Aviation Safety Magazine

[Ghery]

Well, my last issue arrived a few days ago and I got around to reading it over the past two days. There's an article on formation flying that is probably worth reading, as long as you don't take all the advice contained therein. Once the author called out using 123.45 MHz for the air to air coordination due to congestion on the real air to air frequencies I kind of lost my interest in anything else he had to say. Guess I'll have to write them an e-mail... Grumble, grumble, grumble...

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Aviation Safety hasn't been the same since Ken left...

I'll probably let my subscription expire this time.

 

[bbchien]

Well, my last issue arrived a few days ago and I got around to reading it over the past two days. There's an article on formation flying that is probably worth reading, as long as you don't take all the advice contained therein. Once the author called out using 123.45 MHz for the air to air coordination due to congestion on the real air to air frequencies I kind of lost my interest in anything else he had to say. Guess I'll have to write them an e-mail... Grumble, grumble, grumble...

I let mine expire....

 

[wsuffa]

I thought I let mine go about 18 months ago, but for some reason they've continued to send them to me. I finally got an "expire" notice this week. Not renewing.

When I do read it, I end up shaking my head at least a couple of times each issue. Like the Paul Sanchez article where he was flying a single-engine piston plane in the Rockies on a ferry flight, experienced engine problems, and chose to land at a more distant airport, rather than the closest one. It all worked out, but IMHO it sent the wrong message to readers. In more ways than one....

 

[Ghery]

Aviation Safety hasn't been the same since Ken left...

I'll probably let my subscription expire this time.

Amen to that. And that's why I said "my last issue". I let my subscription expire and April 2006 should be the end of it.

 

[ScottM]

I get it free with my aircraft insurance. But I would not pay extra for it.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Gawd ... it makes the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up to think that the CURRENT staff of Aviation Safety would write an article on "formation flying".

Well, my last issue arrived a few days ago and I got around to reading it over the past two days. There's an article on formation flying that is probably worth reading, as long as you don't take all the advice contained therein. Once the author called out using 123.45 MHz for the air to air coordination due to congestion on the real air to air frequencies I kind of lost my interest in anything else he had to say. Guess I'll have to write them an e-mail... Grumble, grumble, grumble...

 

[Areeda]

... Once the author called out using 123.45 MHz for the air to air coordination due to congestion on the real air to air frequencies ...

I haven't gotten my issue yet so I read it on line (one of the thins I really like about that mag). The actual quote is

"The air-to-air frequencies can be congested, so crews often will rely on 123.45 MHz for communications"

That sounds more like a statement of fact than a recommendation. I am still training for my FAST patch, but many of the lead pilots have choosen that frequency for that reason. In my experience the statement is true, albeit not the best practice.

Joe

 

[Ken Ibold]

Amen to that. And that's why I said "my last issue". I let my subscription expire and April 2006 should be the end of it.

Anyone with a hard copy, would you mind going to the back 4-6 pages of the December issue, looking for the block of 4 pt type, and posting what the current circulation is?

 

[Ghery]

Anyone with a hard copy, would you mind going to the back 4-6 pages of the December issue, looking for the block of 4 pt type, and posting what the current circulation is?

1. Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 (22,381/22,914).
2. Paid In-county Subscriptions (0/0)
3. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution (1491/2114)
4. Other (0/0)

c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation (23,872/25,028)

Dated 9/19/05

 

[Ghery]

I haven't gotten my issue yet so I read it on line (one of the thins I really like about that mag). The actual quote is

"The air-to-air frequencies can be congested, so crews often will rely on 123.45 MHz for communications"

That sounds more like a statement of fact than a recommendation. I am still training for my FAST patch, but many of the lead pilots have choosen that frequency for that reason. In my experience the statement is true, albeit not the best practice.

Joe

True enough, but if I had written the article I would have pointed out that such a practise is illegal as 123.45 is reserved for flight test.

 

[Ken Ibold]

1. Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 (22,381/22,914).
2. Paid In-county Subscriptions (0/0)
3. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution (1491/2114)
4. Other (0/0)

c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation (23,872/25,028)

Dated 9/19/05

Thanks Ghery. Down more than 15% in two years. That says something.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

"The air-to-air frequencies can be congested, so crews often will rely on 123.45 MHz for communications"

While this statement is true, it suggests that it's OK to use that frequency, and it's not. 123.45 is assigned to a number of major aircraft manufacturers as a flight test operations frequency, and you don't need to be interfering with their operations. Besides being an FCC violation, you do not need to cross swords with folks like Boeing and Lockheed who have a lot of lawyers on staff. If you need a frequency for formation, use the approved ones (122.75, etc) or get one assigned for your formation flying organization.

Out of curiosity, what other silly things did they say about formation flying?

Ron Levy, FFI FL-62

 

[SJP]

Well, my last issue arrived a few days ago and I got around to reading it over the past two days. There's an article on formation flying that is probably worth reading, as long as you don't take all the advice contained therein. Once the author called out using 123.45 MHz for the air to air coordination due to congestion on the real air to air frequencies I kind of lost my interest in anything else he had to say. Guess I'll have to write them an e-mail... Grumble, grumble, grumble...

I didn't renew my subscription when Ken left.

They still send it to me...

 

[Areeda]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

While this statement is true, it suggests that it's OK to use that frequency, and it's not. 123.45 is assigned to a number of major aircraft manufacturers as a flight test operations frequency, and you don't need to be interfering with their operations. Besides being an FCC violation, you do not need to cross swords with folks like Boeing and Lockheed who have a lot of lawyers on staff. If you need a frequency for formation, use the approved ones (122.75, etc) or get one assigned for your formation flying organization.

I agree.

Out of curiosity, what other silly things did they say about formation flying?

IMO it is a fairly superficial article about photo flights.

On the plus side

"In reality, formation flying- particularly for photo purposes - is best left to seasoned practitioners, behind both yokes as well as the camera"

On the negative side:

"The photographer essentially runs the show, so he or she must clearly communicate maneuver requests, give the pilots an explanation of what is wanted next, and then a countdown to a mark to start and stop the maneuver."

In a sidebar about a flight gone bad:

"Then my client told me a platoform of the operator's convenience was replacing my choice. The substitute was too slow to stay ahead of the airliner in right turns - the turns that put us on the outside track. So work with only left turns, my client suggested.

That idea worked only moderately until my platform pilot-who'd already ignored several other instructions-decided we were too close to a Restricted Area. We were cleared into the Restricted Area, but in mentally wrestling with a "girl" pilot and a "hippie" photographer calling the shots, my platform pilot claimed he didn't hear that call. So he started a hard right turn directly into the airliner on our starboard side - and warned us after he started the maneuver."

--------------
This combined with a red board thread about an IFR mag thread got me thinking about magazine articles in general. I've seen discussions showing that CFIs, DPEs, FSDO employees and even people on the Internet are not authoritative sources. Can we really expecct authors and editors to do better? I like reading magazine articles more than the FAR/AIM, they make me think. I'm learning to question everything I read and hear even from people who I consider experts unless they come with references.

Joe

 

[gismo]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

I'm learning to question everything I read and hear even from people who I consider experts unless they come with references.

From "Illusions" by Richard Bach: "Everything in this book may be wrong".

 

[Diana]

I didn't renew my subscription when Ken left.

Same here.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

On the plus side

"In reality, formation flying- particularly for photo purposes - is best left to seasoned practitioners, behind both yokes as well as the camera"

Good words.

On the negative side:

"The photographer essentially runs the show, so he or she must clearly communicate maneuver requests, give the pilots an explanation of what is wanted next, and then a countdown to a mark to start and stop the maneuver."

My experience says that's a pretty accurate statement. The camera pilot is flight lead, and sets the formation, but the photog has to communicate up/down and in/out to the object ship and let the lead pilot know where they need to go for lighting, background, etc.

In a sidebar about a flight gone bad:

"Then my client told me a platoform of the operator's convenience was replacing my choice. The substitute was too slow to stay ahead of the airliner in right turns - the turns that put us on the outside track. So work with only left turns, my client suggested.

That idea worked only moderately until my platform pilot-who'd already ignored several other instructions-decided we were too close to a Restricted Area. We were cleared into the Restricted Area, but in mentally wrestling with a "girl" pilot and a "hippie" photographer calling the shots, my platform pilot claimed he didn't hear that call. So he started a hard right turn directly into the airliner on our starboard side - and warned us after he started the maneuver."

Probably should have called "knock it off" as soon as they realized the incompatibility issues.

I got some more info on the contents of the article off line, and was disappointed that the author didn't talk about FAST or FFI training/certification. If anyone's interested in learning about what it takes to become a formation pilot, read these articles:

Up Close and Personal: Formation Flying (Jennifer Whitley, AvWeb)
Deceptive Form (Scott Spangler, AOPA Pilot)
Formation Flying (Barry Schiff, AOPA Pilot)
A Continuous Near-Miss (Alton Marsh, AOPA Pilot)

If you want to do it, contact:

For warbirds (including T-34's and other military trainers), Formation And Safety Team (FAST) via your type club.

For civilian types (especially Grumman, Swift, and RV):
Stu McCurdy
Formation Flight, Inc.
3509 Gattis School Road
Round Rock, Texas 78664

 

[mikea]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

While this statement is true, it suggests that it's OK to use that frequency, and it's not. 123.45 is assigned to a number of major aircraft manufacturers as a flight test operations frequency, and you don't need to be interfering with their operations. Besides being an FCC violation, you do not need to cross swords with folks like Boeing and Lockheed who have a lot of lawyers on staff. If you need a frequency for formation, use the approved ones (122.75, etc) or get one assigned for your formation flying organization.

Capt. Joe D'Eon mentioned on his "Fly with Me" podcast that the airliners use "fingers" to chat to each other when flying out over the Pacific, but there's no FCC in charge there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Aviation Safety Magazine - Formation Flying Freq

Capt. Joe D'Eon mentioned on his "Fly with Me" podcast that the airliners use "fingers" to chat to each other when flying out over the Pacific, but there's no FCC in charge there.

In the Oceanic FIR's (i.e., over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans), 123.45 is an authorized air-to-air freq for all users. Over the Continental US, it is not, and is reserved for the flight test users/uses noted above.

 

[ejensen]

I let mine expire....

Me too.

 

[mikea]

Me too.

Me four.

It was something about how it's OK to fly in thunderstorms...and 0/0 takeoffs are legal...and you don't need an O2 monitor - You'll know if you're going to pass out...and there were a few more I don't remember.

I'm sure there has been more similar "wisdom" since I stopped getting the issues.

 

[Lance F]

Although I may be surpassed by a few participants on this board (insert smiley face here), I'm pretty regulatory anal to coin a phrase. But regarding 123.45 is there ANY documented evidence of anybody having to face those Boeing or Lockheed or ??? lawyers for using this frequency plane to plane?

 

[ejensen]

Although I may be surpassed by a few participants on this board (insert smiley face here), I'm pretty regulatory anal to coin a phrase. But regarding 123.45 is there ANY documented evidence of anybody having to face those Boeing or Lockheed or ??? lawyers for using this frequency plane to plane?

No and they'd probably have to work through the FCC making it even less likely there would be a real problem. You're right the risks are slim. But that said, I've worked in frequency management (USFS) long enough to believe you can't be choosing you're own frequencies. Our fire crews sometimes take it on themselves to find a 'inter-crew' freq on a fire. Several times they've managed to interfer with another agency using the Federal VHF spectrum. Like ICE or FBI. Now those guys do care. Authorization can change as can priorities. Didn't 122.85 just go away as an alternate air-to-air. FCC also makes temporary assignments in times of emergency. Anyway, I choose to not take a chance on what I might be messing up 100+ miles away and share 122.75 as best I can. It would be nice if some of the very busy practice areas would get a discrete freq and also the Lake Powell tours planes.

Edit: And it one thing for an individual to make the choice. A National magazine with the word Safety in the title should not.

OK, rant off.

 

[Ken Ibold]

...and there were a few more I don't remember.

"Flying overweight" was my personal favorite, followed closely by "Ice: Gutting it out." Neither of which would have seen the light of day had I had the authority to say no.