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.

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.

"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.

Going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here. :E

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! :E

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.

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?

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.

Couple of things Southside.

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

Southside is correct, as a result of the Mull of Kintyre crash in 1994, the rules were tightened up. However, troops by defininition are not passengers. There are a few caveats which allow low flying with pax, such as if it is the purpose of the sortie or they are required to service the ac after the sortie.

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.

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.

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...

who/what is totalwar?

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.

PTT - Check your PM's

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.

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?

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?

its not every now and again though is it ?

every night monday-thursday until after midnight is a bit much.

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.

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.

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?

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?

In fact it can be worse because your acoustic footprint covers a wider area; just ask a submariner.

:cool:

TOG

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 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

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.

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'.

To be fair crab, the HTA's are marked on the LFC but are very difficult to see.

There is a map on the LFBC Web site of all the HTAs

Other than that I concur

R1a

R1a, thanks, I was amending my post as you sent yours.

Sorry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious and since the only item of hi-tech MOD kit I 'fly' is a desk, 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.

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.

... 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

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)

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?

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.

:cool:

TOG

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.

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.

Southside, see PM

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
 

Southside,

Utter Utter rot. I don't know what you do, but you are very misinformed and obviously have little understanding of operational aviation.

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?