Low Flying (Hansard, 20 December 1994)

§ Mr. Llwyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the pilots of the two Harrier jets that flew at a low altitude over the Royal Welsh agricultural show 1994 filed and submitted flight plans indicating their intentions; if flight plans were authorised; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Soames
There were no breaches of the avoidance afforded to the Royal Welsh agricultural show in 1994. The incidents to which the hon. Member refers occurred, in fact, in 1993. At one of the units concerned, a flaw occurred in the system for presenting details of temporary1186W avoidances to aircrew; as a result, the avoidance was not taken into account in planning the sortie. In the second case, the sortie was planned to avoid the area of the show, but adverse weather conditions necessitated a diversion for flight safety reasons from the planned route, in the course of which the breach occurred.

§ Mr. Llwyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many breached of low flying regulations there were over Wales in 1992, 1993 and so far in 1994; how many of these breaches resulted in formal disciplinary procedures; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Soames
There were eight confirmed breaches in 1992 and four in 1993. Investigations to date in 1994 have confirmed that 11 breaches have occurred. None of these has to date resulted in court martial or summary disposal proceedings under the service discipline Acts. However, copies of the RAF police reports into the incidents have been sent to the commanding officers of the aircrew concerned for consideration as what further action is necessary and what can be learned from the incident.

§ Sir David Steel
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy while low flying training is still necessary to offer low-level flights in conventional aircraft, as distinct from high-speed jets, to educate the public in the necessity of such manoeuvres.

§ Mr. Soames
No. We believe the provision of such flights would be of no practical benefit and the cost could not be justified. My Department does, however, recognise the importance of explaining the need for low flying and how it is controlled and monitored. Accordingly, public presentations are given regularly by RAF representatives and officials around the UK. Furthermore, informative leaflets are freely available. We believe this better meets this requirement.

§ Mr. Foulkes
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning infringements of low flying regulations.

§ Mr. Soames
My Department has recently received a number of representations from hon. Members and the general public about alleged infringements of low flying regulations.

§ Mr. Foulkes
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the recent alteration of the boundaries of the Glasgow-Prestwick low-flying avoidance area took effect; what is now the minimum permitted altitude for military low flying over and in the vicinity of(a) the Heads of Ayr holiday camp, (b) Maybole, (c) Dalrymple, (d) Patna, (e) Drongan, (f) Ochiltree, (g) Cumnock, (h) Auchinleck, (i) Catrine, (j) Mauchline and (k) Ballochmyle hospital; and what consultations took place prior to the reduction of the size of the Glasgow-Prestwick avoidance area.

§ Mr. Soames
[holding answer 16 December]: The alteration took effect on 7 November 1994 to coincide with the issue of revised military flying charts. The locations listed, with the exception of Mauchline which straddles the boundary, are outside the revised avoidance area and therefore open to low flying by fixed-wing aircraft to a minimum altitude of 250 ft minimum separation distance. The guidance provided to aircrews does, however, state that they should avoid flying over populated areas wherever possible. The UK low flying system alters whenever there is a reduction or increase of controlled airspace of this kind, whether civil or military, and it is not our practice to conduct consultations when these changes are made.