPECT still had to be earned. Is that not still the case?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this day and age, I suspect that 95% of the people at Silverstone for any sort of event will never have seen a low flying military jet, due to living in the middle of a very large built up area such as Brum, London, Manchester, etc. The people most likely to have exposure to military heavy metal are rural dwellers, who probably wouldn't blink at the sight of a low flying jet - however there obviously aren't as many of them, particularly in that part of the world.
With regards to reactions on PPRuNe, you will generally get a serious reply, but only after 15 bone or tongue in cheek replies. Be patient!
With regards to reactions on PPRuNe, you will generally get a serious reply, but only after 15 bone or tongue in cheek replies. Be patient!
Given the mailbag this is generating I feel the need to elucidate a little further - no I don't object to military low flying, no I don't consider aircrew to be dyed-in-the-wool rebellious rulebreakers and I'm sure nobody at Silverstone knew 500ft from 1000ft - I probably wouldn't.
My only position is that if you're going to complain about people's assumptions that you are breaking the rules, perhaps it's best not to write in books about gleefully doing exactly that.
Personally I think if you're going to sit on top of an animal known for startling at at small, inoffensive happenstances (let alone military aircraft) you probably deserve all you get - but that really would be barrow-pushing.
P
My only position is that if you're going to complain about people's assumptions that you are breaking the rules, perhaps it's best not to write in books about gleefully doing exactly that.
Personally I think if you're going to sit on top of an animal known for startling at at small, inoffensive happenstances (let alone military aircraft) you probably deserve all you get - but that really would be barrow-pushing.
P
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil,
I would tend to agree with your last paragraph (hopefully without appearing too arrogant, unhelpful or bringing the forces into disrepute). The reason I jumped on my high-horse was simply that in recent years where a conflict of interest has arisen between military aviation and the general public, the compromise has been on one side only! I would never say that the likes of Heather Bell deserve what they get, but they must take some personal responsibility for their own safety and risk, rather than simply blaming military aviation. I still see riders without helmets, without the MoD funded high-viz vests, and presumably without having called the MoD low flying hotline, and yet the complaints still roll in.
Some of the examples of RAF 'high spirits' in decades gone by are truly hair raising, but have been in steady decline since the end of WW2. These days there is no tolerance for such antics in civil or military aviation. Pablo may have said 'bugger the rules' on many occasions but look where he ended up. Regardless of your thoughts about the final incident, he stepped outside the rulebook and got his arse chewed for it.
Pablo
Professional aviation these days is very 'professional', and what the general public may perceive to be dangerous is most often absolutely safe.
I would tend to agree with your last paragraph (hopefully without appearing too arrogant, unhelpful or bringing the forces into disrepute). The reason I jumped on my high-horse was simply that in recent years where a conflict of interest has arisen between military aviation and the general public, the compromise has been on one side only! I would never say that the likes of Heather Bell deserve what they get, but they must take some personal responsibility for their own safety and risk, rather than simply blaming military aviation. I still see riders without helmets, without the MoD funded high-viz vests, and presumably without having called the MoD low flying hotline, and yet the complaints still roll in.
if ... you are breaking the rules, perhaps it's best not to write in books about gleefully doing exactly that
Pablo
Professional aviation these days is very 'professional', and what the general public may perceive to be dangerous is most often absolutely safe.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJs are not my area of expertise, but when flying a fling-wing death banana at 50ft (pre Heather Bell, or 100ft post) a high viz jacket makes a significant difference, and can mean the difference between a direct overflight or 1/2 a mile's spacing.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's all the fuss ?
I'd like to have been there and spoken in support of our aircrew. Joe public needs to understand that we have people flying war missions on a daily basis in support of troops who are facing some of the most intense combat since Korea.
I have nowt but admiration for those of you who continue to serve
As for flying over Silverstone, I hope nobody was alarmed a few years back when I overflew said establishment as a waypoint on my QXC
Now then, when can we expect an FJ foray through Tower Bridge ?
I have nowt but admiration for those of you who continue to serve
As for flying over Silverstone, I hope nobody was alarmed a few years back when I overflew said establishment as a waypoint on my QXC
Now then, when can we expect an FJ foray through Tower Bridge ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cujanga
Age: 59
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope nobody was alarmed a few years back when I overflew said establishment as a waypoint on my QXC
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Pilot colleague of mine says a good indicator of 200ft AGL is the sheep leg rule, if you can see sheeps legs then you are at that height or below !
A technique used in low level training I believe.
Probably totally irrelevant to this thread but interesting anyway !
My view of low level fast jets is "bring em on" love watching tornadoes rip through the lake district at obscene heights, really gets me giddy ! (they must be checking out sheeps legs !) Every time I see one I say to myself " Lucky ba****rd !
A technique used in low level training I believe.
Probably totally irrelevant to this thread but interesting anyway !
My view of low level fast jets is "bring em on" love watching tornadoes rip through the lake district at obscene heights, really gets me giddy ! (they must be checking out sheeps legs !) Every time I see one I say to myself " Lucky ba****rd !
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by microlight AV8R
oe public needs to understand that we have people flying war missions on a daily basis in support of troops who are facing some of the most intense combat since Korea.
L met
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but feeling from some people who were near said it looked dangerous.
It would have been a darn sight more dangerous on the track testing tyres.
Unless of course those on the ground at Silverstone were QFIs/CFS/DARS and had a valid opinion of what constitutes 'dangerous'?
And before some rant on about 'we need to make the public aware'. No we don't. We go out of our way to make the public aware of what we do. Watch the news.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast jet pilots don't break the rules - they make them. (Spears inbound!)
Phil_R, if you want to know what jet guys do then PM me and I'll get you up to have a look around the Sqn, maybe talk you through flight planning issues, show you how we do everything we can to avoid upsetting the public etc. Once we lose the low flying areas, we'll never get them back.
And yes, you can see high vis vests in the mach loop.
Flying below 250 ft is incredibly demanding and can be sustained for only short periods of time - areas are allocated for this purpose (Operational Low Flying areas). I've never known of a pilot to fly around continuosly at less than 250 ft without authorisation, he knows the boss would tear him apart for it and that he is also likely to be killed.
Hope that helps.
Phil_R, if you want to know what jet guys do then PM me and I'll get you up to have a look around the Sqn, maybe talk you through flight planning issues, show you how we do everything we can to avoid upsetting the public etc. Once we lose the low flying areas, we'll never get them back.
And yes, you can see high vis vests in the mach loop.
Flying below 250 ft is incredibly demanding and can be sustained for only short periods of time - areas are allocated for this purpose (Operational Low Flying areas). I've never known of a pilot to fly around continuosly at less than 250 ft without authorisation, he knows the boss would tear him apart for it and that he is also likely to be killed.
Hope that helps.
