Less intense formation clinics?

[JoeBlank]

One of the primary objectives in formation training is 'standardization'. Once you have a grasp on the standards, then you can at least approach it from that perspective. The standards cover almost all of the parameters of a formation flight (i.e. airspeeds, altitudes, freq, wingman positions, signals, what to do and when, etc) If everyone flies to the same standards, then we all know what each other is expected to do in the formation.

If we need to deviate for any reason from those standards, that is discussed in the 'Brief'. Briefing is mandatory. The Brief is where the flight 'instuctions' are laid out and any other anomolous items are discussed and questions answered. (i.e who, what, when, where, and why)

Because all of the pilots in the formation now know what the standards and briefed expectations are, the flight can be expected to be very predictable. That makes it much safer, and that is the key to safe formation flying (stick and rudder skills aside)...

For more information consult the T-34 Manual and the FFI Supplement...

[terrykohler]

Comparing to IFR is interesting. I don't have the IFR training either. Indeed as practiced now IFR training and certification is all or none. But is that necessary? What about a "relaxed" IFR certificate to accommodate the glass panels and their view-ahead displays? Only for private (non-commercial) use. Only 1 passenger...or none perhaps. Only departures. Or if arrivals are allowed, minimum ceiling allowed is 1000 or 1500 feet AGL. This sort of IFR-lite would be useful in California, where there is often a stratus layer on the coast.

Not only are there others in the system when you're IMC, but you REALLY need to be able to handle situations like loss of electrical, loss of COMM, loss of primary flight display, etc. -and you need to be able to do it calmly and precisely. "Relaxed IFR"? sure, but only after a good deal of quality training, meaningful practice, and actual experience. What's the expression? "Anyone can steer a ship in a calm sea".
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

[RV8R999]

Originally Posted by Louise Hose

When something goes wrong, I want to be over-trained, not squeaking by.

I would like to think that I'm not sharing the skies with people who want to get by with the minimum training and competence.

You don't have to go to an FFI sanctioned, RV specific 79 ship formation training clinic to be well trained - suggesting any other training venue as "dumming it down" is near sighted.

Find a couple of experienced formation pilots who are willing to spend some time with you and that is all you need.

It isn't rocket science. You don't have to do it the way the FFI or T-34 manual dictates either. As long as you determine the standards of your flight, brief and adhere to your brief you can fly safe formation.

[Louise Hose]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

You don't have to go to an FFI sanctioned, RV specific 79 ship formation training clinic to be well trained - suggesting any other training venue as "dumming it down" is near sighted.

Excuse me but where did I advocate only FFI-sanctioned or 79-ship training clinics are the way to go? I didn't. I advocated disciplined training. The clinic isn't the critical part, it's the standardized and discipline element that I believe is needed. I don't want to fly with folks who learned through roll-your-own-cause-it-gives-me-more-flexibility training.

HOWEVER......Joe Blank makes a good point for why working with FFI, RV-experienced folks is a really good idea, at least if you're in the U.S.

[Buggsy2]

A common thread in the last few replies is something like formation or instrument flying is dangerous enough to demand the highest level of training. I don't agree.

Most anything we do in life can be done with different levels of training. Human flight itself is inherently dangerous, yet we do not demand military or airline training and equipment from every pilot. Instead, we have the Recreational pilot, the Light Sport pilot, the Private pilot, the Commercial pilot, and the Airline Transport Pilot.

So we are indeed literally "sharing the skies with people who want to get by with the minimum training and competence". Those people are recreational or light sport or private pilots. And statistically those people and equipment are more dangerous than, say, airline flying. Yet that doesn't stop us from flying and enjoying our GA aircraft. Likewise not having a commercial driving license doesn't stop billions of people worldwide from "sharing" the road with others equally (or not) trained.

Others in their replies have equated less training to mediocrity. But those are two quite different things. Less training is simply training to an appropriate level for the activity anticipated; mediocrity is being barely able, or unable, to perform the activity in spite of being trained for it.

So I am asking or proposing that some types of instrument and formation flight could be done for an anticipated activity that is less than currently demanded, especially with some changes in equipment in the case of instrument flying. For the latter activity, since it is regulated by the FAA, I don't anticipate any change in training and standards in my flying lifetime. But since formation flying is unregulated, it is possible to practice it at different levels of danger and skill.

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by terrykohler

Not only are there others in the system when you're IMC, but you REALLY need to be able to handle situations like loss of electrical, loss of COMM, loss of primary flight display, etc. -and you need to be able to do it calmly and precisely.

From what I see even highly trained pilots do badly when instruments fail. Remember the pilot a few years ago, a highly trained IFR instructor, who crashed and burned in a residential area when departing from (I think) Teterboro when one or more of his instruments failed. What about the airliner some years ago over Colombia when one artificial horizon failed and they tried to follow it to an inflight breakup. What about the Air France flight more recently which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean because of instrument failure.

I think that having a glass-panel display of the horizon, with independent backup instruments (not necessarily round dials) with training to handle departures through a stratus layer, and to handle certain failures, would be just as safe if not safer than traditional instrument flying. I'm proposing not hours of IFR through weather, but a few minutes through relatively benign clouds with ceilings at least 1000 ft AGL. Useful, safe, and unlikely to occur because of hidebound attitudes.

[RV8R999]

Originally Posted by Louise Hose

Excuse me but where did I advocate only FFI-sanctioned or 79-ship training clinics are the way to go? I didn't. I advocated disciplined training. The clinic isn't the critical part, it's the standardized and discipline element that I believe is needed. I don't want to fly with folks who learned through roll-your-own-cause-it-gives-me-more-flexibility training.

HOWEVER......Joe Blank makes a good point for why working with FFI, RV-experienced folks is a really good idea, at least if you're in the U.S.

Again a slam on other venues of training...

there are plenty of folks providing and receiving high quality training through roll-your-own programs which are disciplined and standardized within their flight to as much standardization as is needed to be safe.

The RV and FFI forums are certainly great places to receive training but are not necessary. Not one of the 20 or so guys I fly formation with regularly ever attended an FFI or RV clinic yet we somehow manage to fly professional, safe and fun formation. Go figure... guess Louise wouldn't want to fly with us...

[strahler13]

Thanks Bob Mills. I think you are the only one to answer the original question. I've seen one of the so-called expert formation guys. Good at formation flying? I'm sure he is. Safe pilot? Not from what I've seen.
Mark

[JonJay]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

there are plenty of folks providing and receiving high quality training through roll-your-own programs which are disciplined and standardized within their flight to as much standardization as is needed to be safe.

I am curious to know what those standards are. The FFI standards, which are modeled closely after the T-34 manual, and as I understand the Bonanza program, are FAA approved programs. It is comforting to me to know that I can go anywhere in the country and fly to the same standards with anyone that is qualified or has been trained in that environment.
No disrespect to you or your 20 or so fellow formation buddies, but I don't know, what I don't know....
So, sure, you can roll you own and as long as everybody gets it, and the standards are safe, I am sure you could conduct a safe formation environment.
I think it makes more sense to follow an established FAA approved program, like FFI but but who know's, maybe your program is better...

[RV6_flyer]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

So we are indeed literally "sharing the skies with people who want to get by with the minimum training and competence".

I think you hit the nail on the head. The FAA regulations are the minimum standards that we must fly and maintain are aircraft to.

I for one attempt to do all my flying and maintenance to a higher level than what is required by regulation. That goes for IFR and Formation flying.

The pilots with F.A.S.T. and FFI cards are what the FAA recognize for flight in wavered airspace. Both organizations use the same standardized signals. Neither are needed by regulations to fly outside wavered airspace.

Finding someone that has the time and money to pay for their own fuel outside a clinic is the challenge that anyone that wants to learn formation is going to have. A fair amount of time is needed to learn and practice to get proficient enough to fly solo in formation.

I encourage you to adopt the Standards for formation that already are in place by F.A.S.T. and FFI.