2 Mooneys Touch Mid-Air Inbound to OSH?

[Yetti]

So Hypothetically if the left wingman were to suddenly appear in front of the left wing of the lead. The left wing of the lead creases the rudder of the former wingman.  What FAR has been violated?   I don't think I ever read a FAR for not swapping paint.   A near miss is defined at within 500 feet. (that goes out the window with the formation flight)   The Caravan rules are not FAR

Sec. 91.111
Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

So violation assessed would be under 91.111 (a) and maybe a 91.113 reckless operation?

[bill98]

On 7/30/2019 at 6:49 PM, Shadrach said:

You take yourself and others way to seriously in an environment where there is no way to judge context. Lighten up, disengage...whatever it takes to get a fresh picture. If there are actually people here who think Cirri are lousy aircraft they are a very small minority. What’s more likely is there is little bit of silly interbrandname (new word) rivalry taking place. If you think you’re seeing actual malice, then you’re either over thinking things or you’ve never experienced actual malice... 

No one has Any information about this incident other than it happened. There’s almost no seed crystal by which to generate a hypothesis. No fuel for speculation.

The notion that the interbrandname ribbing (childish as it may be) has anything to do with the “safety culture” of this board is patently ridiculous.  I can’t speak to what the “safety culture” of this board should or shouldn’t be, but would submit that the safety record of this board (which has experienced some tragedies) is far better than the general GA population. Regardless of the “safety culture”, I hope the safety record continues or improves.

I think chutes are a great idea. However I’ve been flying in little airplanes for all of my 45 years. I’ve had plenty of time to get comfortable with the idea of knowing and trusting my equipment to mitigate risk.  I’ve also become comfortable with training for an unlikely failure. If I could snap my fingers and have a chute I would but I wouldn’t change airframes for that reason alone. For me it’s a feature with a benefit amongst many that I might consider during a purchase. Some have gotten religious about it to the point that they shop for a chute and consider the features of the plane after.  I think that’s a fine approach but it’s not for everyone. I don’t know if you’re waiting for everyone on the board to agree with you with regards to chute installation but I’ve often wondered why you care so much… And why you’re so sensitive about it. 

Regarding Chutes in a plane -

 

I find them to potentially cause someone to have a false sense of security and perhaps push the boundaries on their own personal minimums, aircraft limitations, and weather. I liken them to 4Wheel drive in a vehicle. When I use to live in Chicago - the vehicles on the side of the freeway during an ice/snow storm always seemed to be ones with 4WD or AWD. Why? Because people would turn it on and have a false sense of security in the weather conditions and drive like there was no hazardous weather. If the people had no idea that they had 4WD or AWD - they would be driving very slow and carefully in the hazardous weather with the added benefits of the AWD/4x4 but would not be pressing the safety envelope thinking "this puppy got power to all the wheels, I can do whatever I want"!

Parachute is the same way, in the back of peoples minds they might think "well if shit hits the fan I can always just pull the chute" 

The parachute is designed for when you have a stroke in flight or somehow a wasp stings you in the eye. It is the key to getting down safely. It is not to be pulled because you were an idiot and fly into crap weather which made you piss your pants in fear (but you can still pull the chute and hope the storm doesn't rip it to shreds"

As long as you are flying and not thinking about how your parachute is your get out of jail free card, they are just fine. 

 

As to the event in OSH - we are all naturally curious as to what happened especially since it involves our aircraft type. It is wonderful everyone walked away and damage appears to be minor. It is understandable that people want more info - 1. Helps them become more aware overall as a pilot 2. Our aircraft type 3. try and use the information to better prepare themselves and not be added to the list. 4. - some folks probably want to hear the details so they can say how they would never allow such an event to occur to them. <<#4 crowd sucks btw

 

In time we will all become aware as to what happened. Ideally the FAA won''t be too overly reactive and instead be proactive for future events. This can be used as a wonderful learning experience for everyone especially if very little action from the FAA occurs.

 

Those of you that have never had an insurance claim, declared an emergency an emergency or had a flight outside of the normal realms of TakeOff/Landing may not be able to understand the emotions going through the pilots minds right after the event as well as the days/months after the event. 

After a bit of time and especially once you get your aircraft back, you have a whole new appreciation for flying, you pay more attention to details, and (unless you are a POS) you understand that it can happen to anyone (including myself).

 

Advise for the day from me - Don't forget to monitor your fuel quantities, if you engine drops RPM but doesn't shut off - be sure to check the fuel selector, and fly the aircraft to the ground.

 

*** also - no one knows how their mind will react during an emergency situation - only after are you able to see how you did in a true emergency.  It is also hard to say more training is needed when you don't know that such a circumstance could arise. This is often why new training comes out after events - because a gap in a process is identified that was not known about prior. It is impossible to be able to think of every single scenario of things that could go wrong. 

A split second can cause an incident or accident. Being able to systemically put together the prior chain of events that lead up to the incident/accident is what makes the GA pilot community safer. It also helps in weeding out worthless regulation issues. You feel your contact falling out and you try to catch it while still being in your eye and not falling to the ground... doesn't necessarily require everyone and their mother to have to go take some kind of recurrent training.

- Colgan crash in buffalo is a perfect example - "OMG regional pilots don't get paid, omg regional pilots being hired on a 250 hours. we must raise the hours for a regional to 1500 hours"! ... somehow that came out of the Colgan crash investigation where the captain had over 4000 hours and the FO over 1500 hours. Pay is much better now, FAR117 helped reduce hours worked in a day and month - which is good - but 1500 hours had absolutely nothing to do with that crash.,

[kortopates]

So Hypothetically if the left wingman were to suddenly appear in front of the left wing of the lead. The left wing of the lead creases the rudder of the former wingman.  What FAR has been violated?   I don't think I ever read a FAR for not swapping paint.   A near miss is defined at within 500 feet. (that goes out the window with the formation flight)   The Caravan rules are not FAR
Sec. 91.111
Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
( No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
© No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

So violation assessed would be under 91.111 (a) and maybe a 91.113 reckless operation?

I think you answered your question at the very end. The FAA always has a way to deviate a pilot for being stupid but I have never heard of them doing so without believing that the pilot had intent to do so. Furthermore, deviating a pilot in a accidental mishap is extremely rare. Even without any details of the incident, I really believe the chances of anyone being deviated here is nil. But perhaps when it's your butt and your're a lawyer you instinctly take zero chance risking it. I am also confident that there is zero risk in seeing an insurance claim denied from discussing it.

But about what we don't know. We have nothing to go on, nada. Not even enough to assume either pilot did anything wrong since we know nothing of the external factors. For example we could learn that their was a third plane not in the Caravan that cut in front of the element and maybe the one of our Mooney's was avoiding it, or avoiding a flock of birds.... Who knows, except that external factors could have created the condition that led to the incident.

Of course I wish the participants where more forthcoming so learning could take place. But the FAA, whom normally investigates incidents at least won't take nearly as long as the NTSB does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yetti]

26 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I think you answered your question at the very end. The FAA always has a way to deviate a pilot for being stupid but I have never heard of them doing so without believing that the pilot had intent to do so. Furthermore, deviating a pilot in a accidental mishap is extremely rare. Even without any details of the incident, I really believe the chances of anyone being deviated here is nil. But perhaps when it's your butt and your're a lawyer you instinctly take zero chance risking it. I am also confident that there is zero risk in seeing an insurance claim denied from discussing it.

But about what we don't know. We have nothing to go on, nada. Not even enough to assume either pilot did anything wrong since we know nothing of the external factors. For example we could learn that their was a third plane not in the Caravan that cut in front of the element and maybe the one of our Mooney's was avoiding it, or avoiding a flock of birds.... Who knows, except that external factors could have created the condition that led to the incident.

Of course I wish the participants where more forthcoming so learning could take place. But the FAA, whom normally investigates incidents at least won't take nearly as long as the NTSB does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have several voices that speak into my flying hobby.   One of them is saying "put that many pilots into formation, bound to happen"  The process voice is saying.  There was training for this to never happen,  There probably was not training for when it did happen.  I am a big fan of "design to fail" processes.   If you know something will fail, then go ahead and plan for it to and design recovery for it.   If a third plane cut in front of the Caravan.   That should have been considered and there should be training for it.    Interesting how Netflix designs for failure.   They have a chaos monkey.   https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/lessons-netflix-learned-from-the-aws-outage-deefe5fd0c04

 

[Hank]

37 minutes ago, Yetti said:

I have several voices that speak into my flying hobby.   One of them is saying "put that many pilots into formation, bound to happen"  The process voice is saying.  There was training for this to never happen,  There probably was not training for when it did happen.  I am a big fan of "design to fail" processes.   If you know something will fail, then go ahead and plan for it to and design recovery for it.   If a third plane cut in front of the Caravan.   That should have been considered and there should be training for it.    Interesting how Netflix designs for failure.   They have a chaos monkey.   https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/lessons-netflix-learned-from-the-aws-outage-deefe5fd0c04

 

Back when i wrote SOPs and product specifications a lot, I kept one line taped to the bottom of my monitor at work:  Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

I'm not saying that anyone in the Caravan is a fool or acted foolishly, it's just a reminder that "stuff" happens every day regardless of how well we plan for it. Like a former politician said, "We are prepared for the unknown, both the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns" or some such. Gotta prepare for everything that everyone involved can think of, and be ready for things that weren't thought of in advance.

[Yetti]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

Back when i wrote SOPs and product specifications a lot, I kept one line taped to the bottom of my monitor at work:  Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

I'm not saying that anyone in the Caravan is a fool or acted foolishly, it's just a reminder that "stuff" happens every day regardless of how well we plan for it. Like a former politician said, "We are prepared for the unknown, both the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns" or some such. Gotta prepare for everything that everyone involved can think of, and be ready for things that weren't thought of in advance.

So we could say there is a level.   Sure you are competent to fly formation.   But are you competent enough to deal with the unexpected that comes with flying formation.    There was a funny situation.   At the Texas Mooney fly in a couple of years ago one person asked if the pilots there would come to a fly in on a grass strip.   I was the only one with a hand up.    par of my FR was I had to land on a grass strip.   The only challenge was I had to admit to the FR instructor that I lined up on the drainage ditch to the east.   Row of hangers then empty longitude piece of ground right?   Wow that looks really short.   Oh there is the real landing strip over there.    "Mooney will be going around"

[Shadrach]

13 hours ago, bill98 said:

Regarding Chutes in a plane -

 

I find them to potentially cause someone to have a false sense of security and perhaps push the boundaries on their own personal minimums, aircraft limitations, and weather. I liken them to 4Wheel drive in a vehicle. When I use to live in Chicago - the vehicles on the side of the freeway during an ice/snow storm always seemed to be ones with 4WD or AWD. Why? Because people would turn it on and have a false sense of security in the weather conditions and drive like there was no hazardous weather. If the people had no idea that they had 4WD or AWD - they would be driving very slow and carefully in the hazardous weather with the added benefits of the AWD/4x4 but would not be pressing the safety envelope thinking "this puppy got power to all the wheels, I can do whatever I want"!

Parachute is the same way, in the back of peoples minds they might think "well if shit hits the fan I can always just pull the chute" 

The parachute is designed for when you have a stroke in flight or somehow a wasp stings you in the eye. It is the key to getting down safely. It is not to be pulled because you were an idiot and fly into crap weather which made you piss your pants in fear (but you can still pull the chute and hope the storm doesn't rip it to shreds"

As long as you are flying and not thinking about how your parachute is your get out of jail free card, they are just fine. 

 

As to the event in OSH - we are all naturally curious as to what happened especially since it involves our aircraft type. It is wonderful everyone walked away and damage appears to be minor. It is understandable that people want more info - 1. Helps them become more aware overall as a pilot 2. Our aircraft type 3. try and use the information to better prepare themselves and not be added to the list. 4. - some folks probably want to hear the details so they can say how they would never allow such an event to occur to them. <<#4 crowd sucks btw

 

In time we will all become aware as to what happened. Ideally the FAA won''t be too overly reactive and instead be proactive for future events. This can be used as a wonderful learning experience for everyone especially if very little action from the FAA occurs.

 

Those of you that have never had an insurance claim, declared an emergency an emergency or had a flight outside of the normal realms of TakeOff/Landing may not be able to understand the emotions going through the pilots minds right after the event as well as the days/months after the event. 

After a bit of time and especially once you get your aircraft back, you have a whole new appreciation for flying, you pay more attention to details, and (unless you are a POS) you understand that it can happen to anyone (including myself).

 

Advise for the day from me - Don't forget to monitor your fuel quantities, if you engine drops RPM but doesn't shut off - be sure to check the fuel selector, and fly the aircraft to the ground.

 

*** also - no one knows how their mind will react during an emergency situation - only after are you able to see how you did in a true emergency.  It is also hard to say more training is needed when you don't know that such a circumstance could arise. This is often why new training comes out after events - because a gap in a process is identified that was not known about prior. It is impossible to be able to think of every single scenario of things that could go wrong. 

A split second can cause an incident or accident. Being able to systemically put together the prior chain of events that lead up to the incident/accident is what makes the GA pilot community safer. It also helps in weeding out worthless regulation issues. You feel your contact falling out and you try to catch it while still being in your eye and not falling to the ground... doesn't necessarily require everyone and their mother to have to go take some kind of recurrent training.

- Colgan crash in buffalo is a perfect example - "OMG regional pilots don't get paid, omg regional pilots being hired on a 250 hours. we must raise the hours for a regional to 1500 hours"! ... somehow that came out of the Colgan crash investigation where the captain had over 4000 hours and the FO over 1500 hours. Pay is much better now, FAR117 helped reduce hours worked in a day and month - which is good - but 1500 hours had absolutely nothing to do with that crash.,

Agree with all of the above. I always tell new AWD owners that being able to go won’t help you stop. I’ve been driving a rear drive V8 in East coast winter with little issue.

This was the Cirrus guy whose attitude surprised me. I was certain the chute was influencing his decision making.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Shadrach

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agree with all of the above. I always tell new AWD owners that being able to go won’t help you stop. I’ve been roving a rear drive V8 in East coast winter with little issue.

This was the Cirrus guy whose attitude surprised me. I was certain the chute was influencing his decision making.

All I can say is two words, a little one and a big one:  risk homeostasis.

Add something to improve safety, and behavior will deteriorate so that there is no net improvement in operational safety. AWD and ABS brakes just let people drive faster than they did without them, having accidents at the same rate but at higher speeds . . . All too often, airframe parachutes just encourage pilots to go ahead and take that worrisome flight, if it all goes to hell, pull the red handle--but you'll probably make it anyway . . .

[aviatoreb]

11 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agree with all of the above. I always tell new AWD owners that being able to go won’t help you stop. I’ve been roving a rear drive V8 in East coast winter with little ...

I’ve got a Subaru ... with studded snow tires for winter.  Metal stud/spikes are awesome in snow and ice.

[irishpilot]

I've been asked to weigh in previously in this thread. I do so with caution as I want to build a strong safety culture within our Mooney community. That being said, this thread is more of a general discussion/opinion vs safety focused. It is also in the General section which is appropriate when not focused solely on objective safety discussion.

Here's my take on what we should focus on as a community. First, in order to make a course correction on safety, we have to remove name calling, aircraft choice degrading, etc. in order for open and objective discussion. General Aviation is all about compromise...useful load, one vs two engines, mx costs, turbine vs piston, px vs non, etc. Every plane has its strengths and weaknesses. Mooney is no different. Strengths are routinely discussed. Here are my observations on our airplane's weaknesses:

1. single engine (limits IMC engine out choices)
2. piston (turbines statistically have less catostrophic failure rate) Not just training but emergency proceedures.
3. Range of avionics and autopilot capability (some have VFR panels with no autopilot) Proper use of avionics and autopilot reduce pilot taskload and reduce chance of loss of control
4. Capability that can easily exceed pilot proficiency (what we love about Mooney's being efficient and capable also put non-current and occasional pilots at risk)

That being said, the best investment we can make is in ourselves and not the newest widget or avionics upgrade. The second is to know when to not take off (wx, physiological, proficiency, etc.) also known as judgement. The third is to invest in is meticulous maintenance. Remember that statistically humans are causal to a high percentage of GA fatal accidents.

Now, to the topic at hand, I think this midair highlights the need for patience as the NTSB does it's investigation.

As an offer, I'm willing to give my perspective on formation flying and it's perils in the safety forum. I have over 1,500 hours of formation flying experience from J-3 Cubs to F-16s. I will do so if y'all find it helpful to the community.

-Your Friendly Safety Mod




Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod

[bradp]

I participated in the caravan. My thoughts.  

- this was a never incident.  First rule of formation is don’t hit lead.  Second rule of formation is don’t hit lead.  Something happened that should not have (clearly).   Whether wake turbulence was a factor is a possibility that would impact the caravan from an operational standpoint.  This was a high risk accident that could have resulted in loss of life.  I’m glad that the organization is doing its own investigation and this will be reflected in training.

- Some of the lessons to be learned (especially with regard to organizational safety culture) should precede the official findings of an investigation.   I’m my day job we have an investigation, but we also have a debrief temporarily (ie immediately) connected to a safety event.  Part of this would involve a forum  any member from the group to bring up safety concerns.  During the group debrief the incident was described as an incident, and essentially Dave’s lawyerly statement was read aloud to the group, there was not further discussion of safety issues or concerns within the larger group setting.  What would have been optimal would be a brief statement of known facts from the safety committee akin to the one sentence prelim statement that the FAA puts on Asis.  My personal opinion was that we should have had a basic debrief of the incident on site without interfering with the FAA/NTSB investigation.  Part of the debrief would involve a forum  any member from the group to bring up ongoing safety concerns related to the incident (or otherwise).  This is just me with my high risk organizational behavioral safety culture hat on.   Two banged up aircraft sitting in plain view tempers the Oshkosh fun.  

- There is definitely  is a perception issue.  My wife knows that two aircraft participating in the caravan struck each other.  She needs some assurance that we are serious as an organization about safety and do so in a transparent fashion for her to want to fly with us next year.  The timeframe for sharing of information and institution of appropriate changes should be days to weeks.  

- I’m 100% positive FSDO will reference this accident during the LOA negotiations for next year.  Getting proactive about promoting safety of formation flight can only help in this regard.  I’m sure we will be discussing at length during next years qualifying events as Paul alludes to.  However, a single statement from leadership and discussion 8-10 months later as a (regional) group I think is necessary but not sufficient.   The key is finding a way to discuss the event openly, neutrally and publicly in a temporally proximate manner that has learning points for everyone.   Perhaps a series of updates and initiatives via webinar would be the most appropriate forum to bring together a geographically disparate group.  We do need to come together to discuss and it needs to be horizontal not vertical.  

[mike_elliott]

32 minutes ago, bradp said:

The key is finding a way to discuss the event openly, neutrally and publicly in a temporally proximate manner that has learning points for everyone.

Well said Brad. Unfortunately, we, just like we accuse the FAA of doing, continue to have this unwarranted need to place blame first before we can begin the next step of dissecting the data so that solutions and procedures can be developed or changed. I used to start meetings at my companies with "OK, who's turn is it to take the blame this week?" That would set the stage to now focus on the issues and not the defensive mechanisms to protect oneself. In this case, there is a lot at stake to protect oneself as individuals and groups so words are being chosen very very carefully.

[bradp]

28 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Well said Brad. Unfortunately, we, just like we accuse the FAA of doing, continue to have this unwarranted need to place blame first before we can begin the next step of dissecting the data so that solutions and procedures can be developed or changed. I used to start meetings at my companies with "OK, who's turn is it to take the blame this week?" That would set the stage to now focus on the issues and not the defensive mechanisms to protect oneself. In this case, there is a lot at stake to protect oneself as individuals and groups so words are being chosen very very carefully.

Exactly Mike. I’m my profession we’re just finally getting away from individual blame and to systems thinking.  I’ve been around for both methodologies.  The old way didn’t work.  The new way does.  

Attended my first local runway action safety team meeting.  Reps from the airport, ATCT, ATM, individual pilots, corporate charters, FBO, ARFF etc etc ere present. We dissected data and incidents for two hours and applied safety principles to the local environment and operations. Everyone had a voice no matter their title.  It was a very good example of the way one of these events should be run. No individual blame and those running the meeting were quick to move from blame to system when it started to go that way. 

Even the FAA is moving in that direction with regard to enforcement action - work to improve and they won’t take certificate action unless egregious / negligent error or unwilling to learn. 

[Ned Gravel]

12 minutes ago, bradp said:

Exactly Mike. I’m my profession we’re just finally getting away from individual blame and to systems thinking.  I’ve been around for both methodologies.  The old way didn’t work.  The new way does.  

The old way never worked.  

We have obviously learned the same lessons. I wish people would lose the idea that wagging fingers at someone somehow fixes things.  It never did.

Find the hole in the system: the missing QC check, the missing procedure, the missing skllset, the missing knowledge, the missing environmental condition, the culture of “at any cost”.  Whatever it takes to support the work of the most important success element in the evolution - the one doing the work.  Root cause analysis anyone?

Find that hole and fix it. 

[Yetti]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

 "OK, who's turn is it to take the blame this week?"

The answer is the guy who last the company last....   always.

[ilovecornfields]

5 hours ago, bradp said:

 

I participated in the caravan. My thoughts.  

 

 

You changed my mind. I had assumed that this has been debriefed appropriately and the actions you described had occurred. I didn’t realize that this was not the case.

Yes, it does seem more like a CYA at this point than any genuine desire to learn from the event. Pardon my ignorance, but why not just file a NASA form and talk about it openly?

My wife has not heard about the incident, but I’m sure she will eventually and she will not want to fly formation. I don’t blame her. The only formation flying I have done is in a glider attached to a tow plane and I intend to keep it that way. My unpopular opinion is that formation flying should be reserved for the experts (military pilots). Even they manage to screw it up sometimes, so I can’t convince myself that as an amateur I would even have a chance. I’m not saying we should make laws against it, I’m just saying it’s not for me.

[bradp]

44 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

You changed my mind. I had assumed that this has been debriefed appropriately and the actions you described had occurred. I didn’t realize that this was not the case.

Yes, it does seem more like a CYA at this point than any genuine desire to learn from the event. Pardon my ignorance, but why not just file a NASA form and talk about it openly?

My wife has not heard about the incident, but I’m sure she will eventually and she will not want to fly formation. I don’t blame her. The only formation flying I have done is in a glider attached to a tow plane and I intend to keep it that way. My unpopular opinion is that formation flying should be reserved for the experts (military pilots). Even they manage to screw it up sometimes, so I can’t convince myself that as an amateur I would even have a chance. I’m not saying we should make laws against it, I’m just saying it’s not for me.

I know that the leadership is working through the process and they have every intention of doing the right thing.  I don’t know if a contingency plan - ie how will we handle an accident - was necessarily discussed before the event and that may have played into the lack of a formal debrief on site.  There is a learning process with the how-to of safety in high risk environments.  This is presumably the first time this organization has had to do this and the organization needs to learn how, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps engaging with the FAA (there were like all the safety inspectors there) to have them come by to talk to the group, inform the process, and advise on how to positively impact safety now would have been a  good idea in retrospect and would potentially have broken the ice to start talking about it without embarrassment or blame.  And I would have liked wings credit to boot.  Could have just as well happened to me or anyone else given the appropriate environment / circumstances.  That’s why I’m interested in the process.  That group has some of the best stick and rudder pilots you could ask for.  The training is thorough and will be moreso next go around.  If you learned to land a plane (who would have thought we can all do that) safely you can learn to fly formation safely- currency and proficiency are required but a military background is definitely not.  

And the honest answer is no - we did not do a formal debrief about the accident although a general debrief for the organization was done. The consensus was it was an extremely well organized and run event despite the accident.  

I will bet a 12 pack of your favorite beer that both involved parties filed an ASRS report.  I will bet another case that no certificate action will be bestowed upon either party because they are cooperating with the process and nobody wants to allow the circumstances surrounding  this event to remain in place.  I’d also bet that we see both pilots in a future caravan.   I’m okay with the process for now - it’s not perfect and to my liking for timing and upfront transparency, but it will work. 

Btw You can read ASRS narratives sometime at the end of September when they become available (they are delayed 60 days). 

[RobertGary1]

On 7/29/2019 at 3:33 PM, DonMuncy said:

I find it nothing short of a miracle that two planes can touch in flight, both land and both (apparently) fly home. As I understand it, there is some sort of maintenance available at Osh, but even at that, it would appear to be very minor damage. 

Even the Blue Angels have been known to rub paint. Its not desirable but it occasionally happens.

-Robert

[DualRatedFlyer]

54 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

my unpopular opinion is that formation flying should be reserved for the experts (military pilots). Even they manage to screw it up sometimes, so I can’t convince myself that as an amateur I would even have a chance. I’m not saying we should make laws against it, I’m just saying it’s not for me.

Lots of folks in this country, and tons of folks in other countries have the unpopular opinion that all flying should be reserved for commercial and military pilots and that you and the rest of us recreational/amateur pilots should not be allowed to fly in the same airspace since we don't have the "skills/expertise" the other guys have. Everything not understood appears to be magic to the layman.  In reality its much easier to fly in formation than it was to land on a 7500 ft runway my first solo. If it were that difficult the FAA would have more regulations than just discussing and planning the formation flight on the ground prior to commencing formation flight. It's a sliding scale though (as is all flight) more ships/closer formations/repositioning are more risky. But come on, lots of people who think it's too dangerous or risky or too hard are more than happy to fly the Fisk arrival. Now those are the really crazy people. No one should be allowed to fly the Fisk except military!!! /s

[RobertGary1]

 

57 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

You changed my mind. I had assumed that this has been debriefed appropriately and the actions you described had occurred. I didn’t realize that this was not the case.

Yes, it does seem more like a CYA at this point than any genuine desire to learn from the event. Pardon my ignorance, but why not just file a NASA form and talk about it openly?

My wife has not heard about the incident, but I’m sure she will eventually and she will not want to fly formation. I don’t blame her. The only formation flying I have done is in a glider attached to a tow plane and I intend to keep it that way. My unpopular opinion is that formation flying should be reserved for the experts (military pilots). Even they manage to screw it up sometimes, so I can’t convince myself that as an amateur I would even have a chance. I’m not saying we should make laws against it, I’m just saying it’s not for me.

My understanding from when I flew the caravan was that formation flying was prohibited. Youd' certainly want to have each pilot with a minimum of 10 hours of formation training before attempting.

 

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

20 hours ago, kortopates said:

Of course I wish the participants where more forthcoming so learning could take place. But the FAA, whom normally investigates incidents at least won't take nearly as long as the NTSB does.
 

They'd be fooling to say anything until the FAA is done. Why give them ammo?

-Robert

[ilovecornfields]

25 minutes ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

Lots of folks in this country, and tons of folks in other countries have the unpopular opinion that all flying should be reserved for commercial and military pilots and that you and the rest of us recreational/amateur pilots should not be allowed to fly in the same airspace since we don't have the "skills/expertise" the other guys have. Everything not understood appears to be magic to the layman.  In reality its much easier to fly in formation than it was to land on a 7500 ft runway my first solo. If it were that difficult the FAA would have more regulations than just discussing and planning the formation flight on the ground prior to commencing formation flight. It's a sliding scale though (as is all flight) more ships/closer formations/repositioning are more risky. But come on, lots of people who think it's too dangerous or risky or too hard are more than happy to fly the Fisk arrival. Now those are the really crazy people. No one should be allowed to fly the Fisk except military!!! /s

I’m not doing the FISK arrival either! Seeing some YouTube videos has only contributed to my fiskophobia. I enjoy flying as a private pilot and have enjoyed it since I logged my first flight at 12 (my solo at 16 was cake since I already had 200 hours complex time and had been flying gliders solo for a year). 

All I’m saying is that I am more risk averse than most and if you mention something “fun” I can likely give you an example I have see about how it can go horribly wrong. That doesn’t mean I don’t do anything fun, but I do try to weigh the perceived risks and benefits carefully and make decisions accordingly..

I gave up riding motorcycles after seeing some fatal crashes (and near fatal ones) that clearly weren’t the rider’s fault. I think the difference for me between flying formation and flying solo is that I have to worry less about another pilots actions affecting me and vice versa. When you add more variables into the equation, the chance of a error goes up and when airplanes swap paint in flight, the outcome is often unfavorable.

Again, not advocating for any restrictions of pilots flying formation, but it’s definitely not my thing.  

[steingar]

I guess what really bothers me is something really bad happened that a) should never have happened and b) could very easily have cost lives.  The message I'm getting from participants is "we're all pros and know what we're doing", and not "there's a problem, we're going to get the bottom of it and alter our training/approach so it doesn't happen again".  Ignoring obvious problems is a really good way to get dead in an airplane.

[DualRatedFlyer]

12 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I’m not doing the FISK arrival either! Seeing some YouTube videos has only contributed to my fiskophobia. I enjoy flying as a private pilot and have enjoyed it since I logged my first flight at 12 (my solo at 16 was cake since I already had 200 hours complex time and had been flying gliders solo for a year). 

All I’m saying is that I am more risk averse than most and if you mention something “fun” I can likely give you an example I have see about how it can go horribly wrong. That doesn’t mean I don’t do anything fun, but I do try to weigh the perceived risks and benefits carefully and make decisions accordingly..

I gave up riding motorcycles after seeing some fatal crashes (and near fatal ones) that clearly weren’t the rider’s fault. I think the difference for me between flying formation and flying solo is that I have to worry less about another pilots actions affecting me and vice versa. When you add more variables into the equation, the chance of a error goes up and when airplanes swap paint in flight, the outcome is often unfavorable.

Again, not advocating for any restrictions of pilots flying formation, but it’s definitely not my thing.  

Maybe look at it the other way and see if it may entice you. Flying formation is a great way to practice and build stick and rudder skills that will make you a more competent pilot thus derisking the rest of your flight operations making you safer. 

[KSMooniac]

There are spacing requirements that prevent contact in the vertical and horizontal axes/planes for all Caravan formation maneuvers. Additionally, there are procedures to follow when spacing is compromised or sight of lead is lost. They were not followed (obviously) in this case and I'm sure that is what the leadership is discussing currently, and surely the feds are investigating. This wasn't a case of simply flying too close to each other and an accidental bump...there is supposed to be clearance in both axes when in proper position relative to the lead aircraft.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk