Formation Flight (Split from Turnaround Bay thread)

[iflyforpie]

On the NASCAR circuit they follow each other at less than half a car length at 200MPH. Maybe we should all drive that way

[Cat Driver]

Anyway, I still believe that it is reckless and negligent to wait in a turnaround bay while someone else lands.

Wow, that is a stretch.....reckless and negligent?

If an airplane parked completely off the runway at the threshold is a hazzard to a pilot on approach for the landing then I sure wouldn't want that pilot flying anything I am a passenger in........

[Hedley]

. 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?

[Cat Driver]

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?

That makes two of us, before this clusterfu.k of a thread got started I probably would have felt secure parked close to a runway such as in a holding / turn around bay...but now I am not going to feel safe parked at the hold line if someone is on final after reading this stuff.

And some people get down on me because I question the level of skills that one can get a pilots license with in Canada.

It's getting to be a scary world out there Hedley.

[Mitch Cronin]

You two make the perfect couple, you know that?. How sweet.

[C23flyer]

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

Actually, you have stated simply that what the majority finds to be safe, is what should be considered safe. That does boil down to "majority rules" and I think you'd have to agree is principally why general aviation is under pressure in so many non-aviation quarters, and why the religious right (a majority in the US) may successfully limit the rights and freedoms of more liberal-thinking people through this next election. It is not a de facto argument that aviation is a safe activity and therefore exempt as an example. You cannot ignore the fact that most aviation accidents have been caused through some chain of events related to pilot negligence and error. Hedley is right...you are suggesting that aviation should be outlawed. You'll have to come at this argument with a clear statement from the regulations.

Scrambled_legs...are you able to give a clearance to "land and backtrack to the turning bay and hold" all at once to a formation flight, wherein the a/c would then land, bt, and hold, one after the other?

[Rockie]

3.4 Turnaround Bay

Some runways have thresholds not served directly by taxiways.
In such cases, there may be a widened area which can be used
to facilitate turnaround. Pilots are cautioned that these bays
do not give sufficient clearance from the runway edge to allow
their use for holding while other aircraft use the runway.


Page 53 of the AIM.

This is a silly argument. Hedley, if your contention is that you could hold in a holding bay while Westjet landed by simply calling him up and getting him to say "Westjet Flight" instead of "Westjet 101" without contravening any CAR's then I invite you to try. It has been stated here many times which ones you would be breaking and it would be worth the price of admission to hear your arguments otherwise at a tribunal. The look on the judges face when you asked him how much formation time he had would be priceless.

[Hedley]

This is a silly argument

I never said it wasn't

However, do keep in mind that the AIM is advisory, not
regulatory, and not ONE PERSON here has been able to
conjure up a single CAR which would be contravened in
my scenario, except the one-size-fits-all and incredibly
subjective CAR 602.01, which results in even sillier
arguments.

P.S. If you want to see in me in action at the Tribunal
Appeal, I'll be there this fall, defending a friend of mine,
a founding Tribunal judge, who's house was broken into
by a Transport Inspector and four armed RCMP officers
with a known invalid warrant, and then subsequently
detained at gunpoint for six hours and then inexplicably
released without any explanation. Oh yes, they also
seized his computer, which they later returned in a
non-functioning state. I might mention that this
completely bizarre and totally illegal and repugnant
search yielded absolutely nothing of any value. One
must wonder why it was carried out, especially in
such an intentionally offensive and intimidating manner.

Tribunal hearings are open to the public, so please, do
show up.

[Rockie]

602.24, and the key word in that regulation is "pre-arrangement" which you know perfectly well. Close on the heels of that is the old catch all, and it would apply as well because formation flight requires coordination and training which you also know perfectly well. Failing to do those things prior to a formation flight would be reckless, and you would be the first to call it that if it were anybody else.

The AIM is not regulatory, but it has regulatory information in it and it doesn't always give a reference. Treating it as if it can be ignored is not a wise thing to do.

[Hedley]

pre-arrangement

If both aircraft have a VHF comm radio, and both pilots
know each other, "pre-arrangement" can occur in a
couple of seconds, without contravening any CARs.

Example: aircraft DEF is at the 4 o'clock position
of aircraft ABC.

DEF: "ABC, look over your right shoulder. Can I join up?
ABC: "I have the lead"

DEF now slides into right echelon on ABC.

Now, how long did that take? Were any CARs violated?
Of course not

As far as CAR vs AIM, well, the former is clearly regulatory
and the latter is clearly advisory. There can be no argument
as to the validity of this statement.

[Mitch Cronin]

Intentionally amis there Hedley?

I would think the CAR('s) you'll be breaking will be the one(s) pertaining to distance to keep from the runway while waiting for another to land?
I'm not lookin' for the references, but I reckon it's spelled out somewhere in there... 200ft is it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You two make the perfect couple, you know that?. How sweet.

Mitch, I have never personally met or even spoken to Hedley.

However I would like you to at least be able to either be able to give us lessons on how to fly or show us how many times we damaged aircraft.

What Hedley and I do seem to have in common is we refuse to have to use a kleenex to wipe off our chins to get rid of the over flow from performing the service that was needed to be in the good books of some TC thug that we needed approval for something that we needed approval of.

How do you feel about having to be subserviant to some goon in TC who abuses their position just because they can.....do you submit?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I would think the CAR('s) you'll be breaking will be the one(s) pertaining to distance to keep from the runway while waiting for another to land?
I'm not lookin' for the references, but I reckon it's spelled out somewhere in there... 200ft is it?

Mitch, how do we measure distance from the " runway " when we are flying on skis and holding for another airplane to land?

[Mitch Cronin]

Good grief .! What on earth does that have to do with Hedley saying you could claim you're in "formation" in order to get away with holding in the turnaround bay?

[Mitch Cronin]

Well gee whiz old Master, I'd guess you measure it with your well experienced eyeballs.

But is that relevant? Has the original question changed now?

[Rockie]

Mitch

You and Scrambled_legs already quoted all the regulations TC would need to hang anybody foolish enough to invoke "formation" under those circumstances. Whether or not Hedley agrees with it is immaterial.

Hedley would argue that if a bank teller "gave" money to a robber it isn't really robbery, because to be a robber you have to "take" something.

[Hedley]

Mitch: adults are talking now.

Rockie: you seem to be making the foolish assumption
(common amongst laymen) that the law makes sense.
If am correctly interpreting your position, it is surpisingly
naive for someone of your supposed education, experience
and responsibilities.

[iflyforpie]

I am two ways about this:

Hear at my home field it is 75ft wide with no taxiways or turnaround bays whatsoever. It is perfectly normal for me to come in on 15 and have a Pawnee and half a dozen gliders parked on the grass within feet of the asphalt. Big deal? No!

I was at a big airport yesterday with 200ft wide runway with no taxiways at either end, just a turnaround bay big enough to park a 737. Now, all legal issues aside, there is no way I would do a quick backtrack and wait for an incoming plane unless I knew the pilot and the controller (MF) weren't going to bitch at me even though in my tiny Cessna there is no way I would be interfering with anything (assuming no IFR approach in progress).

[Rockie]

On the contrary Hedley, the law in this case makes perfect sense. Now granted, you and your father with hundreds of hours of formation flying together wouldn't be at risk if you did that. Nor would someone used to flying off an aircraft carrier surrounded by other airplanes. But what you don't realize is that they don't write regulations for just you guys. They write one set of regulations for everybody.

That means you unfortunately have to follow them as well. I don't see how someone with your experience and education could think you should somehow be exempt just because you think you can do it safely. Is that being naive or arrogant?

[xsbank]

"the law in this case makes perfect sense."

Rocky, if the law makes perfect sense then why is there such a lot of lawyers and judges and tribunals and all that other legal paraphernalia? If you truly believe "the law in this case makes perfect sense" then I have a bridge to sell you or some waterfront property in Hawaii or maybe I should see if I can get you some help?

My twaddle-meter is off the gauge right now.

When we were flying about in groups, we would land and wait in the turn-around bay and would stay there until the a/c landing next, behind us, called "under control" and then we would abandon the holding area and taxi back behind them. That meant we didn't have to hold up other a/c while we back-tracked, which seemed reasonable to us at the time.

I do recall some rule about staying 200' back from the edge of an ifr runway but then half the airports in Canada couldn't provide such a space so I think ('I think') that rule was quietly dropped?

This seems silly, fussing about the holding bay as large aircraft will be well above you, landing 1000' down the runway, so only leetle a/c will be landing near the holding bay, although there seems to be more a/c swooping about and ending up in strange places recently.

[Rockie]

"the law in this case makes perfect sense."

Rocky, if the law makes perfect sense then why is there such a lot of lawyers and judges and tribunals and all that other legal paraphernalia? If you truly believe "the law in this case makes perfect sense" then I have a bridge to sell you or some waterfront property in Hawaii or maybe I should see if I can get you some help?

My twaddle-meter is off the gauge right now.

When we were flying about in groups, we would land and wait in the turn-around bay and would stay there until the a/c landing next, behind us, called "under control" and then we would abandon the holding area and taxi back behind them. That meant we didn't have to hold up other a/c while we back-tracked, which seemed reasonable to us at the time.

I do recall some rule about staying 200' back from the edge of an ifr runway but then half the airports in Canada couldn't provide such a space so I think ('I think') that rule was quietly dropped?

This seems silly, fussing about the holding bay as large aircraft will be well above you, landing 1000' down the runway, so only leetle a/c will be landing near the holding bay, although there seems to be more a/c swooping about and ending up in strange places recently.

There are lawyers and judges because of people who don't think the regulations apply to them. The tribunals are where they get to explain why the regulations don't apply to them. Pretty much the same as any justice system, which you benefit from whether you realize it or not.

There is something called "runway incursion" that gets a lot of attention. It's where an airplane is someplace it's not supposed to be and a bunch of people get killed. Hence the rule. I'm sure you can see the reasoning there. As for big airplanes landing 1000' down the runway, that's actually the aim point but they will touchdown ideally around 1500. The glideslope antenna crosses the threshold at 50 feet but the main gear can be down around 20 feet above the pavement. I'm sure you've seen the pictures in St. Maarten where the 747's have misjudged a tad and landed short.

The rule make perfect sense, and it protects those that will go nameless that think they are much better than they actually are along with us normal folk.

[lilfssister]

Apples: ATC talking formation flights, backtracks, turning or holding bays at controlled airports

Oranges: Hedley, et al, talking about formation flights, backtracking, turning or holding bays at uncontrolled airports

Bananas: the lot of you for going off topic yet again, then turning it into an argument that just repeats the arguments going on in a dozen threads by the same 4-5 people.

Farkin nutz: me for wasting my time cutting/merging/creating new threads to let you carry on the same bleedin' arguments over and over again

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You coming out to visit widow and us on your time off?

[xsbank]

Hey Lil, I thought you had a sense of humour, going about with citrus fruit on yer head!

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! And those CARS, the ones that let you work for 14 hours straight, take a bit of rest and then do it again over and over til you drop. I particularly like that one. Or how about all those GREAT laws that make drugs illegal? Those are particularly good, they make all sorts of people filthy rich, which is good for everyone, especially Hummer dealers, don't you agree?

I forgot to mention, I particularly like the way the laws NEVER have any controversy because they are ALWAYS good for us.

Rocky, if you ever get tangled up in some law, a GREAT law but, well, might just not apply to you, let us all know what a great experience it was for you and how much fun it was at your hearing where EVERYBODY agreed with you.

[Rockie]

There are some silly laws out there but not the ones your citing. But what the hell, since there are some silly laws let's just throw all of them out. Then we can be just like Somalia. Wouldn't that be great?

You guys are a treat.