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.

Hit a nerve here obviously. Very mature to try and slag me off i'm sure...

Read what I said. There are areas in the UK where we can fly 'in the weeds', as you so put it. I am not denying that the skill is worthwhile.

I stand by what I said with regards to the threat and DAS systems. I am not going to get into a slagging match about what I know or what I do, but I would say that transit flying over the rolling hills of the UK at 50' doesn't prepare you for 50' over the desert at night anyway, even if there was tactical reasons to do so.

Train hard, fight easy that's what I say.

A DAS between you and a SAM system = fairly effective
A DAS between you and a raghead+AK47 = totaly ineffective.
Large range between you and raghead+ AK47= very effective
Lumps of rock between you and almost all sytems = 100% effective.

Take your pick.

The thing that pisses me off is that the voracity of the general public's anti LF sentiment is inversely proportional to their lattitude. 65 years ago i suggest the opposite would have been true.

The UK enjoys a feedom and economic well-being that it could be argued is a direct result of the training and therefore ability of all of our armed forces. A little bit of noise is such a small price to pay.

Reminds me of a story a mate of mine told us.

In the 70's said mate was working as low flying complaints biatch. Irate old woman calls to complain about jets scaring her and flying too low. Mate replies with "could you see the markings on the aircraft?"

Old woman: "Yes i could even make out the pilots"
Mate: "Were the markings red stars?"
Old woman "No they were not!"
Mate: "Well think yourself lucky" puts phone down!

:} If only things were that simple nowadays!

It is was unfortunate that someone was allegedly killed by their horse bolting due to a low flying Chinook. I say allegedly as I am someone who has seen horses spooked by something as simple as a crisp packet fluttering in the hedge line.

Lets be honest, a half ton of simple minded animal trotting around the countryside can and will do what ever it wants, no matter how much 'in control' the rider seems to think they are. A 9 stone woman is never really in control of such a beast, just getting along as best they can.

Its a shame the knee jerk reaction has led to this restriction placed on training that is more than ever important to the safety and operational effectiveness of the RAF and other aviation units.

Issues vital to the defence of the State should not be subject to approval by minority interest groups who engage in dangerous sports.

However as a tax payer I expect the MOD to have to foot the bill to compensate when a tragic accident like this one happens.

It is my opinion that in the long run realistic low flying training is the cheapest option in terms of money and lives but I don't think that my opinion would have much sway with the readers of Horse & Hound !

So when the next horse is spooked by a Chinook at 100ft, do we then move up to 250'? 500'? When does it end - I am vehemently against this reduction in capability.

a) 50' transit trg IS relevent - whatever theatre a crew is practicing for (Despite what some may say on here).

b) As has been previously stated, the tactics of the Military should not be dictated by the whims of a minority dangerous-sports society.

c) Just as many horses will continue to be spooked by cars, kites, clouds, balloons or crisp packets as well as ac operating at 100ft.

If we are not careful we will end up like the Americans where low flying is a 'Special Ops' skill only and all their standard mates have been flying round Iraq at 500' getting their asses shot off.

(Sorry if I'm not mature enough for PPRUNE)

there is a need for low flying - getting the time and place right is the key thing. low flying in the south of england and other areas where there are lots of people is probably not going to get too many votes from joe public - likewise night flying training in the middle of summer past 2200hrs is not too clever either.

low flying - north of scotland

night flying - winter

People who tow their horses to events in cars don't ask for cars to be banned from roads in the event of a car v horse incident. As a country boy and an SH mate I know that horse owners will blame anything or anyone except themselves, it's human nature. And by the way, why should the Jocks and the Taffs have to bear the brunt of jet noise. If low flying is an essential part of our military doctrine and therefore foreign policy on operations, and is of benefit to the UK and her allies, the people of the UK should share the burden; not just those on low wages who can't afford horses and parlimentary questions.

How times change. Remember the Jag mid air collision with a light aircraft over Mid Wales in the early 90's? Bits of turbine landing in the primary school playground etc. Whilst there was some fringe grumbling from the usual suspects I recall nearly all the locals seeing very much the RAF point of view. Bits of high speed aluminium landing on the village was much the preferable option to not having an effective armed forces.

People are softer now, expect more compensation and the lawyers and courts are all geared up for it.

Whilst doing nothing positive for recruitment or retention is a move towards remoter parts of the world on the cards for everything that needs to fly low?

WWW

If we need to Low fly in an operational environment (and I agree that we do) then we should train for that environment. Wazzing across the yorkshire moors at low level will not help you train to insert a bunch of booties in Iraq.

There is no operational or training benefit from wazzing around at 50' in the UK.

Last time I looked, there wasn't a whole lot of sand in the balkans.

Not everything the RAF do will be based in a sand pit.

Ah, so its for Operations in the Balkans we are training for is it?

And to prepare for Operations in the Balkans we'll go wazzing over Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Hmmmm !!!

So Southside, where is this magical place that'll provide us with all of our training needs for all of the places that we could deploy in the next few years. Prehaps we could continue what we do at the moment and do our best with what we've got. Post solutions not problems.

Well perhaps if we call it preparation for a Civil War we can continue to Of course we could always ask future aggressors to give us 18 months warning in writing minimum so that we could find ourselves a training area in a country suitable in conditions to the one we will be operating in. Or we could just go on doing what we are doing, after all the fundamentals of low flying are the same, just the terrain over which it is flown varies, of course in my humble opinion as a 'mere' stacker.

Having been away for a while, my initial take on this whole thread is one of 2 options:

1. Either some people are out big game fishing (and winning)

OR

2. There are some complete and utter ar5es out there who subscribe to the whole anti-forces-doing their-job thing.

I know where my thoughts lie. So leave us alone so that we can do our job.

To avoid the inevitable grief coming my way, I'll go back to the GAFA to make up my 6 months of the year away, because as we all know, we are stretched almost to breaking point, but we still keep going. All it needs is somone to admit it, but I'll save that for another thread............

Good Day!

AA

well, im still one of those that enjoys seeing an aircraft buzz over the top of me at a low height!!!

im sure most of the public fel the same. In these PC times we over look some amazingly obvious facts when an occasional death occurs.... for instance...

Ban cigarettes? thousands die a year..
Ban cars?again, thousands...
Alcohol?licensed guns?jet skis?Boats?

the list is endless... i would rather our guys trained to fly low and be good at it so when needed they can rely on going as low as they need to operationally...

Why not position some aircraft in a friendly country that has vast amounts of wide open vacant spaces and send aircrew there on short term postings....do yer cowboying and come home when yer done. Canada has lots of room for you...even the USA with a small place called West Texas...Nevada....Alaska has room for you. What about Africa....what government down there gives a hoot what the indigenous residents has to say. Think outside the box here guys....there are simple solutions...and still do the training. Better yet...go to Iraq....do it in real time conditions....would be very realistic training now wouldn't it.

''Better yet...go to Iraq....do it in real time conditions....would be very realistic training now wouldn't it.''

yessss, that would work wouldnt it sasless!!!???!!!!

So what you’re saying SASLESS is that it’s ok to kill foreigners on low flying exercises but not our own, especially in Africa. UNBELIEVABLE

Anyway I’m sure Sir Bob Geldof would have something to say about it!!!!!

R1a

No, no... SASLess has a good point here.

There is little or no training benefit from training at Low level in the UK. Too many built up areas, too many restricted areas and too many tax payers moaning. So, lets find a training area in the USA which could include all environments we could possibly be sent too and build a Low Flying training school there.