While I appreciateJohn Jennings (Letters, September 3, 'Ban low flying over mainland') may not be happy, as others will not be, with low flying activity over the Kirkstone Pass, or the UK mainland in general, I find his language both emotional and melodramatic in the extreme.

As a resident of Ambleside I, too, experience the low flying aircraft he speaks of. However, as an occasional visitor to his establishment I also experience them over Kirkstone and not once have I witnessed "staff or visitors thrown to the floor in shock and terror", slates lifted or the "huge risk of destruction, injury and death".

Indeed, military low flying and simulated aerial combat activity in the UK is strictly regulated in order to prevent this happening; minimum heights are imposed and frequently checked to ensure pilots are not breaching these rules. They are also closely monitored by both military and civilian air traffic control to ensure tight safety.

Neither will his property be used as a "target" - aside from anything, it would pose an unrealistic location to simulate an attack. He may, however, find it is used as a navigational way point, being a prominent geographical feature.

His suggestion that islands could be used instead fails to recognise that the unique geography of places such as the Lakes and Snowdonia offer challenging valleys, mountains and other features to push the pilots - as we say in the military, train hard, fight easy, that is to say,if you have pushed yourself in training, then you know you can handle operational activity without being a burden or threat to your colleagues and others around you.

By and large, the outlying islands of the UK do not offer this. He also fails to recognise that these islands will also be inhabited themselves.

How do I know this? My former wife is an air traffic controller in the RAF and I am a recently retired member of our local Infantry regiment.

In my previous career I have benefitted from the abilities of the RAF, and other allied pilots, who practice these skills - in Afghanistan and Iraq a very low pass by fighter aircraft, often not much more than 30 feet (considerably less than the minimum allowed in the UK!) above the ground, has been an acknowledged and successful method, known as "a show of force", of deterring insurgent attackers surrounding or about to overwhelm NATO forces, without having to use lethal force.

Equally, low, or "nap-of-the-earth", flying by helicopters is essential to ensure protection of the aircraft and its passengers and crew from anti-aircraft fire.

So how Mr Jennings can say the practicing of low flying is not morally justified, I do not know - countless lives have been saved by these skills, whether that is the life of a British soldier, an innocent Afghan farmer who may otherwise have been caught in crossfire or the so-called "enemy".

It is only necessary to look at the many reports over the last 10 years or so of aircraft that have been damaged but not downed by fire, or of soldiers who have escaped defeat and death, to understand that they only survived because of low flying. Is not the first priority of Her Majesty's Government ensuring the safety and security of its citizens, at home and abroad?

Many people who come to visit or live in our wonderful British countryside understand low flying will take place there and why it occurs. Many view it as part of the enjoyment of being outdoors.

Long may it continue, especially to give the benefit of protection and safety to those of us who are sent abroad in the service of our country.

David Tortoishell

Ambleside