Formation Flight (Split from Turnaround Bay thread)

[Hedley]

Could a landing aircraft not wave the 200ft rule for another aircraft

Sure. Like I said earlier, if you know the other pilot,
you can declare that you are a "formation".

I do formation takeoffs and landings all the time -
perfectly legal.

[scrambled_legs]

Could a landing aircraft not wave the 200ft rule for another aircraft

Sure. Like I said earlier, if you know the other pilot,
you can declare that you are a "formation".

I do formation takeoffs and landings all the time -
perfectly legal.

It has nothing to do with formation... you can't be in formation with a mower. Formation flights apply their own landing or take-off seperation they don't hold at the threshold while another aircraft lands. There's a reference for controllers that we can have men, equipment or even planes inside of 200' from the runway, as long as no danger exists to the landing aircraft. So when a lear jet is departing and you have a mower at the edge of the runway 500' from the threshold, things are pretty safe. If we ask you and you agree, it's just confirmation that it's safe. On the other hand, having a plane at the edge of the threshold with another landing... not many controllers would feel comfortable putting their licence out there for that because a danger definitely exists no matter what the landing pilot says. I'm not sure how this rule applies to FSS on uncontrolled fields. Turn around bays are not intended for holding bays, due to this reason. Holding bays have the appropriate clearance and a hold short line which may or may not be 200' from the rwy edge but deemed far enough by TC, the same as taxiways.

NJ you'll find most of your answers in CAR's under aerodrome requirements.

[Hedley]

Formation flights ... don't hold at the threshold while another aircraft lands

Got a CARs quote for that? Hint: there isn't one.

not many controllers would feel comfortable putting their licence out there

... and in a thimble, exquisitely illustrates the fundamental
difference between pilots and ATC.

If someone goes wrong, I'm dead. If something goes
wrong, you might lose a piece of paper for a while.

[scrambled_legs]

Formation flights ... don't hold at the threshold while another aircraft lands

Got a CARs quote for that?

12.13 Formation Flight Procedures

12.13.1 General

Formation flight is considered to be more than one aircraft which, by prior arrangement between each of the pilots involved within the formation, operates as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and ATC procedures. Separation between aircraft within the formation is the responsibility of the flight leader and the pilots of the other aircraft within the formation. This includes transition periods when aircraft within the formation are manœuvring to attain separation from each other to effect individual control, and during join-up and breakaway.

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to convince someone that you're in formation with the Westjet 737 on final and would like to taxi down to the turn around bay and hold next to the threshold while he lands. The only time you can consider yourself one flight is when you have made a prior arrangement and then you are cleared for each operation as one. I can't taxi you to the turn around bay and clear your partner to land under a single clearance so you can't do it. If you are both arriving and I clear you to land, you still need a clearance to backtrack. If you are both departing then I'll clear you both for take-off and one can hold in the turn around bay as the other rolls or you can both roll at the same time, that's your discretion. Trying to tell me that you're a formation flight with the guy that is landing when you're getting ready to depart makes about as much sense as telling me that your in formation with the lawnmower cutting the grass. If you falsely tell me that you're in formation with someone that didn't agree to it, and then proceed to run into him, he'll have your ass at any court in this country.

[Hedley]

News flash: if both aircraft agree that we're in formation,
then we're in formation. That's all there is to it. You failed
to produce a CARs reference for your position.

Just because something is unusual doesn't mean it's illegal.

I would be quite happy taking this to the Tribunal. I have
flown a considerable amount of formation in quite a few
countries, and am no stranger to the Tribunal, either!

[Mitch Cronin]

"operates as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and ATC procedures."

You seem to have missed that Hedley.
He got you.

[Hedley]

Er, no Mitch, he didn't.

Are you trying to tell me that because the two
aircraft are going in different directions, they
aren't in formation?

Hogwash. Ever seen a flight do an overhead
break? The lead is certainly flying a different
direction than #4!

I'm going to say this again slowly, for the
clearly learning impaired here:

Just because something is unusual to you,
doesn't make it illegal.

[Mitch Cronin]

"This includes transition periods when aircraft within the formation are manœuvring to attain separation from each other to effect individual control, and during join-up and breakaway."

Hedley? Now fess up, ya didn't read none of it now didya?

[Hedley]

It pretty clearly makes my case, doesn't it?

[Mitch Cronin]

Not to my eyes it doesn't. What it does is say that is included in the definition of "formation flying".
There's nothing there that would allow what you're suggesting.

[scrambled_legs]

Er, no Mitch, he didn't.

Are you trying to tell me that because the two
aircraft are going in different directions, they
aren't in formation?

Hogwash. Ever seen a flight do an overhead
break? The lead is certainly flying a different
direction than #4!

I'm going to say this again slowly, for the
clearly learning impaired here:

Just because something is unusual to you,
doesn't make it illegal.

Hedley, we have F18's arrive in formation regularly. You're right, they're in formation and for a split second, going different directions as they do their overheard break. The thing is when they come in, they are communicating as one aircraft and still confined to the rules of ATC as one aircraft. I tell the lead to break right and no matter how many aircraft are following, they are required to break right, not at the same time as they are allowed to provide their own spacing as the reference states. As they break I clear the lead to land and all the following aircraft are then cleared to land and yes there is no separation standard between the formation like there is with two separate flights. This doesn't mean that the runway is theirs and if there are 5 on the ground and 5 in the air landing and departing all as one, you can have planes backtracking, with planes landing over top of planes going the other way, and other planes rolling etc. They are still bound to ATC rules as one flight. Just as one flight can't backtrack on their own without a clearance, neither can any aircraft in formation. They have to exit as any other flight would and need a clearance to backtrack as any other flight does. In the same way, if I clear an aircraft into position, another aircraft that says he is in formation can go to position with him but you can't have his buddy on final land without a clearance simply because they are a formation. If they were both on approach and I clear the lead to land, then you can land beside him but only then, after the lead is issued a clearance to land.

It's no wonder that you're no stranger to tribunals. Do me a favor and go to your favorite CYOW airport with a friend of yours and try this. I guarantee, that unless the tower pardon's your ignorance, you'll end up before a board and they'll laugh when you try and say that you were simply flying in formation. Like Mitch pointed out, the references don't allow you to do what you're suggesting. Just like you can't claim your in formation with the lawnmower, you can't claim your information with your buddy in the turnaround bay.

[Hedley]

There's nothing there that would allow what you're suggesting

There's your mistake.

Unless it is specifically prohibited, it is therefore permitted,
modulo CAR 602.01, which I am very very familiar with.

So far, no one has produced a specific CARs reference
refuting my position.

Q.E.D.

[Mitch Cronin]

My mistake? ... Hedley the conversation was just that. Is it prohibited to hold in the turnaround bay while another lands... the answer isn't going to be calling it a "formation". ...it doesn't at all fit the clear definition of formation flying.

[Hedley]

it doesn't at all fit the clear definition of formation flying

The CARs don't support your position.

Do you mind me asking how many hours of formation
flight you have logged?

[scrambled_legs]

Hedley... I don't know how many times I can say the same thing without you understanding it.

In order for you to go to the turnaround bay and wait while someone lands, you need a clearance. If you're a formation flight, you are treated as one aircraft and only the lead is issued clearances. If the guy on final is the lead, then I obviously can't clear him to backtrack with you to the turnaround bay, as he's on final. If the guy backtracking to the turn around bay is the lead, then I obviously can't clear him to land because he hasn't taken off yet. You can't backtrack to the holding bay and wait there for the other guy to land as you are not operating as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and ATC procedures. That is too very different procedures that would require me to talk to each aircraft separately.

It's not an airshow where you're given a box including the runway and can do whatever you feel like. You are required to "operate as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and ATC procedures." I would think that someone with your experience would at least know something as basic as how to fly a formation flight and what is and what isn't a formation. Thanks for the comment in the other thread about not being able to tell an ATC anything though. I'm quickly understanding why they no longer let you perform at shows in Canada.

Hedley, I've controlled 1,000's of formations and not one of them has done anything like you're describing. So again, instead of wasting your time here telling us we're all wrong, go to CYOW with a friend, preferably one that no-one likes, and perform the act that your describing. Then continue the argument with TC as they tear up your licence into little pieces.

[Hedley]

what is and what isn't a formation

My definition of formation does not contravene any CAR.

In your limited experience, you may not have seen it,
but just because you have not personally experienced
something doesn't make it illegal.

I say again, specifically what CAR have I contravened?

btw, how many hours of formation flight have you logged?

[scrambled_legs]

Well depends what you call a formation. A bunch of friends and I flew circuits together for about 50 hours so that's 50 hours of formation under your definition. Then we flew a few cross countries together as well and once I was flying along in a Citabria when a friend of mine flew overhead in an Airbus. So I don't know all in all a couple of 100?

Yes your penis is bigger than mine, but you're still wrong.

Cheers.

[Hedley]

your penis is bigger than mine

If you say so.

but you're still wrong

specifically, what CAR have I contravened? It
doesn't matter if you've seen it or not, before.
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. What
matters are the CARs, and so far, not ONE
person can point to a CAR that says it can't
be done. Therefore, it is legal.

This really isn't rocket science.

[Mitch Cronin]

Hedley, even if it did meet the definition of "formation", which it clearly doesn't - and regarding which, you've demonstrated something of a reading impairment -...there's this:

602.24 No person shall operate an aircraft in formation with other aircraft except by pre-arrangement between

(a) the pilots-in-command of the aircraft; or

(b) where the flight is conducted within a control zone, the pilots-in-command and the appropriate air traffic control unit.

...and of course, one which you're very familiar with:
602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

[scrambled_legs]

This is getting F*^$ing ridiculous but it also helps me understand a lot.

HEDLEY YOU DO NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR A FORMATION FLIGHT UNDER AIM 12.13.

Instead of me trying to tell you that for the tenth time that AIM 12.13 specifically prohibits you from doing what you describe, how about you explain to me how you can get to the turnaround bay and hold while another plane that you are suppsoedly in formation with, lands. Remember I can only issue clearances/instructions to the lead and only one of you can be the lead. What can I say to one aircraft, and one aircraft only to get one of the planes to taxi to the turn around bay and hold, and the other plane to land???

[Hedley]

Sigh. The AIM is not regulatory. If you don't know
that, you are truly scary.

Who was it that said that arguing with ATC is like
trying to teach a pig to sing? It wastes your time,
and annoys the pig

[5x5]

I don''t think the issue is whether or not this would be allowed or not allowed under the description of a formation flight. It's a question of safety. In that regard, sure the formation regulation doesn't specifically deny it, so by arguing what is not specifically denied is therefore allowed, it may be possible. The CAR that likely would apply is the old favorite 602.01

602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

This is in place because once you start publishing regulation, there will always be those that argue since it isn't specifically disallowed, it is therefore allowed as justification for doing what they want. And in one way this is OK as it does push boundaries, but it isn't OK in that to stop dangerous behaviour we have to have more and more regulations to fill the holes. So if we don't regulate ourselves, TC will eventually do it for us.

Now what does negligent mean? From an online search

1 a: marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b: failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
2: marked by a carelessly easy manner

If you read 1b it mentions "care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances" which seems pretty vague. But it allows for a ruling where there isn't a specific regulation and is judged by comparing to the community in general. In a case like this where just using the people who have posted and all are opposed to the suggested behaviour and one is for it, I think it's more likely that the majority establish what reasonably prudent people would do and the one is perhaps being negligent.

[Hedley]

I think it's more likely that the majority establish
what reasonably prudent people would do and the one is
perhaps being negligent

So, if we have ten people, and nine of them, who flunked
out of grade school, vote that 2+2=5, and one person,
who has a Phd in Mathematics, votes that 2+2=4, then
by your logic that 2+2=5?

Not many people here would fly a surface level inside
or outside loop, either. Even solo. Same argument
applies. So, you've just outlawed all airshows

Extrapolating from that, most people in Canada aren't
pilots, either, and it would not be prudent for them to
fly airplanes. So, you've just outlawed all aviation
in Canada

Majority rules! I love it!

Clearly experience in the subject matter is considered
completely irrelevant and unnecessary to hold a very
strong opinion - this is the internet, after all? - but at
airshows, I routinely perform head-on takeoffs and
landings - and that's in the Pitts - which has zero
forward visibility in the landing attitude. Yawn.

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's vote on the subject.
But to vote, you can't just be a farmer, or a plumber.

I propose that to qualify you to vote on this subject,
you hold a current ICAS card, valid for low altitude
formation aerobatics at airshows as per CAR 623.06.

I hold one such card, and I think you might guess
how I might vote.

Who else holds such a card?

[Cat Driver]

Jeses H Chriest I love this thread.

So lets look at it from another angle.

It started with holding in one of those turn around bays at some airports......we have them at Nanaimo and they are big enough to park an airplane in sufficiently clear of the runway so as to allow another airplane to land, would that be safe?

Maybe, maybe not.

If the pilot landing had the skills to land his/her airplane on a paved runway that is wide enough to meet TC's standards without missing the runway all together and landing on you parked clear of the runway then common logic dictates that it is safe.....but hang on a minute maybe it would not be safe if the pilot landing could not control his/her airplane well enough to actually land on the runway, so with that in mind I guess you would be wreckless and negligent to park in one of those bays not knowing the skills level of the pilot landing.

Who else holds such a card?

I hold a European Airdisplay Authority Hedley....in fact I flew in the European air show circuit from 1997 until 2005 ......like you I have been denied the right to fly in Canada but Europe had no problems authorizing me.

So I guess we are not up to the high standards of our fellow Canadian pilots.

[5x5]

You're a laugh a minute Hedley. Using examples that are not even remotely close to the same thing doesn't support your view, it merely diminishes any credibility you may have. You typically read things quite carefully so you know that I did not state simply that majority rules. And the entire definition is reasonably prudent people in like circumstances. Another convenient oversight in your examples. Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that most of the posters here are pilots/AMEs/ATC or other experienced aviation people, but probably not.

Anyway, I still believe that it is reckless and negligent to wait in a turnaround bay while someone else lands. It's something I wouldn't do and wouldn't recommend anyone else does either.