ATC and formation flying

[Trim Stab]

What is the "default" procedure for approach and landing when flying in formation with a flight plan? Do ATC expect the formation leader to request permission for a formation approach and landing? Or is it ATC responsibility to inform the leader that a formation landing is not authorised at the destination airfield?

[canard68]

I have not come across any airfield refusing formation landings.Some controllers may not be
happy when a formation breaks and a series of landing clearances are requested.

[robin]

Was at a small regional airfield where they allowed (with some bad grace) formations to enter the ATZ, but formations had to break before the circuit and land individually

[Trim Stab]

Was at a small regional airfield where they allowed (with some bad grace) formations to enter the ATZ, but formations had to break before the circuit and land individually


The reason that I asked the question was that until now I have politely reminded ATC on first contact that we are a formation (in case they have not noticed on the flight plan), and then requested permission to land in formation. That unfortunately gives some ATC the chance to refuse! So I am tempted in future to simply proceed in formation, and only break if ATC specifically deny permission to land in formation.

[Spitoon]

In the UK there are no rules (in the civil books) that permit a formation landing.

Rule 14 (2) says (slightly paraphrased) unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises, a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway.



The only time that ATC can authorise two landing aircraft to be on the runway at the same time is commonly called the 'land after procedure'. The rules say...
When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following

When using this procedure the controller will not clear the second aircraft to land but will give the instruction 'Runway (runway designator), land after the (aircraft type)'.

So, by asking the controller to authorise a formation landing, you are asking him or her to break the rules. And if you don't mention it to the controller and proceed to land in formation, your number 2 (3, 4 or however many) will be breaking the rules.

[Trim Stab]

So, by asking the controller to authorise a formation landing, you are asking him or her to break the rules.

Thank you for that input, so I will not ask in future for authorisation.


And if you don't mention it to the controller and proceed to land in formation, your number 2 (3, 4 or however many) will be breaking the rules.


If we don't mention that we are in formation, and the controller does not specifically order the break up of a formation so we proceed to land in formation, will we be breaking the regulations? Surely if we have filed a formation flightplan, the "default" is that all aircraft remain in formation unless specifically ordered to break?

[Spitoon]

I think it would be rule 14 that gets you. The book says you can't land if there's another aircraft on the runway. Sadly, filing a FPL doesn't absolve you from complying with the Rules of the Air Regulations.

[aluminium persuader]

... however MATS pt 1 Sect 1 Ch4 says

15.1.1 Formations are to be considered as a single unit for separation/deconfliction purposes
provided that the formation remains within the parameters shown etc etc.

Notwithstanding rule 14, I would suggest that although it doesn't specifically mention landing clearances (or take-off either) that the controller would be clearing a single unit to land. Certainly formation t/o are common - witness airshows.

[coolbeans]

... however MATS pt 1 Sect 1 Ch4 says

15.1.1 Formations are to be considered as a single unit for separation/deconfliction purposes
provided that the formation remains within the parameters shown etc etc.

Notwithstanding rule 14, I would suggest that although it doesn't specifically mention landing clearances (or take-off either) that the controller would be clearing a single unit to land. Certainly formation t/o are common - witness airshows.

I think they are pretty explicit there, formations are to be considered a single unit for sep/deconfliction, if they intended that rule to cover landings, they would state it.

As far as my book of rules and tools is concerned I cant find anything allowing me to clear a formation to land.

If someone does come up with something, let me know, it would make my job simpler.

I'd take airshow formation stuff as a special case, the individuals involved being subject to specific checkouts and permisions (i think?)

[Trim Stab]

Certainly formation t/o are common - witness airshows.


Controllers do seem more relaxed about formation take-offs - but presumably they are subject to the same rules as formation landings?

[aluminium persuader]

But what about formation deps when NOT at an airshow? They're still common. And might the "not having more than one landing a/c" etc etc be a separation issue & therefore covered by the MATS pt1 statement?
Spoke to a couple of ex-mil controllers... they said for (fast jet) landings it has to be in local ATC orders (MATS pt2) and briefed, and they seemed to think that 2 was the max number which would put one left & one right of the c/l.

[Legalapproach]

I have been in military 4 ship landings, echelon starboard, break left - 3 second stream into the circuit and then left, right, left, right to land.

Once approached Brawdy arriving for the open day in a two ship formation (Bulldogs) to be told we were number two to the nine ship ahead (Red Hawks)!!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Surely the logic to be applied here is that used by the military guys? The Formation will (should?) have briefed extensively on what to do during “unlikely events” on both take-off and landing; so they are cleared to land ‘in turn’ eg: “Poacher 1, finals, gear down” – “Poacher 1, clear to land.” “Poacher 2, finals, gear down” –“Poacher 2, land in turn.” etc, etc.

Sometimes they will have briefed to land left, right, left, right etc or - more usually - (depending on the taxiway exit side) all land and ease over to one side, leaving a ‘fast lane’ for those that experience ‘difficulties’ of whatever sort.

The previously mentioned Local Unit (Flying Order Book) specifications for minimum landing distances between aircraft was usually to cater for aircraft NOT in a formation and was the mil equivalent of the civilian ‘land after’. In these circumstances Poacher 1 was “clear to land, one on” when Gamekeeper 3, who had previously just landed, had yet to vacate the runway but the specified Unit criteria had been achieved; eg, VMC, both Unit aircraft, of the same type, 3,000ft of runway clear and the ‘one on’ obviously not in distress of any sort.

Most I ever supervised was the mass Tornado recovery to a certain Suffolk base after the rehearsals, and actual event, for the 50th Anniversary of the B of B when Tower was issuing “Green 4, land in turn, 6 on, one ahead, landing.” It was the only way to recover large numbers (36, if memory serves) of relatively short endurance, fast jets in a reasonable time frame on a longish runway and especially with no usable intermediate turn-offs on 09. It was perfectly safe as everyone – including ATC – had attended a Mass Brief before the exercise and therefore everyone knew what the SOP was, and what to do in an emergency. As ever, the 8 Ps and good communication usually wins the day.

[eastern wiseguy]

I have used the phraseology "Runway 25 Red Arrows cleared to land" the logic being they are a formation and it would be folly to start giving land afters. This applies to any Mil formation I have handled.

Now two cherokees from Ballygobackwards to EGAA I may be a little more circumspect with (not saying they wouldn't be as competent....just my personal feeling).

[Atcham Tower]

In the absence of any official guidance on the matter, I have always reverted to a kind of FISO phraseology: "Red Arrows, the runway is clear, land at your discretion". A total cop-out really but nobody has ever queried it.

[sycamore]

T-S,sent you a PM; it is possible to get an Exemption from the CAA for specific exercises/dates/times.....at a premium ,of course..

[Trim Stab]

I have used the phraseology "Runway 25 Red Arrows cleared to land" the logic being they are a formation and it would be folly to start giving land afters.


This would seem to be the logical solution to me. If we have filed a formation flight plan, surely we are a formation from the moment the lead aircraft makes a start up call to activate the flightplan, until the moment the lead aircraft shuts down on arrival? Therefore, by default, take offs and landings should be in formation, unless specifically denied by the controller?


it is possible to get an Exemption from the CAA for specific exercises/dates/times


Thank you for that, but it is not applicable to us - we are ferrying aircraft so are going through many countries on route to destination.

[spekesoftly]

I have used the phraseology "Runway 25 Red Arrows cleared to land"

In the absence of any official guidance on the matter, ..........


The Red Arrows normally send out a briefing to a planned civil ATSU destination. The last one I read said that Red Lead would request landing clearance for the whole formation.

[Say Again, Over!]

I think it would be rule 14 that gets you. The book says you can't land if there's another aircraft on the runway. Sadly, filing a FPL doesn't absolve you from complying with the Rules of the Air Regulations.

I think they are pretty explicit there, formations are to be considered a single unit for sep/deconfliction, if they intended that rule to cover landings, they would state it.

As far as my book of rules and tools is concerned I cant find anything allowing me to clear a formation to land.


Separation is separation, whether it's in the air or on the runway. A formation is a single entity and both aircraft (or all 3 or more) are responsible for their own separation within the formation.

We give one radar vector to the formation, not to each member. Same principle applies here for landing.

This being said, not everybody is allowed, I believe, to file a formation flight plan. Furthermore, squadron SOPs might preclude formation landings or restrict them to, say, no more than 2 at a time. I've seen a 6 ship land in three lines of two about 2000 feet apart longitudinally.

Of course, I should mention that I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective...

Cheers,

Felix

[Spitoon]

In the civil rules there are only limited situations where more than one aircraft is on the runway at any particular time. To argue that a formation is a single entity for all purposes is a rather creative interpretation of the rules.

I'm not operational these days but as far as I'm concerned, no exemption from rule 14, no formation landing - although a break and land in stream would be OK for two aircraft.

Sorry to sound bumptious but I'm afraid that I think there is a world of difference between mil ops - where the pilots have trained for the procedure - and a couple of 'pure' civil pilots with aspirations.... In my experience exemptions for fomation flights (and on one occasion that I vaguely recall, formation landing) have been limited almost exclusively to active/ex-mil pilots.

[Trim Stab]

I'm not operational these days but as far as I'm concerned, no exemption from rule 14, no formation landing - although a break and land in stream would be OK for two aircraft.




What is your definition of the difference between the two in terms of spacing? Is ATC responsible for separation, or the pilots? If the former, where do you expect the break to occur?



Sorry to sound bumptious but I'm afraid that I think there is a world of difference between mil ops


If flying into a civil airfield, what does it matter from a regulatory position if the pilots are military or not? The regulations (if they exist) are the same, surely?

[coolbeans]

Separation is separation, whether it's in the air or on the runway. A formation is a single entity and both aircraft (or all 3 or more) are responsible for their own separation within the formation.

Separation in the air is pretty different from separation on the runway, you separate a formation by a deemed distance in the air depending on service/airspace, where as you separate aircraft on the runway with a one on at a time , unless a land after is given.

For instance one of our runways is short and local instructions preclude land afters being given on it, so if they have decided that the runway is to short to allow one aircraft to land after the other then how can I clear a formation of three aircraft to land on it.

If flying into a civil airfield, what does it matter from a regulatory position if the pilots are military or not? The regulations (if they exist) are the same, surely?

Mil and civil pilots operate under different regulations, dont they, ANO for the civvies and I forget the name of the mil regs.

Also I reckon that your military pilots generally have a bit more xp in the formation landings/departures than your average civil pilot.

[NigelOnDraft]

It's all as discussed above:

Formation TO No rules to prohibit
Formation Landing (both genuine Formation and Stream) - not permitted by Rule 14, except by full ATC unit using Land After.

Solution that is used by the training facilities that teach formation is the Rule 14 exemption. It is not overly detailed, and just lists names / appointments who can "supervise" the use of the exemption.

Without the exemption in place, then the aircraft ahead of you must clear the runway prior the next aircraft landing.

NoD

[Talkdownman]

I forget the name of the mil regs
Do you mean JSP318 / JSP318A ?

[coolbeans]

Do you mean JSP318 / JSP318A ?

That sounds like the bunny

[Trim Stab]

Formation Landing (both genuine Formation and Stream) - not permitted by Rule 14, except by full ATC unit using Land After.


OK, so going back to my original question, who is responsible for initiating break up of formation on approach to a controlled airfield - ATC or pilot?

If we have filed a formation flightplan and have flown in formation to a destination or alternate airfield with a single transponder code and only a single aircraft on r/t, do we continue to fly the approach in formation with only one aircraft on r/t and only one transponder code until explicitly told to separate? Or is it our responsibility to separate, switch on individual transponders, emerge from radio silence, and maintain our own separation from each other - and aircraft that may be behind us?

There appears to be a gap in the regulations here. There also appears to be a lack of awareness and trainingby ATC on how to deal with the arrival of aircraft in formation, as some airfields (mostly in Eastern Europe) seem to expect us to land in formation and are somewhat mystified if we ask if we should separate, others appear to not read the flight plan correctly so have no idea that we are a formation until we appear on short finals together, others just tell us that formation landing is not authorised but leave us to sort out our own separation. I've only ever experienced one ATC that had clearly noticed we were a formation on the flight plan and had a plan for how to separate us on arrival - of all places that was in Morocco!