Formation Flying - definition

[Bomber ARIS]

Having searched high and low, I can't find any CASA definition of what counts as formation flying - nor 'in company', for that matter.

Would appreciate any wisdom from the gallery.

Thanks

[Ascend Charlie]

As far as CA$A is concerned, it is 2 aircraft in the same FIR on the same day.

In reality, 2 or more aircraft operating as a unit, with one designated leader who organises clearances, maintains lookout, and makes the decisions regarding aircraft attitude, heading, altitude, speed etc.
The other elements maintain a relative position from the leader, or the next aircraft in the formation as briefed, and despite the leader being in charge of lookout, each element must ensure obstacle separation for itself.

"In company" might not have any legal meaning, but it is usually 2 aircraft from the same company / school operating with less than the VFR distances between themselves, but more than formation distances. ATC treats them as one aircraft for clearances, no formation endorsement is needed because each machine can manoeuvre independently of the other and each is responsible for obstacle clearances.

Any advances on that?

[Squawk7700]

This US based definition fits perfectly with what I’ve always believed it to be:

Definition. Formation flight. A flight consisting of more than one aircraft which, by prior arrangement between the pilots, operates as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and position reporting, as well as clearances issued by ATC.

What I would like to know is if you pull up behind /near someone you know or don’t know, what distance is the legal minimum for separation?

[djpil]

CASA’s Flight Operations Regulations - Consolidated Dictionary is fairly clear although some of my friends choose to twist the words to give a different meaning.

“flying in formation
2 or more aircraft are:
(a) flying in formation if they:
(i) are operating as a single unit with regard to navigation, position reporting and control; and
(ii) are so close to each other that any change in height, heading or airspeed of any aircraft used for station-keeping results in a need for one or more of the other aircraft to manoeuvre to maintain station or avoid a collision; and
(b) taken to be flying in formation:
(i) when the aircraft are changing station; and
(ii) during join-up or breakaway.”

[compressor stall]

This US based definition fits perfectly with what I’ve always believed it to be:



What I would like to know is if you pull up behind /near someone you know or don’t know, what distance is the legal minimum for separation?
IIRC it used to be something like “shall not operate so close as to constitute a collision hazard.” Can’t recall under part 91.

[djpil]

The old rule was:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/525x329/formationold_d45850802d80ce286870578f81b400c2a09cb82e.png
Perhaps there was an even older, more simple rule.

[megan]

Late 70's was one of two helos in company inbound to Mascot to have the aircraft loaded onto a QF Combi 747, at the boundary when lead asked for clearance for a flight of two was asked "do you have approval to fly formation in the zone", answered in the negative, so ATC split up and handled as separate flights.

[Lead Balloon]

What I would like to know is if you pull up behind /near someone you know or don’t know, what distance is the legal minimum for separation?Back in the day before 150 pages were simplified into a few thousand, the 'basic rule' was that an aircraft in the air was not to be operated: [I]n closer proximity to another aircraft than 600 metres horizontally and 500 feet vertically.That was in oh-so-complicated CAR 163 (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg/car1988n158290/s163.html).

My 'rule of thumb' was to treat another aircraft like a cloud below 5,000' AMSL.

It seems now that the rule is: don't collide.

It's funny watching the cycle of these things go from prescriptive rule to outcomes-based rule. Fuel management is in the prescriptive phase of the cycle; getting close to other aircraft is in the outcomes-based phase.

Meanwhile the accident/incident rate remains pretty constant.

[Direct BAMES]

Late 70's was one of two helos in company inbound to Mascot to have the aircraft loaded onto a QF Combi 747, at the boundary when lead asked for clearance for a flight of two was asked "do you have approval to fly formation in the zone", answered in the negative, so ATC split up and handled as separate flights.
I once worked for a civilian operator providing services to the military. Tasked with providing two aircraft for a particular job, a requested for the aircraft to depart the home-base international airport as a pair was denied - civil aircraft are not permitted to operate in formation in controlled airspace. “But we’re operating with military callsigns”. “You’re cleared to depart as a pair…”.

[Runaway Gun]

DJPIL’s definition is correct. An actual numerical distance is not defined- it’s about the technique used.

“In Company” is simply a term used to fly in formation, when you don’t have a rating. If you don’t use the formation techniques, you’ll risk colliding.

[djpil]

Meanwhile the accident/incident rate remains pretty constant.and last time I checked, no better than in the USA with nil requirement for fomation and aerobatic endorsements.
I recall 600 m from the time before the internet.

[The Wawa Zone]

And 5(a) means that dogfighting is included as formation flying so don't try to talk your way out of something without thinking about that :=

[PiperCameron]

And 5(a) means that dogfighting is included as formation flying so don't try to talk your way out of something without thinking about that :=

And if you've seen from a distance the way some newbies form up and unsuccessfully attempt to stay in formation, you'd understand precisely why that's the case! :D