What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Formation Flying and the Radio

JoeGepner

JoeGepner

Member
Hi Guys,

Today I went on a lunch run with three guys from work. We were split between a Cessna Skycatcher and Diamond DA20. I was the PIC in the Skycatcher and my officemate Matt was PIC in the DA20.

On the way back, we flew as a flight of two with me (low time pilot) in lead and Matt (much higher time pilot) as number 2. As lead, I was in charge of the radio calls since Matt was concentrating on separation. Flying was pretty easy for me, I basically just kept my speed, course, and altitude changes slow and gradual, he had the hard job of staying slightly back and low off my left wing.

We landed at a towered airport, and I communicated our initial radio contact as a "flight of 2" and used my tail number of 60594. As we flew the pattern, the tower was referring to us a "60594 Flight". Matt said I did a pretty good job on the radio, but should have been answering the calls back as "60594 Flight" instead of just "60594".

My question for the experts here is do you guys know of any documentation or anything I could take a look at that explains how aircraft flying in formation are supposed to use the radio? This isn't exactly something my instructor covered during my private pilot training last summer.

I found this cool Formation Guidelines pdf on Doug's site here, but it doesn't cover the radio.
 
Maybe a little perspective from someone who does NOT fly formation - when approaching to land at an uncontrolled field, don't say "initial" if you are doing an overhead pattern. Yes, I know it's in the AIM. But nobody else in the pattern will know what that means or what the heck you're doing. Flight instructors do not teach students about formation jargon. Just say "X miles out for an overhead upwind runway XX". When you enter the overhead, just say "overhead upwind XX, circle to land". Most pilots will understand that.
 
When you fly in a formation, ATC considers you to be one entity, no matter how big the flight.

Typically, we will request to be called by a flight callsign, such as "Red Flight", or "Nimrod Flight", or your choice. Having a long number in the flight callsign can get tedious.

When "Red Flight" is cleared to land by ATC stating: "Red Flight, runway 27, cleared to land" it means that all members of the flight are cleared to land, and they are responsible for their own runway separation, and normal runway separation rules do not apply.

Using the word "Flight" in your callsign lets ATC know that more than one aircraft are involved under one callsign.

Hope this helps, and I would encourage you to find some local flyers that routinely fly in formation, and pick their brains.
 
luddite42 said:
Maybe a little perspective from someone who does NOT fly formation - when approaching to land at an uncontrolled field, don't say "initial" if you are doing an overhead pattern. Yes, I know it's in the AIM. But nobody else in the pattern will know what that means or what the heck you're doing. Flight instructors do not teach students about formation jargon. Just say "X miles out for an overhead upwind runway XX". When you enter the overhead, just say "overhead upwind XX, circle to land". Most pilots will understand that.
Click to expand...

Rick,

Sorry, I just can't go along with this. What you seem to be saying is that we formation flyers should deviate from standard AIM terminology so those who never bothered to learn the rules can understand us.:confused:

In the interest of safety I am always happy to tell another pilot exactly where I am and what I am doing if I think he is confused or unfamiliar with a standard formation landing pattern or terminology and I will even exit the pattern until he lands or departs if I don't think that he fully understands. Also, in the interest of safety I would hope that the same pilot would hurry on home and drag out the AIM and become familiar with the rules of the game.

You may not fly formation yourself, but you operate in the same environment as formation pilots so you must understand the rules that apply at times that you must interact.
 
Formation

Second what Smokey said! Like what the judge said "ignorance is not a defense". Also please read what Van said in his article about "Casual Formation" (on Van's Aircraft website), bottom line Don't Do It Without Training!!! Not a self taught book learned skill. Be safe.
 
Thanks guys, I'll get the AIM out and study up.

I should mention that we were flying with roughly half mile separation just for fun. No Blue Angles stuff for us.
 
What Smokey said.

Also: Go to the FAST website (www.flyfast.org) and find the formation flying manual. Read it. It sounds like you're just getting into Formation, which is a great thing... The more people that understand it, the less will be "confused" when others arrive at the airport. Second: get training. It's possible to train yourself to fly in a gaggle, and do so for years without an issue, but getting proper training will teach you what you're missing and better prepare you for emergencies.
 
At risk of thread drift this brought up a pet peeve of sorts.

First of all if you hear a call on the radio about something happening at an airport you don't understand you can always ask over the radio for clarification as in "Flight XYZ, where exactly are you and what are your intentions again? - Airplane NABCD - left base, etc."

Now here is the peeve. We've all heard it, most have even probably done it. Remote airport - on common CATF like 122.8. Someone shooting T&Gs announcing in full call sign position reports at every step along the way. So here's the peeve. If there isn't any traffic at the airport I think once around the patch is probably enough. Why? Because you are congesting a frequency that is used where I live by about 2 dozen airports within radio range at pattern altitude. Also, and here is where the speculation and obvious personal bias comes in, most often the person doing the play-by-play seems more concerned with making the radio calls than actually looking for traffic or flying the plane.

The real reason this is important is because the guy you need to be most concerned with is the guy who didn't hear your radio calls. He is in a non-radio Cub, or Ultralight. Or maybe he tuned the wrong frequency (or maybe like what happened to me recently he inadvertently hit the freq. flip-flop switch on his stick and didn't realize he was on the wrong frequency.

Since see and avoid are the rules of the game its ore important to keep ones head out the cockpit looking for something you don't expect to be there than counting down to the time you can make your AIM perfect position report. Most hearing it won't care and the ones that need to might not be able to.

I learned this lesson the hard way almost being run down by a straight in Commanche who passed six feet above the Champ I was flying as a 20 hour student. This "gentleman" had made all the radio calls - announced his intention to enter a straight in approach even after being advised on his initial call on Unicom of a "Champ shooting T&Gs in the pattern". I'm sure he felt his radio call was his duty and obligation. Flying the airplane, see and avoid, not so much. Wonder if his widow would have received comfort knowing he was an expert on the radio. Predictably this guy wasn't even sorry after being informed upon landing of how close he came to dying since he never saw me. I look long and hard before turning final ever since.

I love the radio - it is a great tool. But VMC flight demands eyes outside the cockpit whether VFR or IFR at the time.

I think this hit a nerve or I've had too much coffee.

Richard
 
Thanks Rob, that is exactly what I was looking for.

I will definitely get some training when I complete my RV. Formation flying seems like another fun and challenging way to become a better (and safer!) pilot. One of the things I love about flying is that there is always more to learn.

In the short term, I have a feeling my flying time will be getting less and less as I start buying more and more expensive parts for my airplane. Maybe I'll win the lottery... :D
 
Radio Calls

The only two things a good wingman should say on frequency are 'TWO', when checking on a new frequency, and 'Lead-your planes on fire!'
But seriously, Don't forget to identify your type as experimental upon initial call up to the tower. If you have a flight plan already in the system for flight following or IFR it is stated that you are a flight. If you are VFR and now calling for entry into D airspace simply use your call sign and advise the tower it's a flight of two experimental aircraft.
Use just your call sign after that.

Craig Brenden
 
GeneL said:
Like what the judge said "ignorance is not a defense".
Click to expand...

I hope that comforts you if you ever take a student pilot out in the pattern. I witnessed a near pattern issue as a result of a formation flight saying "initial" and "break", while nobody else knew what they were doing. The fact is that 99% of pilots ARE ignorant of this no matter how much you wish it were not the case. It is NOT taught to pilots, and a pilot could go 15 years without hearing "initial" spoken over the radio - I did. "Initial" is NOT standard phraseology for pilots - 99.9% of them anyway. Given the extreme rarity of this phrase, this is not unreasonable ignorance. How many of you can recite every word in the AIM?

And for the "letter of the law" types, below is what the AIM has to say about overheads. It is only mentioned in association with an IFR flight plan. Are all of you on IFR flight plans prior to your overhead pattern, w/ associated lingo?

All I'm saying is that the whole point of making radio calls is to communicate. Communication does not occur if you are not understood. Cry ignorance all you want, but the hard fact is that you will NOT be understood in most cases. If you don't believe, walk into a flight school with a bunch of instructors and students hanging around and ask the students and PPL's working on ratings if they know what "initial" and "break" mean. Then ask how many of the CFIs teach their students these terms, or tell them to go look it up in the AIM. Then ask your average pilot when the last time was that they heard "intial" over the radio. I guess the tiny number of you formation guys need to start educating the masses. ;) And VAF ain't the masses.

I'm all for standard phraseology, and for the discrete air-to-air stuff between members of your flight, knock yourselves out. But for this ONE particular, extremely obscure operation, I feel it's in nobody's best interest to use terms that very few will understand. I look at it purely from a safety standpoint. What's so special about saying "initial"? Sounds cool? I don't think the bedrock of aviation standards will be shaken if you choose to just say "overhead upwind" and "circle to land" for your extemely uncommon and totally unnecessary recreational civilian aerial maneuver.

5-4-27. Overhead Approach Maneuver

a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument approach procedure. Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is considered to be VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-32.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft:
 
Last edited:
luddite42 said:
I don't think the bedrock of aviation standards will be shaken if you choose to just say "overhead upwind" for your totally unnecessary and recreational aerial maneuver.
Click to expand...


I was pretty intent on reading your well-thought-out post until this point. :eek:

I don't expect all pilots know the AIM by heart so it's not surprising that I often come across pilots who know nothing about the overhead pattern. (Heck, I've been flying for 49 years and I learn something new every day!) And that's why I am ready to be very descriptive over the radio in the interest of safety. And I'll bet you and others are learning something just by reading this thread. Great!

BTW, the overhead pattern is the most efficient way to get a large number of aircraft quickly and safely on the ground with minimal disruption to other aircraft in the pattern so it is not totally unnecessary. And I do the maneuver quite often on business trips so it's not always recreational either. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ronschreck said:
You may not fly formation yourself, but you operate in the same environment as formation pilots so you must understand the rules that apply at times that you must interact.
Click to expand...

luddite42 said:
I witnessed a near pattern issue as a result of a formation flight saying "initial" and "break", while nobody else knew what they were doing. The fact is that 99% of pilots ARE ignorant of this no matter how much you wish it were not the case. It is NOT taught to pilots, and a pilot could go 15 years without hearing "initial" spoken over the radio - I did. "Initial" is NOT standard phraseology for pilots - 99.9% of them anyway. Given the extreme rarity of this phrase, this is not unreasonable ignorance.
Click to expand...

OK, no dog in this fight myself, but the above quotes seem to be representative of two rather polar positions on this.

I happen to agree with the position stated by Rick, that the vast majority of pilots are not aware of the formation lingo.

I also agree with Ron that these are standard published procedures. The problem is that they apply to a specialized subculture of pilots, and are not universally known.

I would think that a paraphrasing of Ron's statement "but you operate in the same environment as formation pilots" would be representative of the attitude of the majority of pilots, and that is "but formation pilots operate in the same environment as most other pilots".

Bottom line here is that if you hear something on the radio that is not clear to you, ask for a clarification.
 
Last edited:
ronschreck said:
And that's why I am ready to be very descriptive over the radio in the interest of safety.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt about this and your professionalism. The flight I witnessed was less impressive. Their lead got snarky on the radio when nobody knew what they were doing.

ronschreck said:
BTW, the overhead pattern is the most efficient way to get a large number of aircraft quickly and safely on the ground with minimal disruption to other aircraft in the pattern so it is not totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I know - I would honestly prefer you do an overhead to recover the planes in your flight. All I meant by "recreational" and "unnecessary" is that this ain't the military, and it ain't wartime. :) And I do NOT have a problem with anyone doing overheads, even as a single ship. I do it sometimes. It's just the communication issue for me.
 
Last edited:
Joe, good to see your effort to expand your formation proficiency. I was concerned about this line in your OP:

Flying was pretty easy for me, I basically just kept my speed, course, and altitude changes slow and gradual, he had the hard job of staying slightly back and low off my left wing.

I would submit that if a formation flight is going properly, the lead has the toughest job. Yes, the wingmen have a busy and intense stick-and-rudder task, but the lead is the one who will make or break the safety of the flight. He's responsible for everything: lookout and separation, airspace, planning ahead, radio comm, and especially traffic. Wingmen get nervous when they don't see that leader's head really scanning for traffic. All this in addition to extremely smooth and predictable flying to make it easy on the wingmen.

There's a good reason why we start our formation flying as wingmen, and only move up to flying lead as we gain proficiency and experience.

So, my point: I don't think your wingman had the "hard job." I think you did - you were the leader.
 
I'd say calling "Initial" is not a lot different that calling "Just inside SCENN on the ILS for 17". There's a pretty good chance that someone in or near the pattern will have no idea what you are talking about. Where the heck is SCENN and what's an ILS?

I don't remember anything about that during my Private training. I do remember on one of my first solo cross countries when the marker beacon started beeping and flashing a blue light. Yikes what the heck is that?

I agree though that if someone doesn't understand what you are saying, they should ask.
 
Last edited:
Back to the original question: Generally, you should parrot the tower (unless they are wrong!). If they use your full N number, you use the full number. If they call you a flight, you call yourself a flight, etc.
 
The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved.
Click to expand...
Someone quoted this from the FAR's. I think it applies quite well... Despite the fact that as formation pilots we know a little more about flying formation than non-formation pilots, we do need to operate in their environment. At a controlled airport, the tower will provide separation, and if the tower controller isn't aware of formation manoeuvers, Lead needs to briefly explain the plan before the approach.

We've avoided using the term "initial", as the large number of training airports near us are more IFR-aware, and people assume IFR-like procedures when we say such things (and as an aside, VFR pilots haven't a clue what "initial" means either). Instead, we'll set ourselves up such that we'll be given a straight-in approach based on runway in use, and we'll request the overhead break for landing. If any questions arise (and tower controllers sometimes do need to ask what that means) we explain that it's straight in at X altitude, then 180 degree break with Y second spacing to a tight downwind, followed by an immediate full stop landing for all aircraft.

So far, that has brought *no* issues at a controlled airport, and many comments that it was a remarkably efficient way to handle that many planes.

The one time we did get into trouble, was at an uncontrolled airport, where a student was in the circuit with his instructor (the only plane in the circuit). Despite this airport being popular with formation pilots, and regularly seeing overhead breaks to landing, the instructor seemed blissfully unaware of how that worked. The timing of our approach put us ahead of the student plane, so we requested that he extend his circuit slightly, so we could do a break for landing. His response was "sorry guys, this is a commercial flight, no can do". We elected to try and squeeze the break in anyway, as we were ahead of him in the circuit, and half-way through our break he started asking what we were doing and saying we cut him off, etc.

I think the instructor had a bad attitude, but in hindsight when we saw the other plane we should have circled around and flown the circuit *behind* them instead, making room for ourselves. It would have added some formation practise, and accommodated the other aircraft in the area.

Still, no paint was swapped, so it wasn't all bad, and it was a learning experience all around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top