Ex military pilots formate A350s

[tartare]

All - I know many commercial pilots are ex-military anyway, but it's not often you see a formation of five A350s executing breaks and peel offs just like a fast jet package... check out 4:30 onwards...
Watch Airbus Risk $1.5 Billion in a Wild Airplane Stunt - Reviewed.com Cameras (http://cameras.reviewed.com/news/watch-airbus-risk-15-billion-in-a-wild-airplane-stunt?utm_source=usat&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collab&utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories)

[BEagle]

cameras.reviewed.com's headline Watch Airbus Risk $1.5 Billion in a Wild Airplane Stunt is somewhat hysterical. It looked like a well-planned exercise to me.

An edited version was on a continuous video loop on the screens behind EASA's reception in Köln last week - so I guess they're happy that this was a safe exercise!

A350XWB seems to be coming along - and selling - very well indeed!

[tartare]

Agreed - very over the top headline.
Obviously rehearsed and executed by professionals.
Impressive to see that peel off though; a few hundred tons of airliner rolling away like a fighter...

[Wander00]

I know, paint them red and white and no problem after 2018!

[Pontius Navigator]

Some comments, presumably from people who 'haven't thought of it first' are disparaging. As soon as you bank a large aircraft in formation you are effectively flying blind.

[Brian 48nav]

Proud Dad here! My No1 off-spring was I/c formation choreography from the chase aircraft - he is the bearded baldie in a dark top in the briefing. I recognised his voice passing the cloud info' back as the five 350s taxied-out.


He's an ex-Jag mate and 340s with Virgin & Etihad.

[Wander00]

Brian - that will be one or two for the family album then - I think it is a brilliant piece of flying, well planned and executed (IMHO, of course)

[Fareastdriver]

As soon as you bank a large aircraft in formation you are effectively flying blind.

Please explain to us pilots that have flown large aircraft in formation.

[Buster Hyman]

Brilliant! Loved it. Bravo Airbus! :D:D:D

[Pontius Navigator]

FED, apologies for encroaching on your hallowed ground, but surely the left hand seat pilot becomes instituted as the bank is rolled on and his visibility to the left is not exactly good is it?

Or I am missing something?

4.24 4.25

[RetiredF4]

:D:D
Where was the low go pullup to closed fullstop?:O

[ShotOne]

What a superb piece of flying. Outstanding. I can't wait to try it in my A330 tomorrow.

[Fareastdriver]

PN. It is hallowed ground; so shuffle along on your knees when you enter it.

[Roadster280]

I really enjoyed that. I was at an Airbus Military sponsored reception at the British ambassador's residence in Washington last year, and they had a single A400M doing its thing on a big projector. That was impressive, but the A350 formation was even more so.

Can it be rolled like the 707? :E

[Martin the Martian]

What no Vixen break?

Seriously, superb video, great flying, shame about the headline and the stupid comments, but hey-ho. And a Corvette! Never realised there was at least one still working for a living.

:ok:

[Less Hair]

It's done by Airbus test pilots only. It's considered to be a high risk maneuvre with minimum crew onboard only and special briefing before. Done in special airspace. This is what it makes safe and not a stunt.

[BEagle]

Roadster280, the normal Airbus flight envelope protection would prevent the A350XWB from being rolled.

The bank angle restrictions of the A400M flight envelope allow a higher bank angle than is permitted for the A350XWB - hence the agile display flying!

[Danny42C]

Formidable !

Magnifique, ça !

:ok:

D.

[Lyneham Lad]

Thanks for the link

Formidable !

Magnifique, ça !

Parfaitement! :ok:

[matkat]

Having been in a small way part of the design team makes me proud to have been associated with this magnificent aircraft.

[Roadster280]

Thank you, BEags.

[KenV]

This discussion about formation flying large aircraft begs a question.

Since the A400 is a tactical military aircraft, how come it does not have:
1. Eyebrow windows to provide visiblity when banking while flying in formation?
2. Knee windows to provide visibility on the ground when maneuvering on small austere airfields?
3. Electro luminescent formation lights?

Were these overlooked or does the A400 use a different solution to accomplish what these devices accomplish on other aircraft?

[Onceapilot]

Yes, a well executed exercise, as shown on the film. It would be worth remembering that big-jet formation was a regular occurrence for AAR in the RAF and, could be flown in day/night/IMC, mixed (big-jet!) formation and without briefing, or any of the items listed in KenVs post.:ok:

OAP

[ShotOne]

It is theoretically possible to roll one if you were really determined, roadster. As beagle rightly says normal flight envelope will prevent this...unless you are silly enough to switch off some flight computers. Not permitted of course, or a career enhancing strategy.

One ex-military braveheart did perform such a manoeuvre in a turboprop belonging to my previous employer...and had to find alternative employment as a result. Which prompts me to question the thread title "ex-military"? These were all civil aircraft flown by civil pilots, whatever they USED to do for a living. When does one stop being ex-military? If I save the day with some superb flying next week is that how I'll be described? What if I close the airport by dragging a wheel bogie into the grass?

[sycamore]

KenV, 1.Keep the same picture Bloggs..!
2 Send out the Loadmaster with a red/white flag....
3 Dunno,maybe just a big torch...

[Courtney Mil]

Pious Nav, I must have misunderstood something. Why does the bank angle affect your ability to see the aircraft you're formating on? Unless you're doing flat turns. As long as you maintain the correct formation position it doesn't matter much what angle the Earth's at, apart from the slight change in g. What were you driving at?

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, I was referring to the need for the pilot to lean forward and peer up to keep the proceeding aircraft in sight, quite different from a clear canopy. The video shows this.

[tartare]

I described it as ex military to sneak it in here past the mods - and so that you bunch of sky gods could have a look at these guys doing formation stuff.
I'm teasing by the way :)

[RetiredF4]

PN
CM, I was referring to the need for the pilot to lean forward and peer up to keep the proceeding aircraft in sight, quite different from a clear canopy. The video shows this.

No, the video shows a pilot to lean forward and peer up, it does not show the reason why. As CM stated, it is a question of correct formation position, and only the aircraft which one flys its position of is of relevance.

ShotOne
Which prompts me to question the thread title "ex-military"?

Formation flying has to be trained, and military pilots not only have trained it, they have long expierience in doing it, even in night and IMC and some with bad guys shooting at them. So the poster may have choosen this title to express the fact, that it was good thinking of Airbus to use those test pilots with military formation flying expierience to fly this type of mission. Or do you expect any line pilot could do it?

[ShotOne]

The poster has just explained why he chose the thread title, F4. And I'm glad he did post it, quite the most impressive choreography I've seen for a while. Clearly it didn't impress everyone though. One post makes clear they used to do similar stuff "as a regular occurrence" and without any boring briefings. Just out of interest, OAP, how many times did the tristar fleet achieve five aircraft airborne at once?

[Onceapilot]

Morning Shotty!:ok: Good to see your wooden spoon at work today. Pray tell your formation flying qualifications? Oh no, forgot, you are a civvi, aren't you?;)

OAP

[Reinhardt]

To be an Experimental Test Pilot you need to be a fully qualified Fighter Pilot, with some University or Engineering degrees - then you can apply to the competitive exam to enter the Test Pilot School, from which you will graduate or not.
Then you will start a Test Pilot career, usually on fighter programs, and then maybe if you are interested in, you wil be hired by Airbus (or Dassault, or BAe)
Then you will be able to be part of a briefing/flying display like the one we are discussing here.

For that you need to be from a country with an aircraft industry (so OK for french, brits, italians, germans, swedish or swiss a little bit, brasilians, americans canadians, russians of course... but no hope for NZ or Aussies or Greeks, Austrians, Danish...)
and no hope of course for self-sponsored airline pilots with no University background .... they just can call themselves "test pilots " if they are TRI in a big airline and do acceptance flights, which is by now way relevant.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, as someone who's never been a pilot, (and is possibly part of the target audience) I enjoyed the skill of the aviators regardless of their background. :ok:

[ShotOne]

Morning to you too. Yes I'm a civvy, OAP although in the unlikely event I "do a Sullenberger" I'll probably be described as ex-military, as he usually is despite 30+ years in the airlines.

[Wander00]

Hi, come on guys, it's Crimble. Good will to all men and all that................

[deltahotel]

Hey - it's my mate Frank from uni. Nice one!

[Tourist]

Reinhardt

No you don't need to be a fighter pilot to be an ETP. Plenty of rotary and multi guys.

There is at least one civvy self sponsored ETP. I met her at a GAPAN do a couple of years ago. Very impressive she was too.

Airliner type formation is more tricky than with a glass dome above you yes, particularly from the left seat in echelon left. It is fine until you get just a tiny out of position vertically (who would ever do that!), but then you lose the other guy.

The reason they were probably bending forward and looking up and right is that on the break it is a different matter, where you really do lose all visuals as soon as you roll in. It should not be a problem on the break as long as everyone breaks the same, however human nature and airmanship means you try to keep the preceeding guy visual.

[KenV]

It would be worth remembering that big-jet formation was a regular occurrence for AAR in the RAF and, could be flown in day/night/IMC, mixed (big-jet!) formation and without briefing, or any of the items listed in KenVs post.


AAR formation flying is VERY different than tactical airdrop formation flying. In large tactical airdrops, there are a large number of aircraft (from a dozen to mulitple dozens of aircraft) that must maintain a tight formation while simultaneously maneuvering at low altitude, both day and night. This is difficult and dangerous to do in the best of circumstances, but especially so at night using NVG. I don't see how it can be done at night with NVGs without electroluminescent formation lights, that's why I'm asking if Airbus has come up with a different solution for the A400M

The same with eyebrow windows. If you are in a formation with another airlifter on either side of yours, when the formation makes a 30 degree bank to the left the aircraft on the left will be obscured by the cockpit ceiling. In these A350 formation flights individual aircraft "peeled off" one at a time while the rest of the formation continued straight ahead. This resulted in the distance between the turning aircraft ALWAYS increasing during the entire turn. In a tactical formation drop every aircraft MUST maintain relative position to every other aircraft in the formation (in the US this is called "Station Keeping"), even during climbs, descents, and turns. That means the aircraft on the inside of the turn must slow down while the aircraft on the outside of the turn must speed up in order to maintain relative position. This means each pilot must be able to see the aircaft next to him on the inside of the turn. I don't see how this can be done without eyebrow windows. Or has Airbus come up with another solution? For example, US C-130, C-141, and C-17 aircraft have SKE (Station Keeping Equipment) which does this electronically when formation flying in IMC. But using SKE (generally) requires a looser formation than flying by eye. The eyebrow windows in (most) tactical airlifters are there for a very good reason. It was not arbitrary.

And the knee windows are critical when operating on small austere airfields by allowing the pilots to see downward from the cockpit so they can safely maneuver close to the edges of runways, taxiways, and ramp areas. Has Airbus come up with a different solution? For example, the downward and rearward visibility in an F-35 is restricted relative to other modern fighters. However, Lockheed solved that problem by mounting multiple cameras on the aircraft and sending video to the helmet mounted display. The pilot can thus look "through" the sides, back and even floor of his cockpit. Has Airbus done something along those lines on the A400?

[West Coast]

Reinhardt

To be an Experimental Test Pilot you need to be a fully qualified Fighter Pilot, with some University or Engineering degrees

Did you just make this up? To further Tourist's point, being a military pilot is not an absolute prerequisite to be a test pilot. There's plenty out there who aren't.

[BOAC]

If you are in a formation with another airlifter on either side of yours, when the formation makes a 30 degree bank to the left the aircraft on the left will be obscured by the cockpit ceiling. - not in the formations I have flown in. You must have a unique (and expensive) way of formating:D

This resulted in the distance between the turning aircraft ALWAYS increasing during the entire turn. - by no means 'guaranteed'!

[SamYeager]

I described it as ex military to sneak it in here past the mods - and so that you bunch of sky gods could have a look at these guys doing formation stuff.
I'm teasing by the way :)

I believe that somewhere in the film giving the background to the flight it is mentioned that "most" of the pilots are ex military. :)

[KenV]

Quote: If you are in a formation with another airlifter on either side of yours, when the formation makes a 30 degree bank to the left the aircraft on the left will be obscured by the cockpit ceiling.

- not in the formations I have flown in. You must have a unique (and expensive) way of formating



Apparently the laws of basic geometry were different in the formations you flew in. Sit in almost any airliner cockpit and look up 30 degress at your 9 o'clock. Without an eyebrow window you see........nothing.

"Expensive?" An eyebrow window is expensive? Numerous tactical airlifters from the little C-27 to the big C-17 and most everything in between have eyebrow windows. LACK of an eyebrow window could be very expensive indeed if it results in two aircraft trying to occupy the same point in airspace at the same time. Nature has a very nasty way of resolving that impossibility.

Quote: This resulted in the distance between the turning aircraft ALWAYS increasing during the entire turn.

by no means 'guaranteed'!

Indeed, and that's why in a large tactical formation it is critical to be able to SEE the airplane you are formating on.

[tmmorris]

There is at least one civvy self sponsored ETP. I met her at a GAPAN do a couple of years ago. Very impressive she was too.

Indeed there is, friend of a friend of mine. She got bored with flying the 757 for BA...

[Roland Pulfrew]

Apparently the laws of basic geometry were different in the formations you flew in. Sit in almost any airliner cockpit and look up 30 degress at your 9 o'clock.

Not sure how you flew formation Ken, but in all the large aircraft formations I've flown I haven't needed to look up 30 degrees whilst I'm in formation. If I did I would have been well out of position. This is close formation we are talking about.

[KenV]

Not sure how you flew formation Ken, but in all the large aircraft formations I've flown I haven't needed to look up 30 degrees whilst I'm in formation. If I did I would have been well out of position. This is close formation we are talking about.


When you are in a 30 degree bank, the horizon is 30 degrees "up" in your cockpit. If the aircraft you are formating on is next to you (i.e. on the horizon at your 9 to 10 o'clock) you cannot see him. Or are you saying you always made flat turns while in formation? Or made no turns at all?

[Brian 48nav]

Just been having a chat with the off-spring - all the pilots in the formation were ex-military fast-jet as are most but not all Airbus TPs. One German ex-mil turned down the offer, as being ex-Atlantics IIRC thought it wasn't his thing. I gather all the experimental TPs are ex fast-jet.


There is a lady at Airbus who is ex-BA and paid for her course at Boscombe, he said.

[Roland Pulfrew]

No Ken, when the lead aircraft is in a 30 bank turn I stay in formation position, the horizon is irrelevant to me as my leader is my horizon and I am in exactly the same position as I was in when the lead was straight and level. Now of course if I had done a flat turn I would lose sight of the lead.

[sycamore]

KenV, with respect I think you are mixing the different types of formation,and manoeuvres within those formations.
Close Formation- like the T`Birds,Arrows,PdeFrance etc; you use references such as wingtip/nose/rudder to give you spacing and position,and you hold that `picture` following the leader`s every move.that `picture should stay in it`s relative position irrespective of whether you are in a turn,level,rolling or looping.
Tactical- a much broader /longer gap between aircraft,and usually done in sections seperated by maybe a couple of miles.This allows full freedom of movement of each aircraft to manoeuvre/checking for hostiles and avoiding,and using natural features for cover/radar shadow.
SKE- usually a long stream of aircraft,but may be in sections spaced by both timing/distance/bearing from the Lead aircraft; usually used to airdrop paras/loads/equipment etc over a specified L/DZ.When lead turns ,you fly to that position ,then turn,otherwise it looks like `ballroom dancing`...
In a multi/large aircraft in `echelon`,and going for a `break`,it is fair game to let the pilot on the `break` side do it,as he can see the preceding aircraft and control the roll and pull,keeping the other aircraft `on the horizon`...

[Onceapilot]

I agree Wander00, goodwill to all men.:ok: However, it disappointing that open, and informed comment by myself, is treated with such contempt by someone who, if you read his posts, merely inserts his view or taunt, without adding any information or merit to the discussion.
Just my opinion!

OAP

[Onceapilot]

sycamore: Believe me, a "Heavy" aircraft break is a dangerous manoeuvre! You will often become unsighted on all other formation members, until you roll-out downwind, unless you limit it to about 5degrees AOB!:eek: That said, it was done regularly.:ok:

OAP

[GeeRam]

Impressive to see that peel off though; a few hundred tons of airliner rolling away like a fighter...

Not quite several hundred tons, and much more fighter-like than any other airliner, but, BA flew 4 of it's Concordes in formation back in the 1980's to celebrate 10 years service.
A good friend of mine was a BA employee at the time and was in one of them for the flight (BA drew staff numbers out of a hat to fill the four a/c and he was one of the lucky ones).
He said the best bit was when they rolled away in the formation break :ok:

http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/4concordes1.jpg

[sycamore]

OAP, I know ,I flew #4 in the `Green Barrows`...wall-to-wall aloominum and Hamilton Standards....

[Onceapilot]

On the subject of large aircraft "breaks", there is of course the problem of runway occupancy, something which tends to lead to long intervals between the split and, extended downwind legs-into the next County!:oh:

OAP

[Onceapilot]

GeeRam. A great picture of a great aircraft!
Perhaps some contributors might guess which RAF aircraft carried all the BA guest passengers on the last "Concorde QBF" (when passengers were not allowed to fly in the BA Concorde!)?:O

OAP

[BOAC]

KenV - why don't you get hold of a couple of toy a/c and practice some formation? Even just use your hands. Then you'll see!

OAP - as you say - the only safe way to break ANY formation really is to brief bank angles and g for the break.

[BEagle]

Roland Pulfrew, when we first flew formation in the VC10K back in 1984, the brief was to fly 'flat' in echelon in any turn away from echelon. So if you were in echelon right, a left turn would require a flat turn.

Quite where this daftness originated, I don't know. But as we had several ex-FJ folk on the course, as one we called "Bolleaux to this!" and from then on flew all turns exactly as we had in any other RAF aircraft. Had we flown 3 aircraft in echelon, perhaps a flat turn would have been necessary, but not for routine pairs formation.

In that A350 formation, it looked to me that the crew was looking up and out to confirm that they were adequately spaced during a formation break - not to maintain close formation.

Onceapilot, close formation breaks were part of the basic VC10K course and certainly weren't dangerous. They were fully briefed and flown to an SOP. The only 'dangerous' event I recall was when a pair of VC10Ks was breaking left on RW09 at Brize and some JATE C-130 cowboy decided to barge into the circuit between them from a downwind join.... Fortunately the no.2 spotted it and delayed his break accordingly.

[Dominator2]

Although not a large aircraft, the HS125 cockpit layout means that it displays many of the difficulties mentioned when trying to conduct formation flying. We gained a wealth of experience in formation flying while operating the 200 Series for over 43 years. One thing that has not been mentioned is where the handling pilot should sit. It was found that it was always better for the handling pilot to be in the seat closest to the lead, ie echelon left sit in right hand seat. I was quite content to be right hand seat captain and handling pilot.
I know that some of our “God Given” QFIs said that they were happy to fly cross cockpit, however, few could perform as well as they thought. The general trend would be to drift wide and ruin the shape of the formation. Cross cockpit could also lead to high excitement if one were to get out of position and then the leader started an unexpected turn. Cross cockpit flying permits a far shorter time before one is “lost lead”.
Flat turns require a lot of practice and allow little margin for error when flown in the correct position. A loose flat turn may be employed, however, lead/lag and rate of closure have to be understood. One may suggest that echelon turns of more than 2 large aircraft needs a smooth leader and a lot of practice.
I was amused by the suggestion that Fast Jet TPs would be great at close formation. I have witnessed a few would are very mediocre, particularly when conducting AAR. There are many line pilots flying various models of Airbus who have far greater formation handling skills.

[Onceapilot]

Yes Beags, perhaps "dangerous" is a little emotive in a professional forum. "a high level of inherent risk" could be a better definition.:)

OAP

[recceguy]

There is at least one civvy self sponsored ETP. I met her at a GAPAN do a couple of years ago. Very impressive she was too.

She is just doing acceptance flights at Airbus - which some people call test flights. She wouldn't have been called for the display of the 350s ....
ETPS - a private business now with Qinetiq - is offering abbreviated tailor-made courses (one or thwo months) for production factory pilots. Not much to do with the full one-year TP course - but even after a two-days course, you can get from them the badge and keys Handler....

Being a woman she had some rules being relaxed for her, as is often the case.

[Tourist]

Wow.

Just wow................

[Buster Hyman]

Being a woman she had some rules being relaxed for her, as is often the case.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/popcorn-gifs/jon-popcorn.gif

[Tourist]

I wouldn't crawl over her cv to get to yours recce........

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/467799-outstanding-achievement-endeavour.html

[KenV]

No Ken, when the lead aircraft is in a 30 bank turn I stay in formation position, the horizon is irrelevant to me as my leader is my horizon and I am in exactly the same position as I was in when the lead was straight and level. Now of course if I had done a flat turn I would lose sight of the lead.


EXACTLY!! and if you cannot see your lead, you cannot see your horizon. If in straight and level flight your lead is at your 9-10 O'clock at the same altitude and you both bank 30 degrees and both maintain altitude (meaning you cannot climb to stay on your lead's roll axis) you will not be able to see your lead unless you have an eyebrow window. Tactical airdrop formations in an airlifter are very different than formations in fighters.

[recceguy]

Tourist,

Thanks for the link, that does confirm what I wrote (and already knew) :
that she is a Cat B Test Pilot (different from a Cat A Experimental Test Pilot)
( .. to command inside the enveloppe..) so definitely no flypast. There is a hierarchy to stick to.

Prior to EASA enforcement, they were simply not called Test Pilots. You have excellent threads on that subject in the "Flight Testing" forum here

Regarding CVs ... you would be surprised. But who cares ? only written material is of some importance on pprune

[KenV]

KenV, with respect I think you are mixing the different types of formation,and manoeuvres within those formations.
Close Formation- like the T`Birds,Arrows,PdeFrance etc; you use references such as wingtip/nose/rudder to give you spacing and position,and you hold that `picture` following the leader`s every move.that `picture should stay in it`s relative position irrespective of whether you are in a turn,level,rolling or looping.
Tactical- a much broader /longer gap between aircraft,and usually done in sections seperated by maybe a couple of miles.This allows full freedom of movement of each aircraft to manoeuvre/checking for hostiles and avoiding,and using natural features for cover/radar shadow.



I am talking about a tactical formation in airlifters with a longer gap between aircraft, but not separated by miles. When the formation turns, the guy on the outside of the turn cannot climb to stay aligned with the lead's roll axis. He stays at the same altitude while rolling with the lead and speeds up to maintain his position relative to the lead. Think of it as a turn in 2 dimensions rather than 3. Based on what I read here, you guys would call it a "flat" turn. Formation flat turns are routine in airlifters. And it requires that you have eyebrow windows, and that is exactly why the vast majority of tactical airlifters have eyebrow windows. I'm just wondering how the A400 gets by without them.

[KenV]

KenV - why don't you get hold of a couple of toy a/c and practice some formation? Even just use your hands. Then you'll see!


Good idea! Now try this:

Place both hands on a table top, side by side. Now raise both hands 3 inches above the table top. Lead is your left hand. "Roll" both hands 30 degrees to the left while keeping the centerline of both hands 3 inches above the table top. Without an eyeborw window, how does the pilot flying your right hand see his lead who is flying your left hand?

Did that help?

[BEagle]

KenV, correct! Low-level tactical formations, either by fast jet or tactical airdrop formations, are flown in an entirely different manner to close formation.

Close formation flat turns are rather more difficult than close formation turns in vic or echelon. As a sprog Hunter pilot, I well recall being No.3 of a 5-ship flat turn through initials at 500ft and 420KIAS running in to RAF Brawdy for the 25th Hunter anniversary flypast - muttering "Do NOT cock this up!" to myself!

As for 'test pilot' definitions, the lady in question certainly is an outstanding ETPS graduate and a TP in the full meaning of the term. That she currently conducts flight tests within the aircraft's allowable flight envelope isn't particularly relevant - one day she might well be in command of an 'A3n0' on its first ever flight!

I used to fly post-maintenance air tests on the VC10K, which had the odd 'exciting moment'. Although some of the test points were outside normal squadron pilots' limits, such as high IAS, high IMN and low IAS handling, that didn't require a 'TP' endorsement, hence we used the term 'air test' pilot.

[BOAC]

Did that help? - in a word, no:) How do you turn 'your' formation to the right? How much close formation flying HAVE you done?

Here's a clue - a close formation turn. https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTiazxZYpxByAvn_-1O8lvW3T-3fyevwZDosSHtxCuJrB5ri618

[recceguy]

BEagle

one day she might well be in command of an 'A3n0' on its first ever flight!

Absolutely no way - as she is only a CAT B Test Pilot, with a somewhat light background compared to other TP in that business. But you might be right - with some affirmative action, everything is possible. By the way, I'm very impressed that she did re-mortaged her house to pay for the Course... which does prove again that money was a requirement for her to start this (abbreviated) Course.

..hence we used the term 'air test' pilot.. You could call yourself what you want, between yourselves ....

Regarding the discussion about close formation, could all the ones never having done any of it leave the room, please ?

Regarding the cockpit field of view of the A400, that's the one of the mythic Transall, so it should do the job ...

[KenV]

in a word, no:) How do you turn 'your' formation to the right?
Apparently you've not done low level tactical formations in large aircraft where what you folks call "flat" turns are required.

A right turn is done exactly the same way as a left turn (mostly). The airplane on the inside of the turn is always the lead. This is very different than typical fast jet formation flying and takes a lot of coordination. Now let me explain the "mostly" part. Since in big airplanes the pilots sit side-by-side, the pilot in control of the aircraft often has to swap when making right vs left turns because it's very difficult (or impossible) to do cross-cockpit formation turns. It takes a LOT of crew coordination to do formation flying right in big airplanes.

How much close formation flying HAVE you done?

Plenty. Started out flying close formation in T-28s and have flown close formation in several different airframes, including A-4, F/A-18, T-38/F-5, and others. But that is NOT what I'm talking about. Formation flying in large formations of large aircraft is COMPLETELY different.

And about that picture of F-16s you provided, that is NOT what is being discussed here.
Take a look at this picture of a large formation of C-17s. Making formation turns in such a formation is VERY diffent than making turns in a close formation of fighters.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Air_Force_C-17_Globemaster_III_formation.jpg

[BOAC]

er.......Ken - this (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412598011884_wps_50_Airbus_five_A350_900_test.jpg) is the formation we are all talking about - not sure which one you are on about. I will be most impressed if you can flat turn this...........:eek:. You may not get the job of lead, though.....

Cue loud plastic banging noises?

Your C17 pic was known in the RAF as 'same way, same day':)

[KenV]

Yup, and did you see them make any kind of formation turns while in that formation? Is it even possible to make a close formation turn with large jets in such a formation? The only turns I saw were done by individual aircraft turning AWAY from the rest of the formation and not by the formation as a whole.

If you've seen a video of these A350s making a formation turn, can you provide the link?

[BOAC]

Well..................... 0:43 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2782182/Spectacular-footage-captures-moment-FIVE-Airbus-A350-XWB-passenger-jets-sky-stunning-formation-flight.html#v-3822988669001) and 1:33? - your move.

[Roland Pulfrew]

EXACTLY!! and if you cannot see your lead, you cannot see your horizon. If in straight and level flight your lead is at your 9-10 O'clock at the same altitude and you both bank 30 degrees and both maintain altitude (meaning you cannot climb to stay on your lead's roll axis) you will not be able to see your lead unless you have an eyebrow window. Tactical airdrop formations in an airlifter are very different than formations in fighters.

Not exactly Ken, you've completely missed the point. I'm talking close formation here, just like in the video. In all the large aircraft formation I've done I stay in formation, so when my leader rolls left or right I climb or descend slightly so that I can maintain IN FORMATION. Simples!

[KenV]

Well..................... 0:43 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2782182/Spectacular-footage-captures-moment-FIVE-Airbus-A350-XWB-passenger-jets-sky-stunning-formation-flight.html#v-3822988669001) and 1:33? - your move.


Look at the video again. At 0:43 the "formation turn" is an illusion caused by the photo aircraft maneuvering, not the formation of A350s.

At 1:33 on my screen it was really hard to see what was going on. But from what little I could see, it was another case of the photo bird maneuvering rather than the formation.

[KenV]

Not exactly Ken, you've completely missed the point. I'm talking close formation here, just like in the video. In all the large aircraft formation I've done I stay in formation, so when my leader rolls left or right I climb or descend slightly so that I can maintain IN FORMATION. Simples!

The operative word in your phrase "I climb or descend slightly" is "slightly". In a large formation of large aircraft the "climb or descend" cannot be "slightly". If the airdrop formation is 1000 feet (or less) above the ground in a formation of four C-17s, the bottom C-17 ends up trying to "descend" below ground level. Nature has a nasty way of resolving the conflict between granite and aluminum. That's why in those formations, the formation turns are done flat.

[ewe.lander]

VERY cool, well done Airbus.......:D

[Dominator2]

Ken, You are both talking at cross purposes. Yes in tactical formations level turns are ofter done but you are NOT in close formation.
Even in close it can get scary if the leader is a plonker. I flew a mixed C130, 2xKingAir and 2xHS125 formation. The HS125s were on the outside of a big Vic. When the lead C130 ended up at 250ft agl (due to being on the wrong pressure setting) and then went into a 30 deg turn - guess what height the inside HS125 was at. When you get squeezed between aircraft and the rocks it is not too great!!
There is more to mixing different ac types and pilots from different roles and backgrounds than meets the eye. Assumed knowledge can be very dangerous.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The operative word in your phrase "I climb or descend slightly" is "slightly". In a large formation of large aircraft the "climb or descend" cannot be "slightly". If the airdrop formation is 1000 feet (or less) above the ground in a formation of four C-17s, the bottom C-17 ends up trying to "descend" below ground level. Nature has a nasty way of resolving the conflict between granite and aluminum. That's why in those formations, the formation turns are done flat.

But we aren't talking about tactical low level formations Ken, we are talking about flying close formation in large aircraft. Looking at your list of "I've flown close formation in" there doesn't appear to be any large aircraft, so I'm not sure you are qualified to comment. Flying close formation in any aircraft means the wing men manoeuvre in height in a turn and that doesn't matter whether you are in a fast jet, small multi or large multi - the techniques are the same! Take it from someone who has flown close formation against a large number of different types.

Oh and I have been the guy placed on the inside of a turn at low level and finding the surface a little closer than I would have wished. The lead was a Bear Foxtrot on that occasion though. :ok:

[Dominator2]

Close formation at 250ft agl

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130132086@N03/15875246278/

No cross cockpit flying here. However, we did not barrel roll.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130132086@N03/15875403790/

[ShotOne]

Cracking pictures, Dom. Was that their swan-song? The last I saw of them was parked up at Kemble looking sorry for themselves.

[BOAC]

Overall, a good bit of PR and a very well managed and executed operation. Well done all.

[BEagle]

Even in close it can get scary if the leader is a plonker.

How true indeed! For the 1977 Silver Jellybean, one large vic formation consisted of a box of 4 Jetstreams, with a box of 4 Dominies on each side. Speed had to be slow enough for the Jetstreams, which didn't leave much margin for the Dominies.

I was on a JP refresher course at the time, so went along to rubberneck this balbo from a jump seat in one of the Jetstreams. Once all 12 were joined up, we set off towards the IP only for the lead Jetstream captain to announce that he needed to lose time, so would fly an orbit.....at 30° AoB! The Dominie box on the outside coped OK, but the poor sods on the inside were almost on the buffet and had a heck of a job keeping in position. After the flypast, the inside Dominies departed with the comment "Be in your office when we land!" to the Jetstream leader. Not happy bunnies!

[Dominator2]

The pictures are from a photo shoot just prior to our final 6 ship flypast. Photos by Mr Geoff Lee. Final Flypast on 20/1/11 at CWL with CinC in the formation.
I understand that 4 Doms may be heading to Humberside, possibly by air, for use as engineer trainers.

[Onceapilot]

Quality Formation Leaders are a very valuable asset. In times gone by, many would have experienced close formation as an everyday requirement of the job, and most would be well skilled.

OAP

[BOAC]

For the 1977 Silver Jellybean, - think yourself lucky you were not in the flypast over Lizzie's house for the Silver. With lowering cloudbase west of London the lamented late Frank Hoare at the back noticed his boys were in the TV aerials of High wycombe (the middle box had dropped back AND DOWN!...) and he ruddered the 9- ship vic out from under the melee. Another 'late', Andy Penswick , outside right of box 2 in his Lightning, got so unhappy with it all he lit the burners and pulled up to 30k+ through the LHR zone:) Great fun had by all. 'Twas the leader of the second block that were at fault although Tony Woodward, overall leader, initially got the flak but was absolved from blame I recall.

Apoogies for the image size.
http://clarionrecall.org/wp-content/uploads/wppa/18.jpg?ver=1

[ancientaviator62]

BOAC,
super pic. Sorry to hear that Andy Penswick is no longer with us. We were groundcrew together on 92 before he gave up 'mending' to take up 'bending'.

[Onceapilot]

Great pic BOAC! Oh boy, formations and flypasts seem to attract lowering cloudbases!:oh:

OAP

[dmussen]

Superb. Shame they couldn't come up with some smoke.
Still a joy to watch all the same.:ok:

[Wander00]

Must find my slides of a 56-ship JP formation at the Towers in the early. Must have been the rehearsal for Grad flypast on which I flew as pax, the only time in the RHS of a JP. I recall we could not log the flight time as it would screw the training stats!

[BBadanov]

I recall we could not log the flight time as it would screw the training stats!

Any time that anyone is in this predicament, log the trip but do not enter the flight time in one of the totalled columns.

This way you have the date, what you did and with whom, where you went - it provides a record for you, but this doesn't "screw the training stats"!

At the age of 66 and no longer flying, I get some enjoyment of sometimes flicking through my logbook and looking at the pics!

[newt]

but you are NOT in close formation.

Actually Dominator2, flat turns can be used in close formation when flying echelon! Often used at Deci on recovery in fours! The leader just has to remember to turn away from the rest of the formation!:ok:

[Dominator2]

Newt,

You missed my point. I was saying that flat turns are not optimum for large ac, particularly with more than 2 ac, even more so if flown cross cockpit!!!!:= I spent 3 years teaching the GAF flat turns in the F4 and so I am very familiar with the benefits and techniques of how to fly them properly. "Looking Good in the Closed Pattern " is one of the most important parts of any sortie.

I must admit that trying to flat turn 9 at initials at Deci was rather adventerous but then it was Battle of Britain Day!

[Tester78]

She is just doing acceptance flights at Airbus - which some people call test flights. She wouldn't have been called for the display of the 350s ....
ETPS - a private business now with Qinetiq - is offering abbreviated tailor-made courses (one or thwo months) for production factory pilots. Not much to do with the full one-year TP course - but even after a two-days course, you can get from them the badge and keys Handler....

Being a woman she had some rules being relaxed for her, as is often the case.

Wrong on all counts. But perhaps you're a troll? And your last sentence would be actionable as libellous to both ETPS and the lady concerned, were you to have the guts to post under your own name. Feel free to PM me, and then to publish an apology.

[LOMCEVAK]

Tester78,

Well said!

So far I have restrained from posting on this thread but have been saddened that so many ignorant and, from the likes of recceguy, offensive comments have been made following an excellent video of some very professional and impressive flying; thankfully some sensible remarks have been posted also. Congratulations to all Airbus in putting this formation together and filming it so well.

L

[KenV]

But we aren't talking about tactical low level formations Ken, we are talking about flying close formation in large aircraft. Looking at your list of "I've flown close formation in" there doesn't appear to be any large aircraft, so I'm not sure you are qualified to comment. Flying close formation in any aircraft means the wing men manoeuvre in height in a turn and that doesn't matter whether you are in a fast jet, small multi or large multi - the techniques are the same! Take it from someone who has flown close formation against a large number of different types.


"We" are clearly talking about different things. But what I was talking about was large low level formations of tactical transport aircraft (I even provided a photo of such a formation) and the need for eyebrow windows to accomplish that. As I stated numbers of times, these are NOT "close" formations. I asked because I have extensive experience in tactical transport aircraft (C-27, C-130, C-17) where those types of formations are flown and all of which have eyebrow windows. I cannot figure out how those formations could be flown in an A400 which does not have eyebrow windows and specifically asked if Airbus had come up with a different solution.

Regarding this formation of A350s, they do not seem to me to be a close formation at all and I do not believe they were flown in the manner of a close formation.

As for your Bear Foxtrot experience, imagine if you had been at the controls of another Bear Foxtrot in that formation turn. Could it have been done? And if you attempted it, would you be here to talk about it?

As for the various replies concerning dissimilar aircraft formation flights, that is NOT what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about a large formation of tactical transports at low level during a run-in for a large formation airdrop. Those are not done (at least in USAF) with dissimilar aircraft. I cannot speak for how the RAF does it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Formidable !

Magnifique, ça !


..... and led by Frank Chapman, a Brit!

RAF 1980–1996, which included four years on exchange with USAF (F-16) and ETPS.
A350 XWB Project Lead Test Pilot.

Extract from an interview about the flight:

How much planning went into the five-formation flight?

CHAPMAN:

The most difficult part of organizing was getting 5 prototype aircraft ready for flight together.
I chose ex-military pilots as they would be very familiar with formation flying (as it is normal military procedure).
The preparation and briefing was done by me and required some thought and planning, but no more. The briefing had to be clearly understood by everyone, so the preparation for this part was critical. Everyone has to know exactly what to do in a large formation so that there is no misunderstanding.
We also had to liaise with the photo chase aircraft that carried not only the photographer but also one of our ex-military Test Pilots. They were the “Whipper In,” which meant he could call the fine adjustments to formation position over the radio to ensure that we were all in the correct position.

Based on the vantage point of the photos and video, the planes look extremely close to each other. How did Airbus ensure a safe flight for everyone?

CHAPMAN:

The aircraft look close but this is perfectly normal formation flight and is perfectly safe, provided a carefully prepared briefing is made.
If you look at Air-to Air refueling, the aircraft are much closer together and there is still no issue.

[dragartist]

Folks following this thread may be interested in attending the Cambridge Branch of the RAeS Sir Arthur Marshall Lecture on 5th March.

Peter Chandler the A350 test pilot will deliver his lecture at Churchill College, Cambridge starting at 18.00. According to the information I have there is a drinks reception scheduled for 19.30


I am sure folks will have some questions about this formation.


I hope to make it if SWMBO will sign my chit.

[D-IFF_ident]

I watched some ex-RAF heavy pilots (or was that some heavy ex-RAF pilots...) fly some close formation in a couple of Airbus twinjets last week. Would you believe, they got close enough the aircraft actually touched each other? About a dozen times!

Sadly no publically available pictures.

:E

[John Farley]

KenV

A point you might like to consider is that the sideways and upward view a pilot has through a side window is dependent on the distance the pilot’s eye is from the window and how much the pilot’s eye is below the top of the window.

Could it be that these aspects are better in an A350 than in the types you flew?

[KenV]

Could it be that these aspects are better in an A350 than in the types you flew?


Could be. But it seems unlikely.

Besides, I was not referring to the A350. I was referring to the A400. Perhaps the A400's specifications did not include a requirement to do large formation, low-level tactical air drops. C-27, C-130, and C-17 had that requirement and all three have eyebrow windows. They also have electroluminscent formation lights. My question was: assuming the A400 has that requirement, how did Airbus meet the requirement without those items? And for a plane theoretically optimized for tactical air transport missions, it seems to be missing other important stuff too. I'm not familiar with the details of the A400 and I was just wondering if Airbus had found different ways to accomplish the same thing. Or were those items not included as a cost saving measure?

[John Farley]

KenV

Sure. I know nowt about the A400. Sorry if I incorectly mentioned the Aibus formation in this context.

[John Farley]

KenV

Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/A400Mcockpit_zps59d375da.jpg

[KenV]

KenV
Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect



Maybe. Maybe not. But if seeing outside depends on getting up close and personal with the glass, that might be harder to do than you think wearing a helmet and NVG. (I'm assuming the A400 cockpit is NVG compatible.)

[O-P]

Ken,


The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.


The cockpit is fully NVG compliant, and formation keeping at night very, very easy with/without NVGs.

[D-IFF_ident]

One could always lower one's seat to enhance upwards vision.

[KenV]

The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.


The two "missing" windows appear to be in the sides of the cockpit, sort of behind the pilots, and not overhead to provide vertical vision. I still don't see how Airbus solved the same problems Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all solved with overhead windows, and that's why I'm asking.

There are no knee windows in the A400 either. C-27, C-130, and C-17 all have windows down low to provide forward and downward vision, enabling the pilots to taxi right up to the edge of a runway/taxiway or parking apron. In the C-17 these knee windows are roughly where the side stick consoles are on the A400. And another small nit for me is the placement of the nose gear. The C-17 uses a DC-10 nose, (the loft lines are identical) with one really big modification. The nose gear has been moved forward to put the nose gear right under the pilots. C-130 nose gear is under the pilots also. This plus the downward vision windows are really important for operating on small austere airstrips. A400's nose gear is behind the pilots. This plus the lack of downward vision windows causes me to scratch my head wondering how Airbus solved the problems Alenia, Lockheed and Douglas all solved with those features.
.
Also, many C-130 and all C-17 have "combat lighting" in the nose. These are basically taxi lights in the nose that emit in the IR to facilitate taxiing in close quarters at night with NVG. How did Airbus solve that problem?

Please understand that I am NOT calling the A400 a "bad design". Airbus just seems to take their own approach to solving various tactical issues. (For example, the A400 has kneeling landing gear while the C-17 does not. And Airbus chose to go with big turbo props rather than hi-bypass fan jets. The cargo floor design is also very different, as are the sidewall seats.) My experience is with the C-27, C-130 and C-17. I'm trying to get my head around the approach Airbus used to solve certain problems in comparison to the approach Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all used to solve the same problems.

[KenV]

One could always lower one's seat to enhance upwards vision.


Reducing one's forward vision to enhance one's upward vision seems like a losing proposition to me, especially in a low-level formation environment. Separately, all modern aircraft have a "design eye point". Moving the eyepoint around is generally not a good idea. Expecting the pilots to move that eyepoint around to solve a deficiency in the windows is just plain bad design. I refuse to believe Airbus would do that.

[salad-dodger]

Reducing one's forward vision to enhance one's upward vision seems like a losing proposition to me, especially in a low-level formation environment. Separately, all modern aircraft have a "design eye point". Moving the eyepoint around is generally not a good idea. Expecting the pilots to move that eyepoint around to solve a deficiency in the windows is just plain bad design. I refuse to believe Airbus would do that.
You took D-IFF_ident's suggestion seriously didn't you? Go on, admit it, you did didn't you? :ugh:

S-D

[KenV]

Yeah, he got me.

[Flying Lawyer]

Airliner formation at AFB Ysterplaat Airshow, Cape Town (2008)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/AAD%20Ysterplaat/737formation4.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/AAD%20Ysterplaat/737breakaway.jpg


Close formation, well executed throughout.
Very impressive.

The 737-300 was flown by father and daughter Scully Levin and Sally Bates and the 737-200 by Pierre Gouws and Colin Gibson.


(The pics were sent to me. Mine weren't as good as these.)

[KenV]

Airbus formation at AFB Ysterplaat Airshow, Cape Town (2008)


I had no idea Airbus was building 737s. When did that start?:)

[Flying Lawyer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/embarrassed.jpg

I meant to say Airliner formation.

Now edited.
Thanks.

[sycamore]

Does Scully do `waterskiing` formation in the 73s as well..?(Harvard formation leader)

[KenV]

BTW, both 737s flyng formation in the photo have eyebrow windows. I wonder if that means anything?

[ShotOne]

It means the pointy end of the Boeing 737 belonged to the 707 to begin with, which started out as the KC 135

[dragartist]

Great lecture at Cambridge RAeS last night by Peter Chandler. The formation flying on the big cinema screen was quite impressive although we had seen it before on the small screen through the earlier link on PPRuNe.


Water ingestion and cross wind landing trials were interesting but the highlight for me was how they induced the oscillations for flutter testing through the FBW.


Someone tried to draw Peter into the sidestick vs steering wheel debate. Not a single mention of lack of eyebrow windows! Sir Michael even joined in with the banter.