Changes to MoD helicopter low level training rules
 

Would it not have been more cost effective to provide the riders with larger helmets thus saving on dayglo jackets and a disruption to low level flying?

It is sad that people die as a result of military training, both military and civilian, however; it does seem to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. When the story broke in my neck of the woods the first thing I heard from a female friend of mine was "That poor girl has died as a result of the pilot showing off" I spent a while trying to convince her otherwise.

I am sure that many other civies belive this to be the case. The catch 22 is when we cut back on low flying and (god forbid) more of our crews come home in body bags it is the RAF's fault for not allowing us to train enough?!

Someone needs to show the masses that we aren't just a bunch of idiots gallivanting around the sky, that low flying has a very real purpose and that 50ft or 100ft if a Chinook fly over a horse chances are it will be scared, hell even a gazzell at 200ft scares the stupid creatures!

:*

It is neither a knee-jerk nor an OTT response. Anything that promotes better understanding between those who conduct military low flying and those whom it affects, is a positive development.

How many horse riders are killed on the roads each year?

Answer: Roughly 7 (Maybe more)

is the DOT penalising drivers?

Answer: No

Total Over reaction.

Unless I am mistaken, 49 horse riders died in accidents last year. This figure was quoted to us in a brief to us on the new low flying policy.

Whilst I completely agree that any death is unacceptable, if we are forced to fly higher and lose the skills that we have in low flying, how long will it be before we lose a Chinook (or Puma, Sea King, Merlin) that is full of troops? The Chinook alone on Ops can easily handle 60 (or more) troops, God forbid should we lose one. How many deaths then is "Unacceptable?"

Just look at the American statistics of their loss of helicopters and their crews in Iraq and Afghanistan (this figure was quoted to us but alas I cannot remember except to say that it is in the hundreds). There policy is that they would lose more crews in teaching them to low fly on Ops that it does flying around at (helicopter) medium level. Really? How many aircraft have the UK lost then (proportionally less aircraft in theatre accepted)? Of course there have been a number of British aircraft that have returned with bullet holes in them, but the one outstanding fact is that we have lost NONE to enemy action.

Soon I will be returning to Ops and the one thing I will be urging the handling pilot to do is to fly low level. If he/she has skill fade because of some of the public's view on what we do, then I very much hope that those who complain may sleep well at night should the worst happen...

Pilot Pacifier...

So What was insufficient then?

I hate it when people jump on this 'Any death is completely unacceptable' bandwaggon. It is really 'Any death is unfortunate' but life has to reflect the risks. Even if the chances of something happening are one in a million, it will happen - people do win the lottery.

sw

Until recently I may have said the horse rider had a point. However last week I drove past two of them (on a horse) at 45 in a 60 zone. Both of the dears were waving at me to slow down at which point I thought f*** it if you can't control a horse when cars are doing the speed limit, don't ride it on the public highway.
And ultimately if you can't control the horse don't sit on it, don't blame someone else for your inability. The problem is, most horse riders don't seem willing to accept responsibility for their actions, weather it's a car driving by or a chinook, ultimately big loud things will come near you if you don't think you'll stay on the horse, get a new hobby.

A mixed Herc crew (Marshalls and RAF) were involved in an inquest to a horse rider's death fairly recently. One of the questions posed was the minimum height that had been flown during the sortie - msd was 250ft. One of the points raised was that if msd was 250ft there is never a legal i.e. authorised reason to be below 250ft. As a result Marshalls were considering raising their planned minimum height to fly e.g. 350ft with radalt at 300 and msd 250.

Legalese but that's the times we live in.

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

Remember that SH low fly in accordance with an AGL (above ground level) and MSC (seperation clearance), so an MSD is irrelevant.

Quite frankly, there is no tactical reason to transit low-fly at 50' as opposed to 100'. The small arms threat poses no greater threat at the higher height, and the DAS systems fitted to RAF and RN SH all need space below the aircraft to operate effectively. The tactical argument doesn't hold up.

Before you all launch at me, I do know what I am talking about because I am a QHI on an SH OCU.

And what about the gazelle and lynx talk split?
Do you think they have no reason to be at 10 ft for most of the time?

Remember the MOD is playing catch up. They decided not to take the original inquest seriously and failed to send anyone. The coroner took a dim view and lambasted them...so the MOD has been on the backfoot ever since.

Role1a wrote:
Er...yes. Penalties range from fines for speeding to 8 years for causing death by dangerous driving.

I'm with you Talksplit, however, we need the ability and realestate to train as we mean to fight...we need to maintain our ability and skill to operate in the weeds/NOE for those parts of the mission that aren't 'Transit'. Why not deploy us and all our customers to Northern Scotland where we can't annoy/kill as many innocent civvies? I know, cost, logistics, etc, etc. but just a thought.

What does a horse rider get for dangerous riding or being in charge of a uncontrollable horse when it damages a car or worse still, causes an accident.

Horse riders- never had an accident, but seen loads!!!!

R1a

Agree with Hueymeister reference training in Northern Scotland .. hailing from the frozen north myself I have never encountered anyone there hostile to low flying indeed during my time as an Ops Clerk (Sorry Aircrew .. your forum is more interesting than the ops one!!) whenever I went home people were understanding when the jets and helos went whizzing over. In fact my daughter got time out from school recently to visit the airport to see someHawks that were at Wick airport for low flying training. Many thanks to the pilots involved .. duaghter was well impressed.

But certain horsey types are living proof that brain death isnt fatal .. one example being the women who moved to the North of Scotland some years back to open a horse riding centre .. and built it between Lossie and Kinloss .. and then complained that wthe Nimrods were disturbing her animals.

And if the helo community do head north en masse please try not to disturb the haggis .. its breeding season !!

Seems like a sensible and proper approach to me. For far too long military aircrew have been whazzing around the skies at extreme low level without a care in the world. About time this scandalous cowboy attitude was curtailed.

Southside,

your previous posts suggest that you're in the FAA. If you try to remember back to your time at Shawbury, you may recall that it was not all cowboy wazzing 'without a care in the world' - it was actually very strictly controlled and was quite a discipline. I guess being a fish-head type you haven't done much overland helicopter flying around such places as southern Iraq. If you did you would know very well why it is essential to maintain low flying skills.

I suspect that for reasons unknown, you are trolling and I really can't be arsed to type out the pro-LL argument once again, when it has already been flogged to death on Prune. Do a search here for Heather Bell and READ what has been written before.

A helicopter's natural environment is as close to ground level as possible without hitting anything. That's why 50ft is the usual safe figure. Horses will still be upset by Chinooks etc at 500ft.

Where do you draw the line?

Why should we degrade our operational capability to protect riders when many (such as Heather Bell) are not prepared protect themselves by wearing helmet or take personal responsibility for accepting the risks of the dangerous sport in which they choose to participate?

Rock on Southside.

I have 3 horses and 1200 hrs Chinook-so what you may say. "Operational Blah, Blah, Blah, we need to train".

Ok 100ft now's the min; be very careful cos one more Helo/FJ vs pipeline inspector/ horse/ 737 and it'll be 2000 feet. An old mate bragged recently he did 1 and a half hours at 50feet. WHY? Why cos it's FUN.

Are you surprised the general public are getting pissed off because I am not. And don't give me the sh*t that Mrs Bell was not wearing a riding hat and should not take part in a dangerous sport: her hat would not have saved her and why on earth shouldn't people ride horses.

The MOD has had to finally take steps to try and prevent this happening again cos it's high profile and I'm in full agreement.

Ducking now!

I will not deny that low level is fun. It is probably the most exciting flying that a pilot can do and can often be quite demanding, not least in ensuring that the low flying is conducted legally, in accordance with the auth, bookings, regulations, avoids, etc. It may be fun to do but that is not why we do it.

Low flying, like it or not, is an operational necessity and therefore a necessary part of peacetime training. This amendment to the rules is quite simply a pointless exercise to placate the antis, which include the Lincs Coroner, elements of the media etc. It will have little beneficial effect for the complainants (a Chinny is just as loud at 100ft as 50, but spreads the noise over a larger area for a longer time).

I truly believe that this was an occassion where the Govt should have stuck up for the Armed Forces, but predictably it has not. It is plain to see how much the Government and Nation has depended on the RAF, FAA and AAC over the last few years (believe me, the Boscastle rescues were not flown from medium level) and unfortunately equally clear where we lie on the list of priorities ie well below recreational passtimes.

Increased commitment, reduced funding in real terms, reduced numbers of personnel, aircraft, regiments and now reduced training.

God forbid an accident of the Sea Knight on night 1 of Telic sort or like the US Chinook shootdowns in the Stan recently and Iraq 2 yrs ago, but if it happens, I'm sure the Govt and all the antis will be wringing their hands with grief and sympathy. Too little too late. Maybe if their sons were squaddies down the back of Support Helos they'd think differently.

Happy Flying/Riding,

Stout

50' transits are still permitted by the way - where the training is justified.

Torque Split:

One word - Stinger
Another - SA18
A few more - Both systems min target hts are (believed to be) about 50-75ft! Having flown in flat open areas with a particularly high threat, I can tell you that the extra 50' makes a whole world of difference. Basic geometary tells you that it halves the time for aquisition, tracking and targetting of any system from an AK-47 to a Manpad. Please don't tell me that there is no tactical advantage to flying lower. If you are going to do so - come with me on my next Det and explain in to me over there. I'll be the one in the weeds!

You are also an ar5e who should not shoot his mouth off, supporting the detractors who have no idea about issues involving the tactics and safety of fellow aviators. (Surely you are on an OCF not an OCU anyway!!!)
Trying to raise the min ht of low flying training and then expect us to fly on ops is a bit like saying we can practice IF with one eye on the horizon outside - the benefit will be minimal.