Formation flying or not?

[Vev]

I am well aware that one has to have a formation endo to fly in formation, but how close can one or more ac fly in close company before it's considered formation flying? I use to think it was no closer than 100m but I'm not sure that covers all the legal limitations.

 

I have read CAR 163 and 163AA but I'm still not clear on it's meanings.

 

Interested to hear any views?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Vev, I had a quick look through CAO's, the Act and couldn't find tyhe distance regulation we used to have which made this unambiguous.

 

That doesn't mean there isn't one; couldn't be one; may not be one; or as specified in the Act (see how quickly you pick up the jargon.

 

What I think has happened is the regulation has been rewritten to protect CASA from Public Liability claims probably caused by circuit accidents.

 

What's clear about 163 is that if you hit someone its your fault for not copmplying so there's a $5000 fine plus whatever they decide to do with your Licence/Certificate plus a manslaughter charge etc. Very dirty regulating in my opinion.

 

Same with 163AA in a way. The definition of formation flying has been left out for public liability reasons. I would take formation flying to be a second or third aircraft forming up and travelling in the same direction as the first unless at a distance from each other which clearly indicates the aircraft might be travelling separately, and I personally would say that has to be at least half a mile. Again the penalty is $5000 and it's a Strict Liability offence, so if someone takes a photo of you or if there's some damage, you're for the high jump unless you were endorsed and the other components were complied with.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I understood it to be 100 feet....?

 

 

[Spin]

What the Gnu said, I seem to recall it is one of those instances where our Ops Manual is more specific than the general regs. Maybe someone who is studying for their licence can quote chapter and verse?

 

 

[facthunter]

I haven't ever bothered with formation flying with RAAus. I was informed that very close proximity, is aimed for, so that you are both affected by the same bumps.. This stuff gets seriously dangerous, if it isn't done right. I have done it in GA aircraft, but, I ask myself, WHY really?

 

Perhaps a dedicated group could put on a demonstration occasionally. In my view I would only fly with people I could trust to do it right, and frankly I haven't found a lot who would devote the discipline and effort, (Being frank here).to reach and maintain a standard. You need aircraft that have compatable performance and a fair speed range and extra engine power available, to regulate speed quickly.

 

IF you think flying in formation on cross-country trips is a good idea forget it. Your workload is multiplied enormously and anytime the weather becomes marginal, not on at all. Nev

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Not meaning to advertise here but Recreational Pilots Academy at Murray Bridge have their own formation team, The White Shadows. they cover the serious stuff and some fun stuff for the kids at air shows. Check out this link for more info.

 

http://www.rpa.net.au/

 

If nothing else, watch the video and see our bit of Gods Country.

 

 

[turboplanner]

100 feet makes no sense at all for today's Jab type RA aircraft.

 

At 105 knots you are travelling at 177 feet per second, so if you were flying beside someone and there was a misunderstanding where you turned left and he turned right, the closing time is around half a second if both reacted instantly - too fast for most people to avoid a collision.

 

Remember also the RA regulation only specifies RA to RA, so you would have to remember what you were going to do if you had a GA in close proximity, and he sure as hell would be absolutely ropable if he had you in his face at 100 feet!

 

That makes me think the RA regulation is out of date, maybe an AUF measurement. It would be more reasonable with a 50 kt cruise.

 

The Regulation is also written in the pre-public liability prescriptive type wording which would bring RAA in as a a defendant if a collision occurred at say 120 feet.

 

So I looked up the exemptions to 91.5, 95.32, 95.55, shown as follows:

 

5. The exempted Regulations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the conditions set out in CAOs 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55 are complied with in relation to an aeroplane to which each CAO applies, the aeroplane/pilot is exempt from compliance with the following Parts of the Regulations and a few individual Regulations. In most cases the exemption from the Part or an individual Regulation is replaced to some extent by rules or requirements stated in the RA-Aus Operations or Technical Manuals. Failure to comply with the rules/requirements of the manuals renders the exemptions null and void thus the exemption Regulations below and associated penalties become immediately applicable.

 

Some of the CAR 1988 Parts/Regulations mentioned below are already replaced by CASRs but the CAO has not yet been changed to reflect this.

 

Exemptions common to 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Part 3. Aircraft registration
   
   
  
• Part 4A. Maintenance
   
   
  
• Part 4B. Defect reporting
   
   
  
• Part 4C. Flight manuals
   
   
  
• Part 4D. Removal of data plates and registration identification plate
   
   
  
• Part 5. Qualifications of flight crew
   
   
  
• Subregulations 83 (1) (2) and (3). Aircraft radiotelephone operator certificate of proficiency in respect of VHF equipment
   
   
  
• Regulation 133. Conditions to be met before Australian aircraft may fly
   
   
  
• Regulation 139. Documents to be carried in Australian aircraft
   
   
  
• Regulation 155. Flight rules - acrobatic flight
   
   
  
• Regulation 157. Flight rules - low flying
   
   
  
• Regulation 207. Requirements according to operations on which Australian aircraft used
   
   
  
• Regulation 208. Number of operating crew
   
   
  
• Regulation 230. Starting and running of engines
   
   
  
• Subregulation 242 (2). Testing of radio apparatus
   
   
  
• Regulation 252. Provision of emergency systems
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Exemptions common to 95.10 and 95.32 only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Part 4. Airworthiness requirements
   
   
  
• Part 13 division 4. Lights to be displayed by aircraft
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Exemptions common to 95.32 and 95.55 only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Regulation 210. Restriction of advertising of commercial operations; insofar as advertising of flying training to qualify for a pilot standard specified in the RA-Aus Operations Manual is concerned
   
   
  
• Regulation 252A. Emergency locator transmitters,
  Note the exemption to 252A dealing with carriage of emergency locator transmitters will be rescinded.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Exemptions applying to only one CAO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Part 7. Navigation logs [unique to 95.32]
   
   
  
• Regulation 36A. Use of aircraft material in the maintenance, servicing and operation of Australian aircraft [unique to 95.55]
   
   
  
• Regulation 37. Permissible unserviceabilities [unique to 95.55]
   
   
  
• Regulation 322. Changes to flight manuals for Australian aircraft [unique to 95.10]
   
   
  

 

 

So from my reading,

 

CAR163, CAR 163AA, and in the case of flying over gatherings, CAR 156 would be the applicable regulations we need to fly to.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

No need for more regulations unless there has been some demonstrably preventable accidents / incidents caused by the current regs or lack thereof. This principle goes for almost anything.

 

 

[facthunter]

Slightly off topic.....In aviation there are rules which if you break them, and are detected, regardless of the outcome, you will be punished. IF you break no rule that exists, but nonetheless you have an accident, someone will find a rule that would have covered it, and you will be punished. The strict liability with no defence accepted aspect is legally unjust, and a sensible person would not operate in that environment. Fit that with the unlimited funding to mount a case against an individual by the enforcer/regulator if they choose to. Couple that with rules that NOBODY can/will interpret with any clarity and you are in a minefield. The FAA does not operate like that. Why can't we do it that way too?

 

Anyhow back to topic... There is no doubt that formation flying is a skill and all skills add something to a pilot's experience/knowledge base, but the pluss'es and minuss's have to add up. There are many aspects of flying a plane that I would put before the formation endorsement, and as commented above, the current rules may go back a fair way to the more basic types. Funny we allow formation flying but don't have multi engine ( except in the 95.10? single seat situation. Multi engine is safer than formation (in my view), but I am not advocating that either. ( Maybe tomorrow, free beer tomorrow..) Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Talking about new regulations, I'm a bit intrigued that no one has really commented about the proposed CASR Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules.

 

The GA weekend warrior guys I've been talking to are really down in the dumps about it.

 

General opinion seems to be flying will only be for the rich.

 

This is the AOPA submission

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/133/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Supplementary_Comment_30MAY11.pdf

 

 

[Vev]

Guys,

 

Many thanks for the input (particularly TP).

 

Basically there is a couple of us have been asked to do a demonstration fly past and I'm concerned about what is considered formation flying even with more than 100ft of separation ... the CAR 163/AA isn't clear enough to say any distance is enough not to be in formation. I read, just the mere fact that you are travelling at the same time in the same direction a mile apart could mean you are in formation and braking the law if you are not endorsed to do so. What's more, the RAA manual doesn't take into account that a mixture of GA and RAA aircraft could formate together either, even if one had a formation endo.

 

I think CSAS have recognised that there is a gap in the CAR and Part 91 is going to be their opportunity to fix things.

 

As for now ... I am very confused about what's ok?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The way I read it, for what you wanbt to do, that would constitute formation flying, so comply with CAR 163, CAR 164A, and CAR 165.

 

The distance apart is that where you will not have a collision, so is up to you, but a good start might be the distance you were trained at.

 

The above covers GA and GA, GHA and RA and RA and RA.

 

If you were doing a flypast, wouldn't you maintain roughly the same separation as you do in the circuit? You're not forming up on anyone.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Vev;

 

Firstly I agree with Facthunter. Secondly, I'm undergoing formation training, and yes, it is hard work. At this stage, I'm still doing "Route formation", which is about three wingspans apart. Once I am competent at that, "Close formation" is between 3' and 10' lateral separation. Let me tell you, I've got some time to go before reaching that level.

 

While off the top of my head, I cannot quote the locations in the regulations:-

 

• 100' minimum distance has nothing to do with formation flying. It is just a general rule that you may not be at any time closer than 100' to another aircraft unless you have a Formation Endo (or are under instruction by a suitably qualified instructor. ie. qualified to teach formation for the type).
   
   
  
• You are considered to be flying in formation at any time when:-
   
  One aircraft is performing the navigation for the group (> 1 aircraft).
   
   
  
• Where any aircraft manoeuvres to maintain a fixed relationship with another aircraft. ie. there is no distance at which you can consider it no longer to be formation flying.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, when you fly as a group on a cross country, and you are all navigating individually, but heading in the same general direction, you are not "in formation". If you were "performing a "fly-past" as most people would understand the term,, however I think it would be difficult to argue that one aircraft was not performing the navigation on behalf of the others, or that the aircraft were not attempting to maintain a fixed relationship with others in the fly-past. On the other hand, if they were to just fly past individually with varying intervals between them, just as you would do in a circuit pattern, then I doubt that would be judged t be formation, but remember that I'm not the judge or jury.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

If you were doing a flypast, wouldn't you maintain roughly the same separation as you do in the circuit? You're not forming up on anyone.

It would seem to come down to definitions. In the circuit, you are not trying to maintain a fixed relationship with the aircraft in front of you, but rather navigating independently and trying to provide timing separation so that you won't be landing while the aircraft in front is still on the runway (or having an airprox).

 

Let's examine this a little more closely...

 

Take altitude for instance. You are not attempting to maintain the same altitude as the aircraft in front, but rather trying to maintain the correct circuit height and using your altimeter to perform corrections in climb or descent.

 

Now look at different performance aircraft. If the aircraft in front of you is faster, then you aren't in formation, as it is increasing separation. Higher performance aircraft will make wider circuits than lower performance aircraft, within the same circuit height. Again you are adjusting your speed to maintain separation in time for landing and that may necessitate travelling at a lower air speed than the other aircraft, adjusting the width of the circuit, or extending downwind to add delay. Clearly, this is not formation, but individual navigation.

 

There may be another issue with a "fly-past", as if you look it up in an on-line dictionary, in several instances, it refers to flying low over spectators. Not saying that is what was intended, but it raises two more potential issues:-

 

• Low flying without a low flying endo and appropriate "permitted low flying area".
   
   
  
• Deliberately flying over a "gathering" is also against the law, unless you can get CASA approval.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Vev]

Thanks D10,

 

I agree with Nev too ... hard to find a hole in any of his posts.

 

Clearly the whole thing is a can of worms, it makes the mind boggle .... I think I shall pass on this invitation to participate in the fly-pass.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Talking about new regulations, I'm a bit intrigued that no one has really commented about the proposed CASR Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules.The GA weekend warrior guys I've been talking to are really down in the dumps about it.

General opinion seems to be flying will only be for the rich.

 

This is the AOPA submission

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/133/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Supplementary_Comment_30MAY11.pdf

Hi TP

 

I have mentioned it a couple of times because the regs have clearly been written by a lawyer who is not a pilot. Some of them are just plain silly and some are not even within power. The problem is the regulator and the Minister seem to think this is the way to go.

 

I know pilots are very proud of their individualism, but I strongly recommend each and everyone of you on this forum thinks about joining AOPA as the only broad representative of aircraft owners and pilots of ALL categories which has the ability to influence both politicians and the regulator.

 

We can already see the encroachments into G airspace that are occurring as the RPT's push their boundaries with the regulator ever further and it won't stop unless the RA/GA voice is heard loud and clear.

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

I would agree with that kaz. I've had to watch my pennies/cents, lately but I still maintain my AOPA subscription. RAAus and other organisations get a discount. the magazine is good, and NOBODY ELSE cares about the deterioration of GA and OUR rights as well. Only AIRLINES count really.. AOPA is independent. How can Mick Poole battle for us with CASA when we can be disadvantaged at the stroke of a pen. OUR organisation has to be nice to CASA or else!!!. Join now! and let AOPA know you are RAAus too.. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

My main thing with formation [apart from A/C performance considerations] is know the other pilot's skills. Personally I am not happy to fly formation with someone just because they have the endorsement in their log book.

 

Proper formation endorsement and full pre flight briefing [engine/radio failure etc. from each position of the formation.] is esssntial.

 

Frank

 

 

[facthunter]

The Munro days. Things HAVE changed for the better. The use of the organisation for personal vendetta's against ATC etc are over. It is a far more rational, reasoned approach these days, which is far more effective. Yes, they went close to going broke. That's a while back now. I'm not into wasting money on lost causes. (It's too scarce).. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

cficare

 

I can see your comment re "boyd"

 

I was a member for many years but cost became stupid [my opinion].

 

I still receive the mag, because I am a director of the Townsville Aero Club, and the club is still a current member.

 

Like many organisations I have been involved with throughout life some individuals become bigger in their own minds then the organisation they are elected to represent.

 

e.g. Dick Smith and CASA??????????????/

 

Frank