2 Mooneys Touch Mid-Air Inbound to OSH?

[RobertGary1]

3 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

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
 

Have things changed? When I flew the carvan we were no where near formation. We were about 1/4 mile in trail as I recall.

-Robert

[KSMooniac]

Good question/suggestion... I'm not involved with these discussions so I don't know what is under consideration.

I have my own guess about what might come from this in terms of qualifying anyone to join the Caravan and any deviation from what is written today, but I'll wait for official word.

I'll say that the structure and process as it is written today is quite impressive, and aimed at getting us "amateurs" trained-up safely where we can enjoy something that is inherently dangerous, but executed in a safe manner if that makes any sense. The Caravan ops now are REAL formation, and the procedures, terminology, etc align with the FAST organization that governs this sort of thing, so Caravaners that wish to continue training can get certified with FAST.

As has been mentioned, my primary goal with the Caravan was to get to OSH in a fun and safe fashion and then enjoy the camaraderie that comes from camping together in the North 40. That is now just icing on the cake as I've grown to love the challenge, and look forward to practicing locally all year long when possible! I've been to the last 3 local clinics, as well as gathered with other locals for parade flyovers, fly-ins, etc. Just like instrument flying, it is a perishable skill so regular practice is warranted, and fun. Next season I might even try to join a non-local clinic for more fun. I encourage any Mooney owner to come check out a clinic and see if it is something you'll enjoy...you might be surprised how fun it is.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

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. 

I’m sure you’re right. And juggling flaming swords on a tightrope would improve my hand eye coordination and perhaps keep me from falling later. 

I’m happy with my recurrent training every 6 months and working on the commercial maneuvers. I’m glad formation flying gives you joy and I support your being able to do so. Doesn’t mean it is for everyone.

[Yetti]

As an observer of the online discussion:  Everyone keeps saying 60 planes flying in close corners is very professional and safely run.   I think this meets the definition of false sense of security.   If it is professional and safely run, then planes would not have swapped paint.   But planes did touch.  So was it not professionally and safely enough run? Everyone needs to move further back to start the discussion.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Yetti

[gsxrpilot]

5 minutes ago, Yetti said:

As an observer of the online discussion:  Everyone keeps saying 60 planes flying in close corners is very professional and safely run.   I think this meets the definition of false sense of security.   If it is professional and safely run, then planes would not have swapped paint.   But planes did touch.  So was it not professionally and safely enough run? Everyone needs to move further back to start the discussion.

Correct, the first misconception here is that 60 planes were flying in close quarters (corners?) 

The entire Caravan this year was 62 airplanes. But the Caravan is divided into individual Elements of either two or three airplanes. Elements are separated by at least half a mile. 

So in this case, the planes that swapped paint were in an Element of two airplanes. There was obviously an issue, but it wasn't because of 60 or 62 airplanes. It was only between two airplanes flying in formation.

[Yetti]

7 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Correct, the first misconception here is that 60 planes were flying in close quarters (corners?) 

The entire Caravan this year was 62 airplanes. But the Caravan is divided into individual Elements of either two or three airplanes. Elements are separated by at least half a mile. 

So in this case, the planes that swapped paint were in an Element of two airplanes. There was obviously an issue, but it wasn't because of 60 or 62 airplanes. It was only between two airplanes flying in formation.

Right so the idea was smaller elements lessens the chance of people swapping paint.   sooo that did not work......

[gsxrpilot]

9 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Right so the idea was smaller elements lessens the chance of people swapping paint.   sooo that did not work......

No, I'm saying the number 62 had nothing to do with this.

[gsxrpilot]

The thing I've noticed from the 130+ posts on this thread is that all the concern, and calls for changes in training, procedures, etc. are coming from pilots who do not fly formation, or did not fly with the Caravan, or have not attended Caravan Clinics. And also those who probably never will fly formation or attend Caravan training. 

Those of us that have, are not concerned.  Many members of the Caravan formed up on their own and flew formation all the way across the country, home after Oshkosh. 

If you're not a formation pilot or member of the Caravan, you have nothing to fear, and wouldn't understand the explanation anyway. Or as I said before, come participate in a Caravan Clinic and learn why those of us who have are not concerned.

This is all very much like the non-flying public who just don't understand why anyone would fly a small airplane. And no matter how safe we say it is, there is always another crash and the answer is, "well obviously not."

I appreciate the honesty of @ilovecornfields just saying, I'm not participating in that activity. That's fine. Although if we ever met up at the airport I'd do my best to convince him to hop in the right seat and see what it's all about  I might not be successful. And that's ok. 

We're not taking this lightly. But I'm 1000 times more likely to be killed by my Mooney with an engine out this weekend, than the chance this will ever happen again while flying formation with the Caravan.

[Yetti]

Separating out part of the Mooney community is not part of the answer.   It's like do you say something to that guy at the airport.   We are associated by a brand name and we all have to answer for the actions for others in the brand name.   No different than working for a company.

Just like I have to answer for other people who ride bicycles on the road even though I don't act like they do on the road. (but yet that guy still turned in front of me with his car and I still went rolling across his hood)

[gsxrpilot]

I'll have to disagree. This isn't a Mooney thing. It just so happens that two Mooneys were involved, but that is frankly just a coincidence. I fly a Mooney in formation, but that's because its, unfortunately, the only airplane I own. But I fly with all types. I've flown formation with Cirrus, Bonanzas, Cherokees, Comanches, countless RV's, Yak's, CJ's, and others I didn't even know what they were. We have almost every year had at least one non-Mooney flying in the Caravan arrival too Oshkosh. 

This is a formation flying issue. And to understand it you have to come fly formation or at least sit through the ground school. You can also go to the Caravan website and download the training manual. It's a pretty thick document and much more than I can explain here. 

And thus the obvious division in sentiment between formation pilots and non-formation pilots on this thread.

[Yetti]

A third option would be I have been offered to learn formation by someone much more qualified to fly formation than the caravan, so I will take him up on that.   I had considered taking you up on your offer, which is very gracious, but at this point I will take another route.

[Yetti]

To add to Jim it says the organization is above outside scrutiny.   That is always a bad position to take especially when internal procedure failures have occurred.

[gsxrpilot]

9 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Speaking strictly dispassionately, Paul, I doubt your last sentence would pass any sort of rational analysis.  To me at least it undermines the credibility of your argument. And to suggest that “the rest of us” would not understand and have no business discussing three dimensional separation concepts quite frankly does not represent the culture of safety that I previously attributed to your group.  

You’re right, though.  I have flown a little loose two ship Mooney formation with my USAF-trained father but that will probably be the extent of it for me.  Although @Yetti is right that the entire Mooney community is often adjudged together just as some here like to judge the Cirrus community, for instance, flying into Oshkosh this way is your privilege to lose, not the rest of ours.  I’d recommend some changes to your procedures in response to this incident even if you feel that they are unnecessary, if for no other reason than to show “the man” you are trying and that you recognize that even you guys fall short sometimes.  I think my previous suggestion to place an affirmative duty to report any separation minimum deviations on all element members, and then some sort of safety-oriented consequence, would be a relatively painless and potentially constructive way to do that if such a rule is not already in place.  But I’m sure there are many other ways to skin this cat.  

I know you know I value your friendship, Paul, and the friendship of several other Caravaners.  Please don’t take any of this to be anything other than straight talk that is truly intended to be constructive in nature.  That is my sole intent.

Jim

I really do appreciate the dialogue here. And I don't mean to sound or be condescending. It's been a long week and I should probably log off and try again after a weekend. 

I value your friendship and that of @Yetti as well. And if I've offended either of you, I apologize. And I hope @Yetti does take advantage of the opportunity to learn to fly formation.

There might well be a better place to learn formation than with the Caravan, but if you ever did attend one of our clinics, for example the two that are held each year in San Marcos, TX, you'd find that all the Safety Pilots and those leading out are all Carded Formation Pilots holding credentials from either FAST or FFI, and/or are US Air Force or Navy formation flying instructors.

If you don't think we're professional, serious, and dedicated to excellence in this endeavor, so be it. I can't change your mind. But it's obvious that those who participate see it differently.

So one last time. We will not discuss the details of this incident here on MooneySpace period.

 

[Steve W]

38 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

So one last time. We will not discuss the details of this incident here on MooneySpace period.

Excellent, the rest of us can continue our uninformed speculation without any pesky facts getting in the way of the discussion.

[RobertGary1]

4 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Yes.   Things have changed since then and become much more structured, disciplined, and, well, professional.   More along the lines of the way the Bonanza guys were doing it “back in the day”.    

Sounds way more dangerous today. 

-Robert

[KSMooniac]

A third option would be I have been offered to learn formation by someone much more qualified to fly formation than the caravan, so I will take him up on that.   I had considered taking you up on your offer, which is very gracious, but at this point I will take another route.

This is a great idea, especially if you're suspicious of Caravan procedures or safety pilot pedigree. I would encourage you to download the caravan manual and share it with your potential instructor. I think it would be beneficial to get a qualified third party opinion of what's written in there (and share it with us). Then go fly! It is fun.

I hate that some think this casts the entire caravan in a bad light. I understand the desire to discuss everything openly and hopefully that will happen soon. (I'm not privy to such discussions...just hoping blindly right now) I think at that point it will become obvious what happened and perhaps that will reduce some of the Caravan-specific criticism.


Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

To add to Jim it says the organization is above outside scrutiny.   That is always a bad position to take especially when internal procedure failures have occurred.

I wouldn't color this a procedural failure. I agree about "being above outside scrutiny" is a dangerous attitude. I don't think that is the case here...just let the process play out.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Steve W said:

Excellent, the rest of us can continue our uninformed speculation without any pesky facts getting in the way of the discussion.

Yep! But before we speculate on all potential causes and their many preventions and solutions, we will first need to speculate randomly on how the two planes may have touched (wingtip-to-wingtip, wing to rudder, wing to stab, wings overlapped and slapped, spinner to tail, etc., etc.) and the aircraft positions and attitudes that would allow each possible type of contact . . . .

Because right, we the great unwashed know only:

1. Two planes flying formation "touched," landed safely, were repaired and flew home;
2. No one with any knowledge of what happened is saying anything at all.

And it looks like their deaf-mute act is supported by many here, and that it began on the ground at Osh instead of having an all-Caravan safety discussion (because they are all above such considerations?). Sometimes perception can be more important than reality . . . . .

[gsengle]

I haven’t participated in the caravan at least not yet. I don’t have formation training, at least not yet.

I’m generally happy to speculate on accident causes. I think it’s often fruitful.

But I also know without having participated with the organization or without any background in formation flying I don’t know what I don’t know, so I’ll have the humility to listen and learn, because my speculation in this case isn’t well informed. But I can detect the flimsiness of speculation on the part of parties without knowledge of either the organization, it’s policies and procedures, it’s training or formation flying generally. I suspect and hope the FAA will look at all of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RogueOne]

I just want to know what happened and why.  Why?  Because with massive training and procedures THE WORST HAPPENED and the result could of been catastrophic?  I don’t know...because I don’t know.  I DO KNOW that flying in close proximity to another plane is a potential hazard that I do NOT WISH to expose myself and those flying with me too.  Risk and reward.  Why?  Because you can?  NOPE.  Not for me because The downside is catastrophic...

[mike_elliott]

Speculation often lends to one reading and hearing such speculation to be fact. We saw this happen in Mark B's recent accident about training, as innocent as the speculation might have been intended. Because of the high profile of the 2 groups involved, I understand the "gag" order to prevent the confirmation bias of "fake news". It is extremely easy to believe something to be true that isnt when it is framed in a supporting scenario, and with lawyers involved, this could easily call for an investigation to the investigation  The council of elders will no doubt have a public position when they are prepared, as will the NTSB and the FAA. It happened,  It will not go away with silence now, and all the parties know that answers to the questions this high profile incident must be given. Fortunately, this is an event that falls under "err" and doesn't take a long time to know the facts. Pilots as a whole are an intelligent community that putting a spin on the facts will be apparent and destructive to the parties so I dont look for that. (There I speculated)

[Yetti]

10 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

This is a great idea, especially if you're suspicious of Caravan procedures or safety pilot pedigree. I would encourage you to download the caravan manual and share it with your potential instructor. I think it would be beneficial to get a qualified third party opinion of what's written in there (and share it with us). Then go fly! It is fun.

I hate that some think this casts the entire caravan in a bad light. I understand the desire to discuss everything openly and hopefully that will happen soon. (I'm not privy to such discussions...just hoping blindly right now) I think at that point it will become obvious what happened and perhaps that will reduce some of the Caravan-specific criticism.


Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

See I was not going to post anymore on this thread.   There are hints to who the trainer would be in this thread.   He is very well qualified to teach formation.   

It's like gyro copters.    I think the people that fly them are crazy.  There were a couple pulling in when my wife said "I trust your attitude to safety with flying. If you ever consider flying one of those all confidence is gone and I will never fly with you again"    My confidence in gyrocopters was erased when I saw one guy taxi out.   Stand in the cockpit and reach up and start the big blade spinning.

[Alan Fox]

On 7/30/2019 at 1:21 PM, Andy95W said:

If it'd been two Cirrus aircraft two chutes would've been popped resulting in 2 hull losses.  That would have changed it from an incident to accident.

Pretty full of yourself there, Had the prop of the trailing aircraft , which was INCHES from the leading aircrafts wing , struck the aileron , A minimum of two people perish...  ZERO in a Cirrus.....

[Hank]

29 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

 Had the prop of the trailing aircraft , which was INCHES from the leading aircrafts wing , struck the aileron . ...

Is that so? All that has been disclosed is that two non-specified parts of two particular Mooneys contacted each other in flight somewhere between Madison and Osh. Nobody who knows what happened is saying anythingat all . . . . 

          --"King of the Mushrooms"

[Yetti]

31 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Pretty full of yourself there, Had the prop of the trailing aircraft , which was INCHES from the leading aircrafts wing , struck the aileron , A minimum of two people perish...  ZERO in a Cirrus.....

Someone should measure how many inches are between the wing root and the propeller tips.   and the aft rudder to the airilon