Formation Flying and the Radio

[C. Brenden]

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

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by GeneL

Like what the judge said "ignorance is not a defense".

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:

[ronschreck]

Originally Posted by luddite42

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.

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

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.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by ronschreck

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.

Originally Posted by luddite42

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.

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.

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by ronschreck

And that's why I am ready to be very descriptive over the radio in the interest of safety.

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.

Originally Posted by ronschreck

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.

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.

[ronschreck]

Originally Posted by Mike S

.

Bottom line here is that if you hear something on the radio that is not clear to you, ask for a clarification.

***************

AMEN!

[Scorch]

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.

[boom3]

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.

[springer]

Originally Posted by C. Brenden

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!'Craig Brenden

Actually it's three things:

"Two"

"BINGO"

"Lead you are on fire!"

[BobTurner]

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.