Collings Foundation Bombers

Dale wrote:

While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are a
lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a violation
to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation to conduct a
formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's not comfortable
or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks he's a formation
pilot coming up on your wing.

Well, the "formation" word was never in the conversation. In fact, my
intentions was to sit in my Bonanza while on the ramp shoot a picture of
the B-17 in the run-up area. The rant this guy went off on was
impressive.

Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
ones?

All the paintjobs on the B-17, B-24 or B-25 depict actual airplanes that
flew during WWII. I didn't see anything lurid about the current scheme
as "Witchcraft" for the B-24.

I agree. And the "All American" was fine. But "Dragon and His Tail" is
nothing if not lurid. There are lots of paintjobs from WWII that would
be much easier to explain to my 5 year old than that one.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:



Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
ones?

91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:48:43 -0800, Dale wrote:

In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:



Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
ones?

91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.

In article ,
Jon A wrote:

Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

Well, a formation can have thousands of feet seperating the
aircraft...depends on what you're doing.

I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.

My definition doesn't matter...the FAA is the one you have to worry
about. G

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

/snip/
I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
/snip/

Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

In article ,
Scott Skylane wrote:

Dale wrote:

/snip/
I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
/snip/

Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?

No. It was back east, involved the B-24 and a Northwest 747. It was
the 747 Captains last flight (and he also flies the B-17 and B-24), they
worked it out with approach to get the -24 and the the 74- on final at
the same time. Minneapolis-St Paul maybe...not sure.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:25:06 -0800, Dale wrote:

In article ,
Scott Skylane wrote:

Dale wrote:

/snip/
I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
/snip/

Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?

No. It was back east, involved the B-24 and a Northwest 747. It was
the 747 Captains last flight (and he also flies the B-17 and B-24), they
worked it out with approach to get the -24 and the the 74- on final at
the same time. Minneapolis-St Paul maybe...not sure.


I flew into Tulsa International weekly for a year or so, in a light
plane, solo. From Rockwall (nr Dallas, Texas)

I remember an approach hand off to tower, then an alert that another
flight would be making finals for the left runway, while I was on the
right approach. A passenger plane soon overtook me - I could see
the passengers looking out.....
But that was unpremeditated and unremarked.

Brian Whatcott

Jon A wrote:
Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

Air Force definition: "same course, same day".


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

wrote:
Jon A wrote:
Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

Air Force definition: "same course, same day".

OOPS... should be:
Air Force definition: "same way, same day".


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

SFO has parallel runways a couple of hundred feet apart. I've flown just off
the wing of several airliners into the Right, while they used the Left.
Al




"Jon A" wrote in message
...
Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:48:43 -0800, Dale wrote:

In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:



Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree
with
you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the
appropriate
ones?

91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.