Warbird Information Exchange

Marine Air, before you say something should be done away with, you should know the facts.
The Osh P-51 accident was not a formation landing, nor was it a staggered landing. The D model was close to the center of the runway, and all ready had the tail on the ground when the A model hit it. The A model wheels were not even or barely on the ground, the A model was just left of center line, and he prob did not even see the D model after it touched down. Rule #1 in formation anything, if you cannot see your lead, you are not in formation and you are somewhere you should not be. The Red Baron accident is a prime example of what happens when you lose sight of your lead. It was simply a case of getting too close on final and not doing a go-around.

As far as the Spit and Hurri accident, it is too soon to know what happened, But Bill has prob done 100s of staggered landings over the years.

You prob drive faster going down the freeway with nothing more than a paint strip seperating you from the car next to you, and you have no idea what the other car will do. In a staggered landing, it is briefed, and you know the person next to you.

We did not fly in formation at Galveston, and we certainly did not land in formation. I have done it in T-34s, never in a fighter. Gerry's landing was not formation either.
As for "sequenced" landings, we do it going into Oshkosh and Lakeland every year, in warbirds and gen aviation, even warbirds behind gen aviation. That is a busy and intense time, I have often gone around at Osh as I did this year due to much slower traffic on the runway. Airliners do it all the time, and it is done under tower control at our airport here. The devil is in the details. Safety suggestions are welcome, I will likely have some eventually, but in the end we have large heavy machines moving at freeway speeds. Also they are strong in the air, but made of aluminum and fragile in contact.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Re-reading this thread in it's entirety reminds me of 2 things.

1. A Quote by Theodore Roosevelt........

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

2. I hate monday morning quarterbacks.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Marine Air, formation and "sequenced landings" are two entirely different things.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't believe any warbirds which are taildraggers do actual formation landings, where they land as a unit in very close proximity. There might be some aerobatic acts that do it, but I don't believe any warbird taildraggers do it. If someone knows of any, please pipe in here.

"Sequenced landings" are done all of the time in normal day-to-day ATC operations. If you go to the official FAA website which maintains the ATC handbook, it states the following from this webpage:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ ... c0310.html



3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low Approach.

1. The other aircraft has landed and is clear of the runway. (See FIG 3-10-1.) Between sunrise and sunset, if you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft has landed, it need not be clear of the runway if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Clear of the Runway.

FIG 3-10-1
Same Runway Separation


(a) When a Category I aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II- 3,000 feet.(See FIG 3-10-2.)

FIG 3-10-2
Same Runway Separation


(b) When a Category II aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II- 4,500 feet.
(See FIG 3-10-3.)

FIG 3-10-3
Same Runway Separation


2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. (See FIG 3-10-4). If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne, it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:

(a) Category I aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 3,000 feet.

(b) Category II aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 4,500 feet.

(c) When either is a category III aircraft- 6,000 feet. (See FIG 3-10-5.)

FIG 3-10-4
Same Runway Separation


FIG 3-10-5
Same Runway Separation


3. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter, visual separation may be applied in lieu of using distance minima.




The definitions of the various categories are as follows:

CATEGORY I- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with a single propeller driven engine, and all helicopters.

CATEGORY II- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with propeller driven twin-engines.

CATEGORY III- all other aircraft.



So, basically for the purpose of most fighter type warbirds, we are talking about Category I operations. This part is the key which applies to our "staggered/sequenced" landing discussion:

Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low Approach.

1. The other aircraft has landed and is clear of the runway. (See FIG 3-10-1.) Between sunrise and sunset, if you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft has landed, it need not be clear of the runway if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:

(a) When a Category I aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II- 3,000 feet.(See FIG 3-10-2.)

Folks, this is STANDARD ATC operations, not an airshow waiver. Each and every day, civilian and general aviation fly by these rules. All we need is 3000 feet separation between one landing fighter-type warbird and another, that's it!

The discussion about getting rid of "staggered" or "sequenced" landings means we would have to get an FAA waiver to deviate from standard ATC operating procedures. Is this really what everybody wants? If the many 100's of thousands of landings are done safely every day this way, why should we do things differently at an airshow when all the pilots meet beforehand and thoroughly pre-brief? Pre-briefing with other pilots is something that general aviation does not do routinely, yet the safety record is pretty good, considering the numbers involved.

Opinions?

Can we not speculate anymore please? Lets all just get along. Let the FAA do its thing and then think about getting these two birds back in the air where they belong! I loved seeing Bills Spit fly, never have seen the Hurricane fly YET but I WILL see it I hope!

Although I agree that some of the second-guessing can be a little annoying, it is much more annoying when people (other than moderators) appoint themselves hall monitor and presume to tell others what should or should not be posted here. These posts about sequenced landings are on-topic, non-inflammatory, and don't insult or blame anyone. I am learning a lot from them and am capable of distinguishing which views are the less informed. If you don't like them, I suggest you don't read them.

August

As so often occurs this has truly deteriorated to a meanigless discussion, and absolute waste of valuable electrons, when the uninformed can't even delineate the difference between a formation, staggered, or sequential landing.........................

Tom-

I kind of feel the same way. I can't say I ever remember Geneseo having formation take offs or landings. But a few times at Elmira the T-6's were landing in formation. I can't say it looked safe when a landed t-6 had to increase full power to avoid a collision from an inbound aircraft.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

FYI-

Sequenced landings ARE in fact normal ops at all airports everywhere in the world.........................................as others with real world experience as warbird and/or demo pilots have posted there is a place for staggered landings also.

Tom-

Geez it has never seemed to be that bad has you guys imply. If a pilot doesn't feel comfortable all he has to do is say no. His decision will be respected. If it isn't he doesn't want to be there in the first place. I remember at Arlington (and I'm sure all the big fly-ins are the same) that getting in and out of the place was more dangerous than flying in the show. I recall one time we passed a powered parachute while entering the pattern in the B-25 and had to evade all other manner of slow movers. Another time there while landing with Crash in the T-28 on very short final a Cessna pulled out on to the runway and I counted the rivits has we glided over him.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

What's nice about this forum is that sometimes posts take a direction that can be for the better or worse. This one seems to take the high road. Good, keep discussing, we all may learn something here, I'm a fan of great airmanship, but things happen that have nothing to do with how great an aviator you are. My father and I used to fly into OSH with a lot of traffic. My dad always told me to "shut up" when he was landing at OSH. Even with his many years of flying, he was always nervous landing in traffic. I'n not a fan of "multiple landings", but I do understand it at airshows.

PS, I'm a great chess player, checkers are for P*@#$!"s

I would tend to agree about the above fly-in comment. I enjoy fly-ins, but they make me nervous - especially when folks aren't communicating accurately or properly. There's a big difference between that and an airshow where you have a tight schedule, pilots who've briefed with each other, and a relatively small number of aircraft in the air at the same time. If it's true the brakes failed on the Hurricane, then there's a great likelyhood that an extra 5 seconds might not have made any difference. On the other hand, not doing staggered landings affects the airshow especially as regards the schedule, and the spectators enjoyment of the show.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

One thing I think of in all of this discussion about whether to or not to do staggered landings is this -

How many accidents have happened in the last 30+ years at the major airshows where staggered takeoffs and landings are the normal mode of operation (Oshkosh, Genesco, AirSho, etc)? Not many. Why is not because of luck, it's because of good airmanship, good briefings, and good communication. The ones that have happened were freak accidents where in reality, no amount of communication, airmanship, and briefings, would have prevented the accident. There were decisions made or parts failed in those last few split seconds that caused the accident and no one could forsee that occuring.

Flying is only as safe as you make it. If you want to fly safe, you'll fly safe. All pilots who appear at airshows want to be safe and fly safe. That doesn't make them immune to making mistakes or having parts fail (as my car mechanic tells me - "All parts are designed to last exactly as long as it takes for them to fail") no matter how many precations or how much maintenance they do. It's an imperfect world and imperfect people. We ask too much of pilots to be anything else.

I used to enjoy watching and photographing the staggered and formation landings almost as much as the formation takeoffs. My point was that they aren't always harmless when performed by very capable pilots in these 65 year old high performance taildraggers.
When I buy a warbird in the future, my interest is exactly zero in doing staggered landings. Any increased potential of a landing mishap is offset by what value? I think it's totally okay for those that want to say "no thanks" to the briefer or airshow organizer to take a pass on formation landings in taildraggers. How much do they add to your appearance fees?
I am not second guessing anyone, or telling anyone else what is right, it just seems to be more apparent to me that it adds an element of risk, without any additional payoff to the pilot or aircraft owner.
Warbird 1, thank you for the regs on the "sequenced landings" . I fly the Learjet 35A known in the military as the C-21. We are a category 3 almost 4 aircraft and operate our Lear 25 and 35A's as Category 4 aircraft. Looking at how those regs apply to the Learjet, under Part 91 requirements we can touch down and be completely stopped under those guidelines, ergo the other aircraft would be a non-issue. That being said, we never land with another aircraft on the same runway, doesn't matter if the runway is 8 or even 12,000 feet, we don't do it. For the Lear 35A our landing speeds can be as high as 129kts., plus crosswind allowance. The Lear 25 has higher landing speeds than the 35A.
Hellcat, it sounds like your dad was a really good pilot. He was doing what is called a "sanitized cockpit" . It's the discipline of not talking about anything not related to the flight tasks at hand during takeoffs, landings and the airport environment. (Some people include descents and climbs.)
EDowning, I'm a great fan of T. R. also. Althougth, he inherited great wealth at an early age, losing both parents and his first wife by his 23rd birthday, he continued to climb and excell at almost everything he attempted mostly through sheer determination and intellect. His initial application to Harvard was rejected due to a heart condition and asthma. He persisted and graduated with honors. He was trounced upon in the New York state legislature, and went on the be Mayor of NYC, Governor and one of our best presidents.
Unlike his father, who hired an "assigned replacement" for his substitute during the Civil War, he served as a Colonel in the "Rough Riders and went to Cuba wearing tailored Brooks Brothers uniforms. He was a uniter not a divider and built coalitions to move ideas forward.
Just like when the CAF chose to quit doing their one wheel down touch and go's during their B-17 Texas Raiders act, or when Hoover chose to quit doing his "Tennesse Waltz" element of his aerobatic routine, would a forward thinking intellectual like Teddy Roosevelt, say it's time to reevaluate formation landings at this juncture."

Marine Air wrote:


Well, I am familiar with the old WWJD, but I guess we are into the WWTRD realm now. So.....I'll play, you point out an accident related to a formation landing and we can discuss it, or we can let this thread continue to debate the Spitfire and Hurricane accident. Either way is fine with me.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."