Formation Flight (Split from Turnaround Bay thread)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There are some silly laws out there but not the ones your citing.

You think the gun control laws in Canada are good?

Even the gun registration fiasco?

[shitdisturber]

. wrote:

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

(snigger) Yeah, I'm really looking forward to getting some dual
from some of the self-proclaimed experts on formation here

The people who say it is reckless and negligent to be in a turnaround
bay when they land, I guess should be listened to - if they assert they
are such incompetent pilots that they can't keep their aircraft on
the runway when they land, who am I to argue with them?

Here's a little food for thought for you Hedley. A guy I knew, emphasis on "knew", was coming in to land from his
last deployment and flight as an F/A-18 pilot on an exchange tour with the Marine Corps. While in the landing phase, an incorrectly
installed hydraulic valve or something to that effect malfunctioned causing the aircraft to snaproll into the ground, killing him in front
of his wife and kids. Was he "incompetent and unable to keep his aircraft on the runway" do you think?

[lilfssister]

.: Unlikely I'll be out to visit, got some things to do here over the next few weeks.

xs: I do have a sense of humour, really. It's kind of like living in a house with all your crazy relatives here, though. Sometimes I get a sense of deja vu about the threads/arguments and just shake my head in wonder, and sometimes I just yell at all the kids to go their rooms. Sometimes I record their conversations and play them back to them so they can see how childish they sound. Sometimes I tell their dad I am leaving him and them for a few days, to go drink margaritas and replenish the lime supply, and I may or may not be back

[Rockie]

There are some silly laws out there but not the ones your citing.

You think the gun control laws in Canada are good?

Even the gun registration fiasco?

This is a tad off topic since it's supposed to be about turn around points on a runway. But no, I don't think the gun control laws in Canada are good. They're not strict enough. And the only thing wrong with the gun registry is the execution of it. And that was done very badly indeed.

That should totally bring things off topic now.

[xsbank]

Mmmmmm margaritas....

[Mitch Cronin]

You think the gun control laws in Canada are good?

Even the gun registration fiasco?

Damn .! One minute you're on about how much you wish I could teach you how to fly and the next it's gun control laws?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Mitch, before you jump on everything I post why don't you read what others post?

I was replying to this by Xsbank.

I have to agree that the laws are always good for us. Take the gun control laws, for instance - that is truly a great one, and thought out so carefully, too!

[Mitch Cronin]

Ahh. right. of course. Sorry... carry on, what's the topic again? Gun control is it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I believe this thread has morphed to discussing how some laws are more reasonable and needed than others.

The gun control laws are always guaranteed to get diverse opinions.

[Mitch Cronin]

Ok, if that's genuine then let me ask you, ... Do you understand the need to have laws that are for everyone, not just the best? Maybe I can drive home at 180, but the average driver isn't safe at that speed? Maybe on some roads the average driver is safe at 120, but the not quite average are much better off at 80? What laws can only apply to the best?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Good question Mitch, unfortunately I don't know the answer....I do know that driving 80 KM in down town Athens will piss off most of the drivers who find that to slow.

They sure drive a lot faster in Europe than they do in Canada and I did not notice any more accidents.....so I really don't know what would be an average safe speed.

[AuxBatOn]

Coming back on the topic, Hedley and ., I do fly formation on a regular basis (ie: every day). Our formations are designed so there is an escape route in the event something goes wrong. For example, when doing a stream landing, we have to maintain a minimum separation between the aircrafts landing. If you are going to land inside the separation, you overshoot and come back singleton. When we land in formation, we each have our side of the runway so that we do not have wingtip interference in case something happens. The turn around bay thing would just make it that much easier for an accident to happen and for absolutely no reason. I don't mind the risk as long as it is justified.

Holding in a turn around bay is something I would not do and controllers would never let us do. Yes, sometimes I and other pilots do shallow approaches, sometimes on purpose (because we have to) or because we screwed the pooch in the final turn and ended up low and sometimes on one side of the runway. We're not all perfect and we all do mistakes. What's the point of holding there anyways? Save 5 seconds in the end? The controller will clear you "to position and wait" once the landing aircraft is past you and you'll have until he's clear of the runway before the controller clears you for take off.

This is a silly argument...

[mcrit]

"to position and wait"

...I think its, "line up and wait", now. (Sorry AuxBat, I'm just messing with ya')

., Hed.....meh......@#$! it.

[Stearman]

Hey who said you need to know the other guy for formation flying? Since when was that required?

As for flying formation with a 737 that operates with paying passengers while you hold in a turn around bay. There is a regulation against formation flight for commercial aircraft with passengers. Isn't there? Anyway I ain't going to go through the pain of looking it up on the TC website.

[osprey]

Not agreeing with Headley here. (The guy is so out to lunch it's not worth anyone's time to hear about outside loops or inverted flat spins anymore)

At some of the places we go on a daily basis we are taking off or landing over other aircraft waiting to depart or have just arrived or parked on the flight path. There is just no other option there. Are we reckless? I don't think so. Are we in formation? No, not even close. But it is safe as long as everyone is paying attention to what is going on.

[Hedley]

Does this mean we're not going to have sex later?

[Cat Driver]

But it is safe as long as everyone is paying attention to what is going on.

That of course is the main thing in this ongoing argument........or to look at another way if a pilot is on final approach and another airplane is parked clear of the runway at the threshold and the pilot on approach to land can not stay within the runway width and land past the parked aircraft God help the industry.

[Stearman]

Does this mean we're not going to have sex later?

ROFLAO

[shitdisturber]

But it is safe as long as everyone is paying attention to what is going on.

That of course is the main thing in this ongoing argument........or to look at another way if a pilot is on final approach and another airplane is parked clear of the runway at the threshold and the pilot on approach to land can not stay within the runway width and land past the parked aircraft God help the industry.

Cat, read my previous post at the top of this page in response to Headley. Sometimes some pretty nasty things happen to some pretty decent airplane drivers, and if someone happens to be at the side of the runway when that happens, they'll have to be identified by DNA. By the same token, how many incidents were there a couple of years ago of airliners taking out runway signs etc? All I'm saying is why take the extra risk in order to save a minute or two while waiting for an opportunity to backtrack?

[Cat Driver]

Oh dear God, I am not advocating parking in a holding bay......I am only pointing out the low level of risk.

If we want to dissect risk based on nothing but rules how about the risk float plane pilots take thousands of times every summer climbing out of lakes loaded to the hilt in single engine float planes with nothing but rock cliffs and trees on the climb out to smack into if the engine fails.

[Tim]

I once landed BEFORE the number one traffic ahead of me. It was a Katana grounding about 40 kts and we were both cleared to land by the tower. He was isntructed to land long and exit at the end of the runway my clnc was 'check traffic exiting, cleared to land'. I held off as long as I could but it was quite apparent I would be touching down first. Tower shouldn't have cleared it, I probably shoulnd't have accpeted it, but there was no danger of collision unless I would have overshot the length of the runway at 10 feet. Another time I was cleared across an active runway with a B200 on final. As soon as I read back my clnc accross, the controller cleared the 200 to land...I had just started rolling and was just to the hold short line. I decided it was a conflict for me to continue so I stopped short of the runway but past the hold short line. The 200 landed with no event. The controller (trainee) was let go - it was his last of many goof ups.

I think my point is things like this will happen, but we shouldn't go looking for them.

[C23flyer]

I held off as long as I could but it was quite apparent I would be touching down first. Tower shouldn't have cleared it, I probably shoulnd't have accpeted it, but there was no danger of collision unless I would have overshot the length of the runway at 10 feet.

Were you written up for a violation?

[scrambled_legs]

Hedley, I'm starting to get a real clear picture of what kind of pilot you are and why you are no longer permitted to partake in airshows. You're the guy that will throw common sense and good reasoning out the window and do whatever you can just because it doesn't specifically say you can't in your lovely CAR's.

The AIM is very clear on what a formation flight is and even though it doesn't spell it out in CAR's, most anyone that reads the AIM and uses a little common sense, will know what we as controllers can and cannot do with you.

WE CANNOT LET YOU WAIT IN THE HOLDING BAY WHILE SOMEONE LANDS SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CLAIM YOU ARE A FORMATION FLIGHT.

To start with let me give you our definition of a formation flight from our manual of operations:

FORMATION FLIGHT — More than one aircraft which, by prior arrangement between the pilots, normally operate as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and position reporting. Formation flights may be identified on individual IFR flight plans or may be contained within an ALTRV. As circumstances require, they may be:
A. Standard formation — One in which:
1. the formation leader will operate at the assigned altitude and the other formation aircraft will be
within one hundred feet vertically of the altitude of the formation leader;
2. the formation will occupy a maximum frontal width of one NM; and
3. the formation will have a maximum longitudinal spacing of one NM between the first and the last aircraft.
B. Non-standard formation — An individual flight plan formation, whereby through prior arrangement with ATC, the flight leader has requested and ATC has approved other than standard formation dimensions.

Second let me give you our reg's when dealing with a formation flight:

313 FORMATION FLIGHTS
313.1
You may authorize a VFR formation flight within
the control zone provided airport traffic permits.

313.2
Treat a formation flight as one aircraft for the
purpose of separation. Issue clearances and
instructions to the formation leader.

So again, even though it isn't spelled out in CAR's, please tell me how I'm supposed to clear a flight, where I can only talk to the formation leader, to hold in position and to land at the same time.

The only reference that allows me to have someone inside a hold line while someone else lands is:

354.2
Hold ground traffic:
A. at least 200 feet from the edge of an active
runway, unless other holding positions are
established by markings or signs; or
B. at a sufficient distance from the edge of the
runway to ensure that no hazard is created
to arriving or departing aircraft, if it is not
practicable to comply with A.

354.3
Inform concerned aircraft of the circumstances
if:
A. ground traffic is located less than 200 feet
from the edge of the runway in use, unless
other holding positions are established by
markings or signs closer than 200 feet; and
B. it is not practicable to close the runway.

354.3 Note:
This may be necessary during certain operations,
such as construction, maintenance, or flight checks.

I doubt you would be able to use this reference to regularly hold traffic in a turn around bay to expedite departures. Holding bays are a different thing all together and have hold short lines permitting traffic to hold while another aircraft lands, hence the label "Holding Bay". Turn Around Bays are just that... there to turn around in and not there to hold in.

. if you saw how many aircraft miss the runway, or go off it, you would be nervous to sit behind a hold line even.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

. if you saw how many aircraft miss the runway, or go off it, you would be nervous to sit behind a hold line even.

In 55 years of flying I have never seen an airplane miss the runway or seen one run off the runway while I was holding for take off.

Anywhere in the over forty countries I have flown in.

But maybe I was just not in the right place at the right time to see something like that.

[AuxBatOn]

Hedley, let me underline an important passage of the definition of formation flight

FORMATION FLIGHT — More than one aircraft which, by prior arrangement between the pilots, normally operate as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and position reporting. Formation flights may be identified on individual IFR flight plans or may be contained within an ALTRV. As circumstances require, they may be:

In your example with you communicating with the 737 pilot prior to holding in the holding bay, you still wouldn't be considered a formation. You do not normally operate together as a single aircraft.