(Loose) formation flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well spaced company it is, and I meant to say.
Initially I was thinking about 25-75 meters separation. I now realise that that is still too little unless you've had specific formation flying training. I'm now thinking along the lines of 200 meter plus.
I'm trying to compile my own little briefing sheet here based on advise from you guys. All good points made. A few more questions:
- What is the typical procedure you agree upon in case of loss of visual contact? My idea would be that the lead aircraft continues as before (same level & speed), but the chase will *immediately* climb or descend 100 feet (depending on its last known position relative to the lead), then reduce speed by five knots for at least ten minutes and continue on his own. A rejoin should only be attempted over a clearly defined landmark in good weather.
- What is the typical procedure you agree upon in case of loss of radio contact? Get level, rock your wings and break away? Continue in the loose formation, without radio contact, until close to the destination, but with the option of either aircraft being able to signal the end of the formation by rocking its wings? (Note - comms failure highly unlikely since in my little scenario, both aircraft have dual comms and there will possibly some handhelds on board as well.)
- Is there a formal "collector" frequency available, or do you just use 123.45?
- What position do you prefer for the chase? 4.30 or 7.30? Same level, slightly higher, slightly lower?
- One or two flightplans? And if you submit only one, how do you indicate/negotiate the separate take-off and landing without endless discussions and explanations to ATC?
(Oh, and just to add. My flying club has a group of enthousiast *close* formation flyers. They are currently displaying with up to nine aircraft in formation at a time, and they're simply being limited by the number of more or less compatible planes we have, not by the number of people qualified to do so. It is already a heterogeneous bunch with at least three different aircraft types right now, and more if you also count the engine variants. So if I want to learn how to do close formation flying, I know where to go. Only problem is, they train at Sunday 8.30. Too early for me and conflicting with other interests.)
I used to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet because I thought I knew best and it was legal. It was obviously perfectly safe because I never got hurt - mind you, nothing unexpected happened and I never fell off. 
The problem with formation is that it can go wrong, and go wrong very quickly. Again, it is coping with contingencies that separates a good, safe formation from one that just got away with it because the weather stayed good, nothing went u/s and no-one lost sight of the other aircraft.
I'll say no more except to say that there is a broad range of experience posting on PPRuNe; every individual can choose which particular advice they take on board.
The problem with formation is that it can go wrong, and go wrong very quickly. Again, it is coping with contingencies that separates a good, safe formation from one that just got away with it because the weather stayed good, nothing went u/s and no-one lost sight of the other aircraft.
I'll say no more except to say that there is a broad range of experience posting on PPRuNe; every individual can choose which particular advice they take on board.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker, Lots of good questions which do need to be thought through before leaving the ground
Exact procedure will depend on weather, airspace (ie can you climb). The main thing is that you both agree on what to do. Being in radio contact is by far the best. See comments below.
If you both have two radios then things are much easier as you can both keep one set on the 'Go to' frequency which can be used in case of loss of contact. If you do lose radio and visual contact then one should go left and the other right as previously agreed. This will depend on what position you formate from. I would not be in favour of pulling level and wing wagging. The lead pilot will find this difficult and the second pilot will have to move into a position that the lead pilot is not expecting him. Having a second radio is the best thing, if not then have a "go to" frequency. Agree that if you are not in radio contact then you are both on your own.
There is no official air to air frequency...just make sure you use the same one and that there it is not being used by others.
Depends on the aircraft type as you need to be able to see each other and this differs berween high and low wing aircraft. Mainly the aircraft in the lead will not be looking at the adjoining one, so its helpful if the second aircraft is at the 7 or 8 position so that the lead can glance at him. The following aircraft should only be looking at the lead aircraft so the 1 or 2 oclock position makes it easier. Cessna to Cessna will probably mean the same height or one of you will not be able to see the other. The most comfortable is with the second aircraft very slightly lower but again both must be able to see each other...and to have agreed positions beforehand!!!!
I have always taken off and landed as individual aircraft. There are dangers with simultaneous landing. So I suggest forming up as you leave the ATZ and separating as you arrive at the ATZ, then each aircraft has established radio contact before their individual landing and can accept individual instructions for their separate landings.
The first time you try keep well apart and try it somewhere where you can both talk to each other on the radio and without any controller/A/G etc. You will be constantly talking to each other.
Let me add that I don't do or enjoy close formation work, but I do enjoy transit flights in loose formation ie 50 yds or so. Its quite nice to be able to talk while flying along with someone. This is also much easier than close formation which should only be tried with correct training.
- What is the typical procedure you agree upon in case of loss of visual contact? My idea would be that the lead aircraft continues as before (same level & speed), but the chase will *immediately* climb or descend 100 feet (depending on its last known position relative to the lead), then reduce speed by five knots for at least ten minutes and continue on his own. A rejoin should only be attempted over a clearly defined landmark in good weather.
- What is the typical procedure you agree upon in case of loss of radio contact? Get level, rock your wings and break away? Continue in the loose formation, without radio contact, until close to the destination, but with the option of either aircraft being able to signal the end of the formation by rocking its wings? (Note - comms failure highly unlikely since in my little scenario, both aircraft have dual comms and there will possibly some handhelds on board as well.)
- Is there a formal "collector" frequency available, or do you just use 123.45?
- What position do you prefer for the chase? 4.30 or 7.30? Same level, slightly higher, slightly lower?
- One or two flightplans? And if you submit only one, how do you indicate/negotiate the separate take-off and landing without endless discussions and explanations to ATC?
The first time you try keep well apart and try it somewhere where you can both talk to each other on the radio and without any controller/A/G etc. You will be constantly talking to each other.
Let me add that I don't do or enjoy close formation work, but I do enjoy transit flights in loose formation ie 50 yds or so. Its quite nice to be able to talk while flying along with someone. This is also much easier than close formation which should only be tried with correct training.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very solid.
I would tend to assume the radios might fail. Conservative - perhaps, but as ZA says it is straight forward when you can maintain radio contact but things are more likely to go wrong if you cant, so plan accordingly.
If you are operating in anything like reasonable viz realistically you are only likely to loose company because the viz has diminished substantially. If this were the case I would want a greater margin between heights. After all there is a good chance you will not "form up" again and it will become two seperate flights. Moreover you would not want any confusion over altimeter settings - albeit that would have been discussed at the pre flight.
In the terms of the FP, I assume you are referring to an international flight requiring a FP. Use box 9 accordingly. The fact that you are forming up shortly after departure and breaking up shortly before arrival is incidental if you are intending to fly in company for the route. If you break up en route tell AT that G-XXXX flying in company with G-XXX2 is now no longer in company but will be continuing in accordance with the original FP.
I would tend to assume the radios might fail. Conservative - perhaps, but as ZA says it is straight forward when you can maintain radio contact but things are more likely to go wrong if you cant, so plan accordingly.
If you are operating in anything like reasonable viz realistically you are only likely to loose company because the viz has diminished substantially. If this were the case I would want a greater margin between heights. After all there is a good chance you will not "form up" again and it will become two seperate flights. Moreover you would not want any confusion over altimeter settings - albeit that would have been discussed at the pre flight.
In the terms of the FP, I assume you are referring to an international flight requiring a FP. Use box 9 accordingly. The fact that you are forming up shortly after departure and breaking up shortly before arrival is incidental if you are intending to fly in company for the route. If you break up en route tell AT that G-XXXX flying in company with G-XXX2 is now no longer in company but will be continuing in accordance with the original FP.
The RAF teaches close formation first - to develop flying skills and the essential discipline necessary for safe formation flight.
Only much later is 'tactical' or 'loose' formation taught as it is far more hazardous for the unwary.
A few good RFs/FTOs teach formation - we run a course which used to culminate in 4 a/c close formation. (We sold one ac, so now we can't!). Of interest is that most non-military pilots are hopeless when it comes to RT discipline, check-in times, listening to the brief etc.....
And it is NOT as simple as it looks!
Only much later is 'tactical' or 'loose' formation taught as it is far more hazardous for the unwary.
A few good RFs/FTOs teach formation - we run a course which used to culminate in 4 a/c close formation. (We sold one ac, so now we can't!). Of interest is that most non-military pilots are hopeless when it comes to RT discipline, check-in times, listening to the brief etc.....
And it is NOT as simple as it looks!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF teaches close formation first - to develop flying skills and the essential discipline necessary for safe formation flight.
Only much later is 'tactical' or 'loose' formation taught as it is far more hazardous for the unwary.
Only much later is 'tactical' or 'loose' formation taught as it is far more hazardous for the unwary.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BackPacker
(Oh, and just to add. My flying club has a group of enthousiast *close* formation flyers. They are currently displaying with up to nine aircraft in formation at a time, and they're simply being limited by the number of more or less compatible planes we have, not by the number of people qualified to do so. It is already a heterogeneous bunch with at least three different aircraft types right now, and more if you also count the engine variants. So if I want to learn how to do close formation flying, I know where to go. Only problem is, they train at Sunday 8.30. Too early for me and conflicting with other interests.)
There are some pearls of wisdom in this thread, and there is a lot of fluffy-minded tosh. Your problem is you have absolutely no way of knowing which is which for certain - so go and get a second (first) opinion, face-to-face, from someone you are sure knows the subject, and who hopefully knows you and the pilots you are flying with well enough to be able to offer genuine guidance.
Anyway, where *is* this aeros competition you and your mates are off to? - hardly the season for it...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some pearls of wisdom in this thread, and there is a lot of fluffy-minded tosh. Your problem is you have absolutely no way of knowing which is which for certain
The interest in these forums is to debate the issue and hopefully to be informative, otherewise we might as well not bother.
It would be far more helpful to quote the bits that are tosh and tell us why or even the pearls of wisdom and tell us why. It is easy on the other hand to simply say some bits are tosh. It is for a similar reason why I object when people say - dont do so and so without any justification. It always leaves me wondering if they are just repeating what they read somewhere without understanding why. This forum is a good example. So far as I am concered flying in company is good fun and not at all dangerous if done with a sensible pre flight briefing. I have expalined why I beleive that is so and set out what I consider to be a reasonable brief. Flying in formation or tactical formation is a different matter.
We are all here to learn.
A good point in isolation about chatting to other pilots at the posters local airfield however.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually mate, if you have a resource like this on your doorstep, I'm wondering why you're looking for advice on an internet forum.
Having said that, if the forum convinces me that even "in company" flying is something you can't do with proper training, then the flying club formation team is obviously the way forward. But so far we've established that "in company" flying means several hundred meters apart and I'm not convinced that that requires some serious training. A proper pre-flight briefing, yes. Attention to detail, yes. Contingency planning, yes. Perhaps a shorter leg, for practice, yes. But a week at Kemble flying Yaks in close aerobatic formation... Not convinced yet.
Anyway, where *is* this aeros competition you and your mates are off to? - hardly the season for it...
But it's just one of the possible scenarios. I first need to find a few likeminded fools and enroll in a UK event, and convince the likeminded fools that flying "in company" might be useful and not more risky than flying alone before this scenario would actually play out as discussed. The chance that this will actually happen as described here is very close to zero. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting discussion, even though it will most likely remain largely theoretical for me.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
tosh
I'm sure you've had an excellent time flying 'in company' with your mates - in fact, I'd bet money you've never had a negative experience in the process. Long may this continue. I'm happy that I've done my best to help the OP achieve his goal in a safe fashion, based on my experience, for what its worth.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BackPacker
Simple. PPRuNe is just one mouse click away, and the flying club a 45 minutes drive - and then I have to get lucky and stumble upon somebody knowledgeable by accident or set up an appointment.
Having said that, if the forum convinces me that even "in company" flying is something you can't do with proper training, then the flying club formation team is obviously the way forward. But so far we've established that "in company" flying means several hundred meters apart and I'm not convinced that that requires some serious training. A proper pre-flight briefing, yes. Attention to detail, yes. Contingency planning, yes. Perhaps a shorter leg, for practice, yes. But a week at Kemble flying Yaks in close aerobatic formation... Not convinced yet.
Read my first post. It was an idle question, nothing serious planned. But the scenario I have in my head is to participate in one or two of the UK events in spring 2008, together with some likeminded fools, since there's only one event held in the Netherlands, and that's in the fall.
But it's just one of the possible scenarios. I first need to find a few likeminded fools and enroll in a UK event, and convince the likeminded fools that flying "in company" might be useful and not more risky than flying alone before this scenario would actually play out as discussed. The chance that this will actually happen as described here is very close to zero. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting discussion, even though it will most likely remain largely theoretical for me.
Having said that, if the forum convinces me that even "in company" flying is something you can't do with proper training, then the flying club formation team is obviously the way forward. But so far we've established that "in company" flying means several hundred meters apart and I'm not convinced that that requires some serious training. A proper pre-flight briefing, yes. Attention to detail, yes. Contingency planning, yes. Perhaps a shorter leg, for practice, yes. But a week at Kemble flying Yaks in close aerobatic formation... Not convinced yet.
Read my first post. It was an idle question, nothing serious planned. But the scenario I have in my head is to participate in one or two of the UK events in spring 2008, together with some likeminded fools, since there's only one event held in the Netherlands, and that's in the fall.
But it's just one of the possible scenarios. I first need to find a few likeminded fools and enroll in a UK event, and convince the likeminded fools that flying "in company" might be useful and not more risky than flying alone before this scenario would actually play out as discussed. The chance that this will actually happen as described here is very close to zero. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting discussion, even though it will most likely remain largely theoretical for me.
It would be great to see you & your friends at a competition next year - the provisional calendar should be up on the BAeA website soon, if it isn't already. But, please, take some advice on your transit (from somewhere other than the internet) - as I've alluded above, some I've had a reasonable amount of experience with nasty transits to aerobatic competitions with mates who wanted to fly 'in company'.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, well if I am talking tosh, I am also prepared to learn. So just to make sure I understand what you consider the position to be;
Flying 600m behind another aircraft is unsafe unless both pilots have had full formation training and a full plan has been prepared before takeoff?
Rod1
Flying 600m behind another aircraft is unsafe unless both pilots have had full formation training and a full plan has been prepared before takeoff?
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little late to all this, but having had formal formation training and having flown in both loose and close formation, I would recommend some training before even trying to do either.
Tight formation can actually be easier once the skill set is in place. Loose formation has the added danger of losing sight of the other aircraft whilst doing a FREDA check or similar. Looking up and realising you cannot see the lead aircraft is somewhat sobering and is possible even at 300m. Everything then snowballs very quickly.
Tight formation can actually be easier once the skill set is in place. Loose formation has the added danger of losing sight of the other aircraft whilst doing a FREDA check or similar. Looking up and realising you cannot see the lead aircraft is somewhat sobering and is possible even at 300m. Everything then snowballs very quickly.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tight formation can actually be easier once the skill set is in place. Loose formation has the added danger of losing sight of the other aircraft whilst doing a FREDA check or similar. Looking up and realising you cannot see the lead aircraft is somewhat sobering and is possible even at 300m. Everything then snowballs very quickly.
Yesterday the Swedish AAIB released the report for the midair between a C-172P and Saab Safir during a Civil Air Patrol (Somewhat similar organization) exercise. Cessna was doing a search along a power line, with pilot and observer on board. The Safir was flying chase taking pictures of the flight. (Pilot and 2 photographers)
Everything was briefed, and the Cessna was lead, and told not to worry about separation, the Saab would stay 100m to the left, 100m to the rear, and 100m above the Cessna.
During a turn one photographer in the Saab got ill, and the pilot attended to him. Seconds later he spotted the Cessna passing below him, and instantly heard a bang as his left wing struck the tail of the Cessna.
Now, both planes landed safely at nearby Østersund Air Base, the Cessna with a jammed rudder.
3ft lower for the Saab, and five people would most likely have perished.
For scandi readers:
http://www.havkom.se/virtupload/news/rl2007_19.pdf
A very good reason why training is a good idea before ANY form of formation flying, as ST wisely says. Extra risks, extra skills required, extra training - this seems to me to be a pretty straightforward concept