Letters from our December 2019 issue

An excellent read, and I endorse just about everything in the article “What Went Wrong: Formation Flight Turns Tragic.” General aviation formation flying seems to be on the increase, but the casual approach to formation flying, particularly as the numbers of aircraft in the formation go up, generally will only result in catastrophe. Formal briefing and previous formal formation training is a necessity. I noted the description of several of the pilots involved as “airline pilots and CFIs,” but no mention of military fighter, FFI, FAST, Blackjack, Az Scorpion, West Coast Raven, or any other formal formation training or practice. There is absolutely no formation experience involved in airline pilot or CFI training.

Except for specific tactical operations, any four-ship or less formation operation can be simply briefed to experienced formation pilots as “standard.” This is not true of five-, six-, or more aircraft formations, and so the description of five- and six-ship formations as nonstandard was particularly perceptive. Each planned maneuver for these formations must be carefully briefed and understood by each member. As described in the article, my preference has always been to break these formations into two- or three-ship elements. Then the elements can be split off at any time, actions within the element are always standard, and the briefing concentrates on how the elements split off and then rejoin the main formation. It can be done differently with the entire formation treated as 1 through 5 or 1 through 6, rather than Alpha and Bravo elements, as long as it is thoroughly briefed.

Gary Goebel
AOPA 1704910
Tucson, Arizona

I was pleased to find the article in AOPA Pilot about the five-ship formation flight disaster was written by someone who has knowledge and experience in formation flying. I found the article very well written with experienced criticism apparent in the analysis. Thank you for an excellent job that should provide a wake-up call to those who would attempt formation flying casually. 

I flew my T–6 for 18 years in many formation flights involving training “newbies” and in airshows. We used hand signals and aircraft movements to communicate desired formation changes. And we never flew with airplanes that weren’t low wing (CJs, T–34s, World War II fighters, et cetera).

Richard McSpadden’s emphasis on a thorough preflight briefing as essential to safe formation flying is very appropriate.

Bob Wall
AOPA 174793
Ocala, Florida

Thank you for the informative and well-illustrated article. It reminded me that there are hundreds of simple formation flights every day by low-time pilots: aero tows of gliders. Clearly two aircraft in line is far simpler than several spread out in a V formation, but even so there is one rule that must be adhered to. If the glider loses sight of the towplane, the pilot must immediately release. Does a similar rule exist for powered formation flying, with aircraft planned to break away (up, down, or sideways as appropriate) if they lose sight of one another?

Richard Weil
AOPA 3783046
St. Paul, Minnesota

Yes, it is a standard in formation flying that you call “blind” and break out of the formation. —Ed.

Fly-off

Good article and video on the RV–10/Skylane faceoff.

The Skylane is heavier and has less horsepower. A fairer comparison would be to compare the RV–10 to a Skylane converted to a more powerful engine. For instance, my 1980 Skylane II Texas Skyways conversion with 280 horsepower and Horton STOL would accelerate, take off, and climb with the RV and still fly farther and land slower. My airplane stalls gently at 38 knots indicated, and full-power cruise indicates 155 knots. I fly it lean of peak and get 143 knots true using only 9.5 gallons an hour. I don’t have to step in the seat to get in, I don’t have to walk around the wings in the hangar, and I have a roof over my head and shade to sit under at airshows.

And it’s certified.

Rankin Whittington
AOPA 1338514
Lenoir, North Carolina

Flying with purpose

I just finished reading “A Purpose to Be a Pilot” in the December issue of AOPA Pilot, and I want to commend Julie Summers Walker for doing such a great job telling the story.

I liked that she didn’t hold back on addressing the political and economic issues (which in reality are human issues), particularly Rose’s quote that ended, “No wonder these people risk fleeing to the U.S. illegally.” I don’t know if you’ve taken any flak for this, but please know that I—and I’m sure many others—appreciate her honest reporting.

I also appreciated the way in which she made it clear that the volunteers’ faith was an important motivation for reaching out to those in need. One doesn’t have to be a person of faith in order to address humanitarian concerns, but for many people it is their faith that underlies their desire to help those in need, and I think it’s good to acknowledge that.

So thank you for telling the story and for telling it so well.

Bill Menzel
AOPA 1564000
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

What strikes me most about this article is the fact that these volunteers are basically supporting large companies like Driscoll and Berry Mex who continue their appalling treatment and abuse of workers. Of course treating workers in this way is common around the world. I try to buy nothing from companies like these, who make enormous profits which they work ceaselessly to increase, while at the same time paying the very least and providing appalling living conditions to those at the bottom, who actually do the hard physical work. 

I applaud people who strive to help others. I work with Angel Flight, but hesitate to provide help to those ill treated by large corporations until those charitable organizations at least publicize and try to hold these companies and people accountable for their actions.

I would encourage people with the means, and that includes everyone who flies, to consider carefully which companies they buy their goods from. If you buy from companies you know are mistreating their workers you are just as guilty as them, just as you would be if you knowingly buy stolen goods—then you are as guilty as the thief.

Again I applaud these volunteers for the wonderful help and relief they provide, but the fact is that this would not be needed or at least largely mitigated if these companies treated their workers in a humane fashion.

Peter Fraser
AOPA 777744
Yamhill, Oregon

Thank you for the article on why the world still needs flying warbirds (“Waypoints: Rising Above Tragedy”). The article is a very touchingly and eloquently stated position for why we need to keep these magnificent airplanes flying.

Tanya Leahy
AOPA 1380752
Heyworth, Illinois

My fellow pilots at a major airline and I often joke that “one’s hearing gets better at the hearing” (“Proficient Pilot: At the Hearing”). Smart pilots hear the little voice in their head, and take heed of its warnings.

Erich Liermann
AOPA 1077401
Aldie, Virginia