Laws against low flying aircraft?

[peetee]

Well done, you'v quoted some solid evidence.. of tiny tiny figures.
£7m in how long, with MILLIONS of aircraft sorties every year?

Im fairly sure im not ignorant or naive on this subject since I happen to work in a military air traffic control tower, and im within the pipeline for complaints of low flying.

 

[Creature]

Likewise peetee (though i'm civi). 2 of our runways go straight over known complainers, who complain 1-2 times a week if we're lucky, upwards of 20 times on a couple of occasions. The riding stables near by happen to be on the approach path for Military Choppers too....and we're close to Chicksands so we get their choppers overhead. Makes for intresting days when the RAF decide to do some manouvers.

 

[Azagoth]

Does Pottsey not know how to use press the quote botton?

No, any thread in which he uses his retarded quoting method gets completely ****ed up after a while, because you have to keep scrolling back and forth (sometimes through pages) to see what context the quote was originally made in.

 

[HAz]

No, any thread in which he uses his retarded quoting method gets completely ****ed up after a while, because you have to keep scrolling back and forth (sometimes through pages) to see what context the quote was originally made in.

Hes making harder work for him self too. The ignore button is very tempting atm

 

[Scania]

No, any thread in which he uses his retarded quoting method gets completely ****ed up after a while, because you have to keep scrolling back and forth (sometimes through pages) to see what context the quote was originally made in.

The Ignore function sorts this out nicely.

Edit damn you HAz!

 

[Dunks]

for pottsey's info too, if you ring up air traffic towers and complain a few times about low flying planes/helos then you are then put on an avoids list for aircrew.
If you live at the end of a runway or whatever though its tough ****, they aint gunna stop using a runway for one person!

What exactly is an 'avoids list?'. And for a start, why would anyone phone the air towers direct (if you even can)?.

 

[HAz]

What exactly is an 'avoids list?'. .

We need one on this forum by the looks of things

 

[Azagoth]

What exactly is an 'avoids list?'. And for a start, why would anyone phone the air towers direct (if you even can)?.

At a guess, it means the ATC and/or the flightplan will direct the aircraft around the area of the complainants.

 

[Creature]

What exactly is an 'avoids list?'. And for a start, why would anyone phone the air towers direct (if you even can)?.

An avoids list will be a list of people that have made significant complaints to the airfield/controllers and have a legitimate reason to avoid overflying their house where possible. Or something like that.

It's usually an idea to phone the towers so they can be aware of the situation and let other aircraft know to avoid.

 

[bloodline76]

That looks like PM631 to me which is owned by the RAF as part of the battle of Britain memorial flight so id imagine its still registered as a military aircraft.

Its also hard to get a true prospective to a plane in flight, it may look as though its just over some ones house but in reality its probably a few 1000 meters away over a field.

Trust me this was very close.

 

[Freefaller]

Wow what a lame thing to complain about :/

 

[^^Gord^^]

We used to live on the flightpath that the RAF pilots use for going out to the lakes etc.

Some of them would fly too low over the town. The problem is that you need the indentification number to complain which is immpossible when a eurofighter has just flown over your house at mach 1+ and you only hear the bloddy thing after it has gone over you.

Supersonic over your house?

As already said, you don't need the aircrafts serial to complain. If you really think they are too low then contact the RAF. They have dedicated people to handle low flying complaints. Given the time and day of the incident happened they will check with the booking cell at RAF Wittering where all low flying sorties are booked. They will also be able to check radar logs of all the traffic and get hold of the cockpit / voice recordings from the squadron in question.

I help run events involveing 100's of people so know how it works. Along with spending lots of time on farms and horse yards.

It's not me being naive and ignorant on this topic. You lot are. A lot of you dont realise how damaging low flying aircraft are to farmers and other livestock owners. Just look at all the millions the RAF had to payout in compensation due to damage, injury and death both to humans and animals, all due to low flying aircraft. I do know about the topic as I spend a lot of time on farmland. Look at all the people killed or hurt due to low flying.

" The MoD has paid out a total of £7m in compensation for low flying aircraft in the last three years to a total of around 400 successful claimants."
"The most common claims are those involving injury to, and death of, livestock and/or damage to property"
You still think it's me being naive and ignorant and there is no problems with low flying aircraft? I am sure the MoD just paid out all the money for the fun of fit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ag...in-compensation-over-low-flying-aircraft.html

A low flying plane is much worse than a car beeping a horn. A car beeping a horn is rarely going to cause a stampede. A car beeping a horn is rarely going to cause livestock to die.

I spend a lot of time in the valleys of Wales photographing low flying so I know a fair bit myself. Livestock doesn't seem bothered at all. The sheep in Wales don't even move or look up when the aircraft comes past. I've also spoken to three of the local farmers whilst out and about, none of them complained about the fast jets causing any harm to their animals.

All this low flying isn't new, it's been going on for decades in the same areas of the country. If it was really killing the livestock in any significant numbers why are there farms still in these areas?

As for the payouts by the RAF / MoD, I quote from the very article you linked to...

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "This is a prime example of the compensation culture gone mad. People's responsibility to look after their animals is their own, and taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for these inflated claims.

I believe that there is some real cases but I suspect that a lot of claims are just paid out without any real proof of what the cause was.

Horses are indeed an issue, especially for helicopters, but the RAF have been making repeated attempts to avoid these issues. They have carried out trials with various devices to attempt to spot horse riders, given away free day glo clothing, again added avoids and also higher alititude limits in certain areas.

Do you have any figures for the amount of people hurt or even killed that were assigned to low flying aircraft? (genuine question)

 

[The Funktopus]

Call in the Daleks - Problem Solved.

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

 

[dbmzk1]

Love it

 

[OspreyO]

It was as good at it as any other single seat fighter doing something that it wasn't originally intended to do.

In fairness, some aircraft are better at some roles than others. I read somewhere that the Spit wasn't a very accurate bomb platform. I though it was in Pierre Clostermann's book, but I could be wrong. But for sure there were fighters who could carry far more, further, and survive ground fire better.

They were hanging 2 250lb and a single 500lb off them by the end of the war, which is a respectable amount.

It was never as robust as say the Typhoon or P47, but then it was much smaller and arguably it is better to be small and not get hit rather than large and be able to take a lot of damage.

I think the odds of getting hit when flying low are very high regardless of size.

 

[gbradders123]

well in the 500 foot rule! possibly

i seem to remember that aerobatics are above 3000 feet?
my air law was over 7 years ago, im sure i have forgotton most!

 

[2StepSteve]

Are you old? This is pure fun having this happen over your house I just can't see the problem! He didn't crash did he?

 

[lokkers]

In fairness, some aircraft are better at some roles than others. I read somewhere that the Spit wasn't a very accurate bomb platform. I though it was in Pierre Clostermann's book, but I could be wrong. But for sure there were fighters who could carry far more, further, and survive ground fire better.

The Spitfire was very vulnerable to ground fire. It had a liquid cooled engine, so any radiator damage would cause it to overheat and seize very quickly. The P47 I believe had an aircooled engine, and like many of the Pacific theatre aircraft could take a considerable amount of damage. Battle of Britain pilots hated so-called Rhubarb missions (ground attack) across occupied France - some of the most experienced and best pilots were lost for no significant gain.

That's no slur against the Spitfire though. It was designed as what we would now term an air superiority fighter, not a multirole aircraft like the Typhoon or Tempest.

 

[Stolly]

The Spitfire was very vulnerable to ground fire. It had a liquid cooled engine, so any radiator damage would cause it to overheat and seize very quickly. The P47 I believe had an aircooled engine, and like many of the Pacific theatre aircraft could take a considerable amount of damage. Battle of Britain pilots hated so-called Rhubarb missions (ground attack) across occupied France - some of the most experienced and best pilots were lost for no significant gain.

That's no slur against the Spitfire though. It was designed as what we would now term an air superiority fighter, not a multirole aircraft like the Typhoon or Tempest.

The Typhoon was also liquid cooled, which was a disadvantage doubly so since the Sabre was very unreliable initially. The Typhoon was designed to be an interceptor to replace the Hurricane but was a failure in that role and was only saved due to its low altitude performance and ability to carry large loads.

 

[Stolly]

In fairness, some aircraft are better at some roles than others. I read somewhere that the Spit wasn't a very accurate bomb platform. I though it was in Pierre Clostermann's book, but I could be wrong. But for sure there were fighters who could carry far more, further, and survive ground fire better.

True, short legs was always the Spitfires weakness, apart from the PR versions that were reaching Berlin by 1942. It was a stable gun platform, and i assume the requirements are similar for dropping bombs. It was lighter built especially in the wing so no hanging 1,000lb bombs off it, but the thin wing gave the performance.

I think the odds of getting hit when flying low are very high regardless of size.

Very true, it was a very dangerous job.