Air-to-air photography?

Ron Levy said:
And what happens then if lead turns left? Wingman has to go belly-up to lead -- bad ju-ju. Stacking high is dangerous.
Click to expand...
If the lead turns left, and you lose sight of him, follow the pre-existing breakoff (or whatever the fancy name is) procedure that you all agreed on. I'll bet it involved a right turn away from him.

Then, get back on the radio and re coordinate to join up. To do stuff like this my way (The "Don't hit the other guy" way), you really have to be willing to break off when things aren't right.
 
Ron Levy said:
And what happens then if lead turns left? Wingman has to go belly-up to lead -- bad ju-ju. Stacking high is dangerous.
Click to expand...

In addition, when we went down to help out the Cessna 2 Osh folks, there was good visibility stepped down with the high wings. You wouldn't expect it, but there was.

Everyone thinks formation is easy. I've got to agree with Ron on his points here. Grab some FFI (or FAST) guys and have them ride right seat. Lead/Wing skills are different and each are equally important.

I like Bruce's suggestion to stay out several wing lengths and grab the shot. Then, carefully, break up the flight and head back. Do not lose sight of lead...
 
SkyHog said:
I don't think its the slipstream that's causing it. I think the wheel was always canted to the left in level flight.
Click to expand...

The other Grummans we fly with always have their nose wheels cocked left like that. It was explained to me that it is in fact the prop wash. But, 1 - I'm no expert... 2 - You've got a Piper. :dunno:
 
SkyHog said:
If the lead turns left, and you lose sight of him, follow the pre-existing breakoff (or whatever the fancy name is) procedure that you all agreed on.
Click to expand...
Lead doesn't know #2 has lost sight and so doesn't know s/he has to turn away from #2 (you can't rely on radio calls for this situation). In any event, standard lost wingman procedures are not designed for this geometry -- #2 must be below lead for this to be safe.

And that's a lesson you need to know before you go flying formation.
 
Ron Levy said:
Lead doesn't know #2 has lost sight and so doesn't know s/he has to turn away from #2 (you can't rely on radio calls for this situation). In any event, standard lost wingman procedures are not designed for this geometry -- #2 must be below lead for this to be safe.

And that's a lesson you need to know before you go flying formation.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're gonna have to explain this one to me....

Plane 1 (lead) is above and to the left, proceeds to turn left, and you lose sight. Turn right.

What am I missing? Seems to me, if one plane turns left and the other turns right, there's no collision danger.

BTW, I am not talking about group formation at all. I am talking about one on one loose formation flying. With the talk you're going into, its almost as if parallel approaches to a controlled airport require the same kind of training?
 
SkyHog said:
Ok, you're gonna have to explain this one to me....

Plane 1 (lead) is above and to the left,
Click to expand...
Your scenario had #2 above lead. Bad place for #2 to be. Basic rule -- wingmen never get above or in front of the plane they're flying off. Never. And the scenario described is why, since lead may not know that #2 has gone lost wingman (you can't rely on radios for that).

BTW, I am not talking about group formation at all. I am talking about one on one loose formation flying. With the talk you're going into, its almost as if parallel approaches to a controlled airport require the same kind of training?
Click to expand...
With parallel approaches, positive lateral separation procedures are in place.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Your scenario had #2 above lead. Bad place for #2 to be. Basic rule -- wingmen never get above or in front of the plane they're flying off. Never. And the scenario described is why, since lead may not know that #2 has gone lost wingman (you can't rely on radios for that).

With parallel approaches, positive lateral separation procedures are in place.
Click to expand...

I can understand this. That said, do you really think its that big of a deal for a quick join up for maybe 1-2 minutes tops, and then a departure from formation, when it is briefed beforehand, and a breakoff plan is in place where the planes turn away from each other?
 
SkyHog said:
I can understand this. That said, do you really think its that big of a deal for a quick join up for maybe 1-2 minutes tops, and then a departure from formation, when it is briefed beforehand, and a breakoff plan is in place where the planes turn away from each other?
Click to expand...
Not for properly trained and qualified formation pilots familiar with an adequate set of formation standards. For anyone else, yes, it's a big deal, especially if they don't know all the things that have to be briefed to conduct a safe formation flight.

FWIW, the FFI/Grumman formation group has a Grumman-specific 23-page formation standards manual that must be learned cold before anyone is allowed to even start learning basic station-keeping in a 2-ship formation -- and that's above and beyond the 34-page T-34 Formation Flight Manual which covers the fundamentals. I can get together with another FFI/Grumman formation pilot and be briefed and ready to walk to the planes in about five minutes. If I'm flying with someone not 100% up on all that material, it will take about 20-30 minutes to brief a simple 2-ship formation, and near an hour for a 4-ship.
 
I have a question for you guys. Where is the dividing line between formation flying and just flying the same direction in the sky? I realize this is probably not a rigid number but roughly how close together is it considered a formation--10yds, 50yds, 100yds, a mile? (Assume 120kt cruising aircraft so we don't get into an apples and oranges discussion)

Barb
 
bbchien said:
Hey no Kidding. When a person knows so little as to not know how little they know, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

While I agree completely with that statement, I also believe that most pilots could be trained to fly a very loose formation sufficient for "amateur" photography in a fairly short time. This assumes that they would never get closer than a few hundred feet, join inefficiently but safely, fly straight/level or in very shallow turns, and use the radio a lot. It also assumes that the training (and flight) would involve a decent preflight briefing component and a basic understanding of the risks and things to avoid.
 
One Short said:
I have a question for you guys. Where is the dividing line between formation flying and just flying the same direction in the sky? I realize this is probably not a rigid number but roughly how close together is it considered a formation--10yds, 50yds, 100yds, a mile? (Assume 120kt cruising aircraft so we don't get into an apples and oranges discussion)

Barb
Click to expand...

Just flying in the same direction? Probably at least a half mile or more and a hundred feet or more of vertical separation. This is assuming you aren't trying to fly together, if you actually want to fly together but loose, a few hundred feet would be better but you also need decent vertical and longitudinal separation. One of the safety aspects of formation (at least the civilian version) is that you always maintain separation in three dimensions. That means vertical, longitudinal, and lateral separation. This way if you have to lose all three to trade paint. If you only plan on lateral separation any distraction or mistake could lead to an encounter of the worst kind. Even when the Blue Angels appear to fly head on passes with a few feet to spare, they actually offset their flight paths laterally quite far for safety. It only looks close because the crowd is displaced much further and can't tell that one plane is further away from the viewers than the other.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? I don't see any aileron deflection, and he never went underneath me. What I do see is that the nosewheel is deflected way left, while the rudder doesn't seem to be deflected at all. Odd.
Click to expand...


Not really, actually, kinda typical. There's a pin that falls into a V-notch when the strut extends fully to hold the gear straight. That gets broke a lot.
 
Henning said:
Not really, actually, kinda typical. There's a pin that falls into a V-notch when the strut extends fully to hold the gear straight. That gets broke a lot.
Click to expand...
That makes sense I suppose. The nosewheel on a Cherokee is only directly connected when the strut is compressed?
 
jesse said:
That makes sense I suppose. The nosewheel on a Cherokee is only directly connected when the strut is compressed?
Click to expand...

Yep. This is likely an attempt to eliminate "nosewheel steering" in the air. And I remember that on the big Cherokees (aka the "Six") you'd better center the rudder pedals when landing in a crosswind as soon as the nosewheel touches or you will be headed for the weeds when the wheel hooks back up to the rudder as the strut collapses.
 
Does it matter than when landing in a slip, if you do not straighten the rudder, you veer in the direction the rudder pedal is pressed, unlike in a Cessna?
 
SkyHog said:
Does it matter than when landing in a slip, if you do not straighten the rudder, you veer in the direction the rudder pedal is pressed, unlike in a Cessna?
Click to expand...

I think I might have stated that backwards (Henning said the Pipers disconnect the wheel from the rudder in the air and I agreed but now I'm thinking that this is what the Cessnas do and Pipers stay connected. Either way the effect is that when you touch down with significant rudder offset in a Cessna the result is much less noticeable than in a Piper, especially the big Cherokees. If you learned to fly in a Piper it's not a big deal, but if you learned in a 172 and then switch to a Cherokee Six it can bite.
 
lancefisher said:
I think I might have stated that backwards (Henning said the Pipers disconnect the wheel from the rudder in the air and I agreed but now I'm thinking that this is what the Cessnas do and Pipers stay connected. Either way the effect is that when you touch down with significant rudder offset in a Cessna the result is much less noticeable than in a Piper, especially the big Cherokees. If you learned to fly in a Piper it's not a big deal, but if you learned in a 172 and then switch to a Cherokee Six it can bite.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Pipers are direct connect on the ground for sure. They will also bite you as you describe (at least the Cherokee I fly will). What I don't know--is if they somehow disconnect the direct connect in flight.

The aerial pictures I have of the Cherokee 180 I fly indicates the nosewheel perfectly straight in level coordinated flight.

I have no idea wtf I was doing with the rudder in Nick's airplane that day. That was over two years ago.
 
The POH I have (not for any particular plane) for a PA-28-181 indicates that the nose gear steering mechanism has a "bungee assembly to reduce steering effort and to dampen shocks and bumps during taxiing" Could a bungee have been loose two years back?

I also learned that when handstarting this plane, the magneto selector should be placed in the left position to reduce kickback. All kinds of useful info in the POH.
 
jesse said:
Yeah. The Pipers are direct connect on the ground for sure. They will also bite you as you describe (at least the Cherokee I fly will). What I don't know--is if they somehow disconnect the direct connect in flight.

The aerial pictures I have of the Cherokee 180 I fly indicates the nosewheel perfectly straight in level coordinated flight.

I have no idea wtf I was doing with the rudder in Nick's airplane that day. That was over two years ago.
Click to expand...

You can see the rudder's straight tho. Plus, the other pictures all did the same.
 
jesse said:
I took that picture of Kent from a Cessna 172. I also did it without any fancy training. Keep your distance, don't be stupid, and use your zoom lens.

Find someone with a 172. You can open the window completely up by removing one screw.
Click to expand...

You know, you can run across a busy street with your eyes closed, too.

Being successful at it does not make is a safe or smart practice.
 
Last edited:
The lead plane (carrying the photographer) should have three people aboard.

The pilot.

The spotter.

The photographer.

The pilot of the lead plane should never, and I mean never, look at the plane being photographed when in close formation. That pilot is almost flying on instruments. No altitude deviation at all. None. No variation from straight flight. None.

Turns are announced over the radio, and eased into.

The spotter is looking for traffic. The pilot can not be doing this.

The photographer just shoots pictures and directs -- either through direct comm or by relay through the pilot -- where he/she wants the subject plane positioned.

If -- while in close formation -- you ever see the pilot of the plane being photographed look down at an instrument, the shoot is over. Time to break away and go home.

Here's a Youtube video of some air-to-air video we have shot. You must be close for good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-wUPixCw2c
 
Stacking is not dangerous. When flying formation the flight does not fly at the same altitude, they fly in the same plain.
If lead turns left, left wing descends while turning left and maintaining position on lead.
If lead turns right, left wing climbs and turns right while maintaining position on lead.
Dissimilar aircraft can pose a challenge.
 
john smith said:
Dissimilar aircraft can pose a challenge.
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah.

In the A36 we flew formation with . . . Tiger Moth, Stearman, Vickers Vimy, L39, Piaggio Avanti, P-51, P-40, P-47, Ford Trimotor, C-421, Champ, Wilga, Cub, Husky, and 100+ other types. Had to go all out for the L-39, and couldn't go quite slow enough for the Vimy.
 
Last edited:
Tom Gresham said:
...
Here's a Youtube video of some air-to-air video we have shot. You must be close for good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-wUPixCw2c
Click to expand...

Nice job, but I got too busy with airplane ID to listen to the lyrics - Lost track of how many different airplanes were in it - Guess I'll have to watch a couple more times.

Quite a paint job on the Mooney.
 
One Short said:
I have a question for you guys. Where is the dividing line between formation flying and just flying the same direction in the sky? I realize this is probably not a rigid number but roughly how close together is it considered a formation--10yds, 50yds, 100yds, a mile?
Click to expand...
The FAA generally requires its controllers to separate aircraft by 500 feet vertically or 3-5 miles laterally. That lateral separation may be a bit much, but I'd say that 1 mile (6000 feet) is a good spacing, and that's what tower controllers generally aim for. Get any closer than that, and one wrong move can close the spacing to zero faster than you can believe possible. And if you do want to do that, keep it in trail, not abreast; line abreast can lead to a huge closure rate in a big hurry, and that's when the trouble starts if you aren't formation trained.
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
While I agree completely with that statement, I also believe that most pilots could be trained to fly a very loose formation sufficient for "amateur" photography in a fairly short time. This assumes that they would never get closer than a few hundred feet, join inefficiently but safely, fly straight/level or in very shallow turns, and use the radio a lot. It also assumes that the training (and flight) would involve a decent preflight briefing component and a basic understanding of the risks and things to avoid.
Click to expand...
I think I could teach someone to do that safely in 1-2 days depending on their pre-study and flight proficiency level.

One thing I might point out is the staggeringly poor level of stick-and-rudder skills of a disturbingly large proportion of the non-professional pilot population. I see this so often it's scary doing IR training. In the formation flying clinics in which I've participated, the one thing that becomes an impentatrable barrier to completion is the inability to make the plane do exactly what you want it to do. If you can't put the aircraft in a particular attitude, on a particular altitude, at a particular speed, you're not going to be able to fly formation safely.

That's why we encourage those prospective formation pilots with PPL's to get 5-10 hours of training and practice in the commercial maneuvers (particularly chandelles and lazy 8's) and achieve better than CPL standards for them before showing up for the clinic. Folks who can do that breeze through; those who can't keep the ball centered entering, in, and exiting a 30-bank turn don't.
 
One Short said:
I have a question for you guys. Where is the dividing line between formation flying and just flying the same direction in the sky? I realize this is probably not a rigid number but roughly how close together is it considered a formation--10yds, 50yds, 100yds, a mile? (Assume 120kt cruising aircraft so we don't get into an apples and oranges discussion)

Barb
Click to expand...

There is a specific definition from the FAA somewhere that is always referenced. I can only remember the "flying less than one mile apart" portion.


Ron Levy said:
I think I could teach someone to do that safely in 1-2 days depending on their pre-study and flight proficiency level.
Click to expand...

That seems to be about right/average for folks showing up to the B2Osh/C2Osh clinics, and that is just for the basics.

While I also agree it would help on knowing the Comm maneuvers, I've never done a Lazy-8 except while stuck on someone's wing.
 
Tom Gresham said:
If -- while in close formation -- you ever see the pilot of the plane being photographed look down at an instrument, the shoot is over. Time to break away and go home.
Click to expand...

If it sounds like it is running... ;)
 
AirBaker said:
There is a specific definition from the FAA somewhere that is always referenced. I can only remember the "flying less than one mile apart" portion.
Click to expand...
The FAA definition is for a "standard formation" when ATC is providing separation, primarily under IFR. That definition is all aircraft in the formation within 1 mile horizontally and 100 feet vertically of the lead aircraft.
 
Ron, just out of curiosity,what is the civilian version of MARSA? I assume a formation flight must do something like that to absolve ATC from responsibilty if two formation A/C run into each other.
 
AWACSEng said:
Ron, just out of curiosity,what is the civilian version of MARSA? I assume a formation flight must do something like that to absolve ATC from responsibilty if two formation A/C run into each other.
Click to expand...

Does MARSA only apply to IFR flights? We've never had to use it for any VFR flights.
 
Probably. We only use MARSA for A/R and we are always on an IFR flight plan. Hmm, come to think of it, I don't know what our procedure would be VFR. Never encountered it.
 
AWACSEng said:
Ron, just out of curiosity,what is the civilian version of MARSA? I assume a formation flight must do something like that to absolve ATC from responsibilty if two formation A/C run into each other.
Click to expand...
MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft) is used only when two aircraft/formations join with each other in flight other under IFR, such as receivers joining with refuelers. In this case, standard ATC separation will be violated during the join-up process, and ATC's rules prohibit that. To get around that, the military relieves ATC of responsibility for anything that happens during that join-up, and at that point, ATC can allow the aircraft to proceed with their join-up and close to less than the minimum IFR separation criteria without anyone cancelling IFR. I guess if two civilian aircraft operating IFR wanted to join up without cancelling IFR, they'd have to find some equivalent way to assume responsibility for separation from each other, but you don't see that happening much (if at all).

That said, for a single formation already operating as one aircraft, the formation is already responsible for intraflight separation, so there's no need for any of that that.
 
I'm pretty familiar with the purpose and use of MARSA. I was just wondering if there was a civial equivilant, or if you wanted two formations to join you would just have to use plain language with ATC.
 
AWACSEng said:
I'm pretty familiar with the purpose and use of MARSA. I was just wondering if there was a civial equivilant,
Click to expand...
There is no civil equivalent.
or if you wanted two formations to join you would just have to use plain language with ATC.
Click to expand...
You could try, but I don't think there's any provision for that in their Handbook, so I'm not sure they'd allow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top