Flying in loose formation

There is a difference in flying a loose formation cross country to maintain visual contact for safety and the type of close formation flying required for military or airshows. I've done both and survived. Use a little common sense and you'll be fine. If you want to do close formation flying then get training which involves a safety pilot riding along for instruction.

Set a minimum of 30 yards and fly it at 50. You'll be fine and safer than flying with no visual contact.

Losing visual contact is not a good thing. If you do, use your GPS distance to a common destination to maintain horizonal separation, and fly at difference altitudes based on GPS, not the inaccurate altimeter for vertical separation.

YYMV.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious what you think of the safety of the Skyline route in NYC (up or down the Hudson at 1500' in Class B ). It's not formation flying per se. But the last time I did it, it was so crowded that I was not only within a mile of other traffic, ATC had faster planes on the route passing me on my left at my altitude.
 
You do not need to be in formation to fly "flight of two" with ATC. Just close enough that you can operate together. We've flight of two'd NORDO planes in and out of Dulles (after 9/11 even).

Of course, my best formation flight is when I lead a train of six or so aircraft from Landmark at Dulles to the Udvar-Hazy center each year. Being familiar with the airport layout and communications (there are two frequency changes required to get across the field), most of the participants are happy to get behind me. I usually put something distinctive in the rear so ground knows what the last plane is (it's been variously a biplane, John and Martha King's Falcon Jet, a Cozy, and a amphib 182).
 
Edit: Woops. I read your post wrong. I'm leaving my original below.

Lead leads. that was me. Trail maintains separation. That was the CFI. Ok... You do realize in the picture of the mooney I'M the one in the mooney.. The instructor, who's in trail, and clearly so because he took a picture from that position, is maintaining separation.

So, now, I dunno... you appear to be wrong. I appear to be doing it right. So what's the fuss?
Pictures and posters seem to be getting mixed up in my head.

In the first picture I saw a Cessna (that I assumed to be trail from text that may have been from another poster) making what looked like a blind turn in towards the camera - the wing is down and the pilot can't see the other aircraft which would make it impossible to keep the lead in sight. Hence the comment about they ain't no face in that picture. There also is no vertical separation. You want to be separated in all three axes. It now appears that the aircraft were a lot further apart than the first picture would indicate, but...

In the picture with the Mooney - that looks a lot better for positioning to me.
 
You do not need to be in formation to fly "flight of two" with ATC. Just close enough that you can operate together.
That is, by definition, a formation flight even if you are miles apart. The only question is whether you are in a "standard" (all aircraft within 1 mile horizontally and 100 feet vertically of lead) or "non-standard" formation.
 
Thanks!

What do you think of the Mooney formation flying classes that are a prereq to participating in the oshkosh mooney caravan?

Life keeps interfering, but I plan to make a Caravan trip one year or another. The training that I've read about on the caravan website includes classroom training, checklists, sitting in aircraft on the ground to get the sight picture for separation, and a couple of flights with experienced leads and instructors in each participating aircraft. Sounds to me like an advanced introduction, suitable for getting 40-odd aircraft to OSH and landing safely and efficiently.

But this is not something that I would choose to do for a 200+ nm trip . . . Drift apart a couple or three miles, talk on Com 2 and keep things safe.
 
My buddy and I were flying to Sun & fun years ago with another guy. The other guy was a rather new pilot. I told him to just fly there & we would fly off him. It got off to a shaky start when he was heading about 30 degrees right of direct to the 1/2 way fuel stop. I gave him a few minutes to get things together, then I asked where he was going?

He said he was going to some VOR in the general direction of our travel. We all had Loran or better & I asked him to just go direct, since there wasn't any airspace or other issues.

If one knows formation & the other doesn't, you can usually get by with a short brief of being a steady, predictable lead. The newby 'leads'. Then instead of anything fancy on arrival just separate before the pattern.

A few of those pictures look somewhat 'acute' for most formation. The standard position is slightly aft & stepped down. The easiest would be on this bearing line 40 yards or so aft & stepped down a bit from the lead. One has to always be aware of relative closure.

I used to teach the 'ABC's' of formation, ALTITUDE, BEARING, CLOSURE. there are slight variations for night, low level, IMC.

Yes, I agree, the finer points may be difficult to learn on the web. There have been more than a few accidents with pilots 'winging it'.
 
Acute and high -- and that combination can be (and has been) lethal. In fact, that combination is what killed two members of the Vultures a couple of years ago, and they had a lot of training, qualification, and experience -- just let it get away from them one day.

Looks aft of the other planes 3/9 line and stepped down to me, like admin cruise. Other plane is above the horizon and you can't see down the leading edge of his wing.

Unzoomed pic looks like what I would call ATC spread.

If I had to choose between being slightly sucked and slightly acute I'd choose acute in most situations. More fuel efficient and easier to maintain position.
 
Last edited:
Find an old military guy. They'll really teach you how to fly in a formation.

It's how I learned.

A friend flew P38s toward the end on WWII. Even now when he joins up he is there like on rails.
 
Along these same lines, I notice a lot of folks on here have aerial photos of their planes.
Did most hire someone to do this for them? or do a lot of you do formation flying and get them that way.

I am getting somewhat interested in getting some training for actual formation flying now.

I don't think it will come up much but I would like to experience it and also the photos of planes from the air look amazing.
 
I did this about a year ago the day I took my airplane home. Got in a cirrus with my CFI and one of his instrument students. Got in my airplane with the CFI and the other guy flew back with us in the Cirrus. I don't remember the distances now but we weren't very close and I think we were 500' different in altitude as well. CFI kept in communication with the other guy and directed both of us.

Pretty uneventful, only interesting bit was we were on flight following and ATC couldn't figure out if we had traffic right beside us or he had a radar echo.
 
Doesn't matter. If the instructor wants a good picture, the instructor should get a good formation pilot to work with. Too many accidents on the books involving pilots not properly trained/qualified for formation flying trying to take pictures of airplanes in flight -- usually fatal.

I seriously doubt that for the 10 seconds it took to get that shot they were in extreme danger. It's another risk and you manage it. You better know the capabilities of the other guy and make sure you have a way out. If he took all that into consideration and assuming the instructor has done formation flying in the past, the risk is manageable for the few seconds it takes to take a picture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I seriously doubt that for the 10 seconds it took to get that shot they were in extreme danger. It's another risk and you manage it. You better know the capabilities of the other guy and make sure you have a way out. If he took all that into consideration and assuming the instructor has done formation flying in the past, the risk is manageable for the few seconds it takes to take a picture.
You can't manage risks you don't understand and don't have the tools to manage if you did. I found half a dozen fatal accidents involving exactly this type of attempted formation while researching for an article on the subject a few years ago. While the photo itself may only take a few seconds (although my experience doing air-to-air photo shoots is very different), the danger is demonstrably real while trying to get into position, maintain position, and then separate safely.
 
There was a nasty accident here along those lines a few months ago, right after the Half Moon Bay airshow. Sea Fury vs. 210. One fatality.

If you play Russian Roulette, you're only in real danger for a split second. Duration does not determine risk.
 
There was a nasty accident here along those lines a few months ago, right after the Half Moon Bay airshow. Sea Fury vs. 206. Two fatalities.

If you play Russian Roulette, you're only in real danger for a split second. Duration does not determine risk.

They were flying formation?

Flying formation is equal to Russian Roulette?
 
They were flying formation?

Flying formation is equal to Russian Roulette?

Close pass attempting a photo. Very brief exposure to very high risk.

Reread and understand the statement about RISK and DURATION. Severity does determine risk, but it was not considered in the prior post.
 
Along these same lines, I notice a lot of folks on here have aerial photos of their planes.
Did most hire someone to do this for them? or do a lot of you do formation flying and get them that way.

Both

gallery_6_7_87041.jpg
 
Close pass attempting a photo. Very brief exposure to very high risk.

Reread and understand the statement about RISK and DURATION. Severity does determine risk, but it was not considered in the prior post.

So the answer is No, they were not flying formation, and No, flying formation is not like Russian Roulette.

Thanks, just wanted clarification. :D

You hold up one example of bad airmanship as a condemnation of formation flying. Seriously, flawed logic is why knee jerk reactions create laws where none should exist.
 
Last edited:
You hold up one example of bad airmanship as a condemnation of formation flying. Seriously, flawed logic is why knee jerk reactions create laws where none should exist.

No, jumping to conclusions is a much greater cause.

REREAD and UNDERSTAND.

There was no condemnation of formation flying. There was a condemnation of an assumption that brief risk is equivalent to low risk. It most certainly is not.

Blaming me for overreactive laws? That's really over the top. Read and understand. Don't apply your own biases to put words in someone else's mouth.
 
Even simple two ship, somewhat loose formations can go bad if both pilots do not understand formation basics, and the flight is not properly briefed. I learned this years back as I was flying a somewhat loose formation with an experienced (I learned not with formation, though) pilot. When he was in the lead position, I did not take my eyes off him. I stayed in position no matter what he did. We ended up trading positions along the way, and about a minute later, I looked left and saw the belly of his plane turning away from me, about 20 ft. away. He was not keeping his eyes on me. He was thinking I was watching him, even though I was in the lead position. Don't assume "experienced" pilots know the basics of formation flying. Bad assumption on my part. And being a "casual" form up, we did not brief the flight. Mistake #2.
 
What's difficult is dissimilar aircraft formation flight. Here I'm close to stall speed in my Glasair so this RV can keep up. :D
 

Attachments

  • 4hrs 20minscopy.jpg
    4hrs 20minscopy.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 31
Here's some formation flying from a pilot who's popular on YouTube. Thought I'd post it for comments from the folks who have formation experience.

 
Formation flying is fun.

This is me, taken from my instructor's plane. He has all the training. All I had to do was go straight, level and slow enough the diamond could keep up. :)
I suspect he was violating one of the more important guidelines for safe formation flying: The lead pilot should the one most qualified to fly in formation.

The reason for that is the wingman MUST give most of his attention to maintaining position on the lead aircraft and therefor is relying on lead to manage the flight is a way that is safe and legal.
 
I did this about a year ago the day I took my airplane home. Got in a cirrus with my CFI and one of his instrument students. Got in my airplane with the CFI and the other guy flew back with us in the Cirrus. I don't remember the distances now but we weren't very close and I think we were 500' different in altitude as well. CFI kept in communication with the other guy and directed both of us.

Pretty uneventful, only interesting bit was we were on flight following and ATC couldn't figure out if we had traffic right beside us or he had a radar echo.
Maintaining 500 ft vertical separation is probably the safest way to fly two aircraft along the same route without formation training as long as both pilots pay serious attention to their altitude.

The most significant dangers associated with a "loose formation" are:

1) If you fly with a comfortable lateral spacing it's very easy to lose track of the plane you're flying with.

2) It's nearly impossible to determine closure rate until you're so close that avoiding a collision by slowing down is unlikely.
 
I suspect he was violating one of the more important guidelines for safe formation flying: The lead pilot should the one most qualified to fly in formation.

Yeah, you'd think. Except for this, from one of the links Ron gave me:

The formation leader probably requires the least flying skill. His role is to simply maintain straight-and-level flight at a designated altitude, and turn, climb, and descend as necessary. Although his role is to go about flying as though he was alone, he also needs to make changes slowly so as to allow his wingman to follow smoothly. He also must concentrate on precisely holding altitude, heading, and airspeed. It is very important that he avoid the temptation to look back at the chase plane. Nothing makes a wingman more nervous than a leader looking over his shoulder, an indication that he is not paying attention to where he is going.
Check. I was leader. No maneuvering. Straight and level along a known course, fixed airspeed, monitoring air-to-air and in constant contact with my (much more experienced) wingman.




The wingman is the worker, the slave of the formation. His role is to join the leader and maintain the desired separation and relative movement. Any movement of the lead aircraft requires an equal response from the wingman; otherwise, the formation falls apart. The wingman focuses on the lead aircraft and uses it as a form of attitude indicator, faithfully following and reproducing its every movement.
Check. My CFII is way better at that than I am. He's had training and practice.


All of this from: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2001/January/1/Proficient-Pilot

Bottom line: I feel like we managed risk to the point where this was as safe as anything ever is in flying. Given the same circumstances (calm, clear day, straight and level, experienced wingman) I'll definitely do it again, with or without a formation flying class. While I respect the experience of some of the posters on this thread, I need more than "take the class and you'll know why what you did is a bad idea". If it's a bad idea, explain it. If not, don't bother me.... I'm going to lump that in with all the other noise on the internet.

Done talkin' about this.
 
Maintaining 500 ft vertical separation is probably the safest way to fly two aircraft along the same route without formation training as long as both pilots pay serious attention to their altitude.

The most significant dangers associated with a "loose formation" are:

1) If you fly with a comfortable lateral spacing it's very easy to lose track of the plane you're flying with.

2) It's nearly impossible to determine closure rate until you're so close that avoiding a collision by slowing down is unlikely.

1. Experience will take over and the next time you keep them in sight.

2. I'm calling BS on this statement. If you lose sight you are going slower.
 
"Should I fly on your left or right""
"Right because that's where I mounted the goPro"
 
1. Experience will take over and the next time you keep them in sight.
I'm fairly experienced and still have trouble spotting airplanes if they're very far away. Maybe I need to clean my sunglasses?

But seriously, losing track of a plane you're deliberately flying near for various reasons (distractions, windshield posts, clouds, less than perfect visibility, etc).

2. I'm calling BS on this statement. If you lose sight you are going slower.
Not necessarily, You could have just drifted a bit further apart because your headings diverge slightly and then when you drift back you end up on a collision course. Or maybe you ended up behind because you slowed down and then end up in a tail chase. You might scoff but IME, when you catch up to someone flying in a relatively straight line the closure rate appears to be almost zip until you get real close and then the other airplane seems to jump right at you. Vertical separation if maintained pretty much eliminates the collision hazard in those cases.

If you still don't believe me, try catching up to a buddy in another airplane while you're a couple hundred feet lower than him by prearrangement and I think you'll see what I mean. When you first spot his airplane a mile away it will seem like it's taking forever to get closer so you'll likely increase your speed to hurry up the process. But when you finally get close you'll blow right past unless you close the throttle the moment you sense that you're moving noticeably faster than him.
 
I love getting close to other planes if I take off and can catch up I will but of course stay about 3/4s of a mile back.
 
Yeah, you'd think. Except for this, from one of the links Ron gave me:
Not sure from which piece you got that business about lead requiring the least skill and flying as a lone airplane, but it is totally incorrect. Take some formation training at an FFI or FAST clinic and you'll learn how wrong it is -- and why.
 
That one. A link you provided. That's why I chuckled when I read it.

I think what the article is getting at is that lead, as far as stick and rudder, isn't working as hard as the wingman. Mentally, they're probably working harder than the wingman. They are responsible for getting the entire flight to the right piece of sky at the right time. During all that, they have to be cognizant of their control actions so that they are flying smoothly so all wingman can maintain position.

I agree with Ron in that lead is generally the most experienced person; that is in a real world type formation where strict guidelines are in place. In the Army, and I'm sure the other services as well, flight lead is selected based on extensive experience. You have to qualify in that position and it usually takes a couple years to get to that level. In the military, if you're doing a major operation, especially in combat, the commander is picking his number one guy out front. They do that because that lead has been there and done that many times over. They brief the entire evolution from take off to landing in excruciating detail from time hacks, formation type, changes of formation, light / hand signals, lost visual / commo, IIMC, etc, etc, etc. The same type of experience level should be adhered to in civilian flying as well.

Having said all that, a couple years ago I was tasked with a helo formation flyover for a PR event. The guy I was flying with had only flown formation once before and had only minutes of formation experience. No way I would have felt comfortable with someone behind me with no real formation training. Although, if I led, most likely he'd be a 1/4 mile behind me and no factor but you never know. He might try and pull off some Blue Angels nonsense and we end up colliding in the sky. In the end, he ended up leading, did a quick brief (definitely not military level) and we flew. People on the ground said it looked great but from where I was, it was unsat.

That's why unless it's absolutely necessary, I don't fly formation with people who 1) I've never flown with before and 2) have no military or organized (FAST) civilian experience. Too many unknowns.
 
Yeah, Ron. I know. :) And I truly do appreciate the advice. But it was too good to pass up...
 
That one. A link you provided. That's why I chuckled when I read it.
That article is chock full of mis-information about formation flying. I'm rather surprised that someone as well known as Barry Schiff would leave it out there. But you are entirely correct that the article in question clearly states (among other very incorrect tidbits) that the flight leader requires the least flying skills. Then again Barry didn't really say that the leader requires the least formation skills but it sure looks like he meant that also.

His concern over the leader looking at his wingmen and the suggestion that the leader "virtually ignore" the wingmen is another example of total BS. An experienced wingman would be justifiably put off is the lead pilot ignored them and didn't monitor their position and performance.

He didn't get everything wrong though:

"Establishing formation is challenging for the novice. He does not appreciate how rapidly the apparent rate of closure increases as one aircraft approaches the other. Seeing the leader suddenly blossom in the windshield can be unnerving."
 
Last edited:
I've had some formation training under the F.A.S.T program.

As a data point to this discussion. a lead card is one of the LAST certificates you get. You must be a fully qualified wing before you get to train for lead.
 
Back
Top