Horse Breeder sues MOD over Jets
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/7440307.stm

Another drain of taxpayers money..... :ugh:

Why? :confused:

Who has been in the area the longest - the RAF or the horse breeder?

Then maybe everyone will want one!

Maybe a court will give a ruling in favour of the families of those crews whom are killed whilst low flying due to the restrictions placed upon them that curtail their ability to train in that environment?

Stupid bitch. you buy a house in a low flying area and then wonder why there are jets flying low near to your house. Didn't you do a bit of research into the area when you were buying the place - or did you and your horses just turn up one day and think this would be a nice place to stick a stables. Dry your eyes and man up, no sympathy from this callsign, I'm fed up of people buying property next to airfields / trg areas and then complaining when they hear a jet.

I'm assumign that's a rhetorical question. But in case it isn't then the answer is for the same reason that airline pilots still need to learn how to land a heavy even though they have a computer that can do it for them .... one day they might just have to do it themselves. Plus, a show of force over Basrah doens't quite have the same effect a FL250

Absolutely.

I don't agree with what you say, but I would die in the defence of your right to say it.

The stupid bitch is a taxpayer. Your comment would not be out of place in Moscow.

So then, how would you go about an 'Avoidance'?

"Asking for an avoidance around her land seems like a perfectly sensible request."

indeed perefectly reasnoble to request, doesn't mean its practicle or indeed possible to avoid her land mind

Maybe a little blunter than normal, but it's been a long week. And quite frankly, whilst I could change the wording, the sentiment would be exactly the same so I won't. And I can guarantee that in being somewhat more blunt than usual, I am merely saying what many are thinking but are just too polite to articulate. And quite frankly, given the current op tempo and focus on providing kit and support to the various theatres which has already paired back the availability of training, I as a tax payer would prefer to see the forces of which I am also one, being able to train properly for the task required of them, without having to justify essential operational training activities to the NIMBY brigade.

She lives in the middle of the low flying system. She has to expect some aircraft activity. She states herself that the horses bolt at the slightest noise, so given the aircraft noise in the area, maybe bringing 11 highly strung thoroughbreds into the area isn't such a good idea. Just a thought :ugh:

And how much is the MOD going to spend defending this case and/or paying her off that could go to making the lives of servicemen on a base/barracks that little bit more tolerable by doing delapidated buildings up, ensuring necessary kit is provisioned for?

We all live in the middle of the LFS.

This lady has a good point and she should be listened to. There is no reason why FJ need to fly low over this ladies property. She lives in a very rural area and an avoidance would be easy and may save the MOD a lot of money.

in reply to melchett
I hope the way in which you express yourself doesn't reflect the way you handle yourself in your professional life. A bit of tact would go a long way.
Forgive me if u think I'm being insensitive
Yes the RAF and armed services do a valuable job and I'm sure the woman in question appreciates that, if not she should. The guys on the ground and in the air deserve the best kit. and no lets not waste tax payers money with court action.
but I'm sure the woman in question felt she had no option and a bit of appreciation by the ministry of the deaf (sorry defence) would no doubt have avoided the situation.
Being a horse breeder isn't like training to be a dog walker
it takes a life long experience and skill that you possibly don't appreciate
and it is her job and no doubt provides her income - not everyone wants to join the armed services.
low flying and horses will always be an emotive area - but you can't expect people to stop riding or check when a jet might be passing over.
yes riders have to put up with occasional blasts by in the air or on the ground from motorists.
But they don't have to sit up and shut up all the time. As far as I remember we live in a democracy and unless Mugabe has taken over we can pursue our hobbies and have the right to expect a wee bit of consideration occasionally.
the sky is a big place and as planes can cover more ground than horses perhaps they could move over a bit. From memory I seem to recall that pilots can navigate their way in the dark - so it can't be that hard to be a bit neighbour friendly.
No doubt youll slag me - but sometimes things really can be resolved that :Oeasily.

You cannot say, without seeing a map with her house and the surrounding avoids, that there is no reason to fly over her property. It is perfectly reasonable of her to ask. It may not be perfectly reasonable to grant it. The UK LFS contains an incredibly complex mass of regulated avoidances of various sorts. In some places, one more can have effects out of all proportion to its simple dimensions.

When I was young, I used to go horse riding near Dyce airfield. The horses were completely unfazed by aircraft (the occasional Dakota or Chipmunk) or the large noisy steam engines on the railway that backed on to the stable. They did, however, freak out at the arrival of one of these new-fangled devices - a deisel locomotive.

I suspect that horses living in a well-used part of the LFA get used to jet noise in time. Certainly the horses around my airfield don't seem in the least bothered by a large helicopter cavorting at 50-75 ft, as we have been doing every other day or so for at least 30 years.

Sven

This country is rapidly expanding in all directions. More and more people are living in rural areas. When do we stopping moving low-flying areas to suit the local populous? I think it has already been established that low-flying is essential, and large areas of land are needed for this purpose.

If every time someone moves into a low flying area, it has to be restricted or moved, we will end up with no where but the north sea to fly!!!

Here is a link to the locality I believe this lady is LINK

waterhorse, thanks, my thoughts exactly.

LBGR

The trouble is that there are a very great many people who don't understand why we can't do all our low flying training over the sea.

Sven

Sven,

And that is the small underlying problem, that is the cause of so many of our larger ones, the lack of public knowledge. But that is a different thread which, I'm sure, has been started on here many times.

Sven Sixtoo

Lets face it, the MOD are not the best communicators. Last time I spoke to them about a breach, they told me to shove off. I took the problem to a few land owners who did not know that the MOD was illegally using their land, ie trespass. The MOD got evicted. There is an element of bullying when it comes to rural areas, and some guys have had enough.

Spinnaker

Given the trouble that my unit has to get permission to use any land in Scotland, and the very stringent observation of all conceivable laws and regulations by the military authorities responsible for liaison with landowners, I actually have a little difficulty with your view. Care to provide some more detail?

Sven

A number of inflatable targets were set up accross agricultural land without prior permission, close to a village during exercise neptune. Couple of years ago.