Warbird Information Exchange

What are thoughts on staggered landings? I think they were fine for the days when 21 year olds were flying airplanes that would get replaced by their uncle (Uncle Sam, that is), but they may not be appropriate today. First, let me say that I am completely opposed to tandem lane riding as regards motorcycles. This is where a pair of motorcycles rides side by side in a single road lane. With two very skilled riders, with much experience riding this way with each other, this practice reduces the way out of any situation and there are still accidents, so it is out for me. So that prejudices me as far as the staggered landings. After reading the preliminary NTSB report, I don't think I'd be inclined to take a tower instruction or pre-flight brief to do one. PLEASE: I don't want discussion of the faults of the recent British two-plane riot variety, just objective discussion from pilot, operation, and safety standpoints of staggered landings...

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

there is nothing wrong with staggered landings, as long as everyone does what they are supposed to, but, it is like driving, someone can do what they are not supposed to do sometimes and accidents happen. Normally you land staggered on a runway that is wide enought to fit 2 plane side by side, and then just land on each side the runway, turning one runway into 2. All are supposed to roll to the end of the runway before making any turning. Also, it is the only way to get a large numbers of planes on the ground in a short amount of time. At Oshkosh, we could land 60+ planes in a few minutes due to staggered landing, if we had to land one at a time, it would have taken more than twice as long

Staggered take offs and landings have their place. As pointed out they are great for getting aircraft up quickly and down quickly. Pretty tedious watching the Red Arrows/Thunderbirds/'insert formation team name here' taking off in stream and would be very slow (not than I would suggest the mass take off sometimes used by the Spanish team should be used routinely).
Some airforces use staggered takeoffs (well most do) and it is a quick way of getting birds in the air...but it is also now very much risk based...i.e. benefit vs cost (of something going wrong).

For warbirds, many, being tail draggers, have poor forward field of view in the landing/taxying configuration, hence the desire to watch the runway until the last moment....this gives rise to the classic curved approach we often see in the UK.
So what can go wrong on a staggered landing or take-off....catastrophic tyre burst, strong crosswind effects, ground loop....loss of power should not be a problem before 'rotate'....however it may be for a streamed take-off unless an abort call comes quick enuff.

Oh my goodness youve got me working on my day off!!! I had just taken a rest from rivetting having put in 3 dodgy ones in in a row! Better take the dog for a walk....a Scottie puppy called Merlin...what else should you call your dog??!!

Back on thread...thanx for a thought provoking discussion.

_________________
Cheers
Tony
check my website!
www.airdefencecollection.co.uk

At the Gathering we used a modified staggered landing. The first guy landed long and everyone else landed progressively shorter and staggered. We were briefed to roll out, to clear at the end of the runway. The runways were long and wide and we all still handled it like a live rattlesnake.
My opinion is that most civilian warbird pilots have no business with staggered landings other than the way they were done at the Gathering. True staggered landings just don't give you a way out if something goes south.
Incidentally, these kind of things were covered in great detail at the Gathering and had obviously been thought through by people who had extensive experience in the aircraft. It is, I think, why the event was able to be pulled off with zero incidents. We also had terrific input from some Air Force types who obviously knew how to get a lot of airplanes moving in the same direction safely.
In another thread the procedure of formation landings was alluded to.
There are maybe 6 out of 200 tailwheel warbird guys who do formation landings (the usual suspects that do the great formation aerobatics). Our Fighter Formation handbook specifically says that we do not do formation landings. The events like the Spit/Hurricane and the Mustangs at Oshkosh are a result of 2 guys accidentally trying to land on the same piece of real estate, not a formation landing.
[/u]

This is my last post for tonight before getting comfy with a newly acquired back issue of WD.....

Hi there Forgotten Field, how ya been. I'm with you 100% in being against tandem m/c riding. Used to really torque off my road captain but I still refused. My brother lost a college chum like that.
BTW that blankey blank T-craft is still sitting in the shed at Schullsburg. I've washed my hands of it.

I think Cyclone would be a good dog name. (sorry Blake)

tailwinds,
Doug Ratchford 'Canso42'

Not even close,

The Mustangs at Osh, were NOT flying formation, NOR was any formation landing briefed. The A model was not even on the ground when he hit the D model, and they both appeared to be in the center of the runway, with the A model slightly left of center, judging by the prop strikes on the D models fuselage.

In Bill's case, it appears that he was right, and it was either a brain fart or a mechanical problem by the Hurri pilot.

You are right that in a staggered landing that all planes roll to the end of the runway, and at OSH, the T-6s would turn off the runway on the side they were on. It can be done, and done safely, and has been for many years.

The FAST program does not require formation landings for tailwheel planes, and prefers wheel landings, and to keep the tail up as long as possiable, to allow for forward vision. But as Bill pointed out in a earlier post, the Hurri pilot did not have a FAST card, so maybe he did not know the rules for staggerad landings.

FWIW, military trainer guys perform staggered takeoffs and landings all the time with no incident. These are with students on board and a high volume of traffic. There's nother inherently risky about it so long as everyone knows and follows the rules.

The difference with warbirds doing it, as Matt pointed out, is the visibility issue with a wheel landing vs a 3-point landing.

I'm with Randy on this one.

All my military training was for staggered take-offs and landings, and, fortunately, I never had any problems... That's probably why I now find it so difficult to land even a 172 on the center line! (Well, that's my excuse..and I'm sticking to it )

Julian

Matt, I did not mean to imply and I don't think I wrote that the Hurricane pilot did not know the procedures for landing as per airshow practice. I don't believe I ever said that.
In a post before the show I wrote I hoped to fly "with" the Hurricane. An Eagle eye WIX reader asked if I was going to fly the Hurri or in formation. I just wrote back that we'd fly single file not in formation as he did not have that card. Lot's of competent pilots don't take the time to get the card, it doesn't bear on the landings in my opinion.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill,
I was just pointing out that he did not have a FAST card, and maybe he did not know the FAST way of staggered landings. I do know there are alot out there without the card, I am one, and I have done alot of staggered landings. It could have been as simple as a brain fart.

When I rode on the drill team, we had one rider that caused a accident because of a brain fart, he turned left, when he should have gone right, and this was after 4 months of practicing the same show. After it happened, he just shook his head and said he could not believe he did it, Brain fart, plain and simple.
No one is perfect and a FAST card might not have prevented it from happening. That is why is is caused human error.

HMMM, I know they have thing like gasex, for regular farts, I wonder if they have something for brain farts.

What a tough group. The only point that I was trying to share was that neither incident was the result of a formation landing. The question of formation landings had been raised earlier in another post about the Spit/Hurricane incident.

We civilian warbird pilots do land and takeoff in formation in tricycle gear aircraft, the T-34 and T-28 groups are both great at it. They practice endlessly and have been operating safely for some time. I imagine that the military jets, flying daily, with a nosewheel could handle the procedures with no problem either. I have never had the opportunity to fly a military jet.

Most of us also prefer to wheel land a high performance conventional gear airplane. I know what was done in training 60 plus years ago, I have the dash one for several of the old planes, but I am saying that everyone that I know lands the fighter on the wheels. Besides the obvious visibility issue, it keeps the rudder in the landing longer, giving us directional control on the runway longer. Other than the Spit and the 109 in Michigan I don't remember seeing anyone do a 3-point landing in a vintage fighter. There is good reason.

I'd be amused if they really refer to this as "tandem" riding since tandem means one behind the other, not side-by-side.

Guess not a lot of bikers are English teachers...

August

It seems like standard procedure in the military when they do a formation landing to have the last one in the formation touch down first....so he starts slowing down immediately and doesn't overrun the others.... Then the lead touches down last.... I would think that even in a taildragger warbird, the planes in front would be staggered several feet higher so they would still be seen even without a wheel landing.... Am I dreaming? This technique was passed on to me by an old F-4 pilot....

_________________
Civis Aerius Sum

I am a citizen of the Air

Who touches down first all depends on how well the wingman is flying his position! In a perfect formation landing, the lead and wingman's mains touch down simultaneously. The wingman's formation position is called "stack level", and is different than the typical fingertip formation position. Even though the wingman's mains are further aft than lead's -- and the landing takes place with enough pitch that the wingman's mains would touch down first if he were in a normal fingertip position -- if he is in a good stack level position he should touch down at the same time.

After touchdown -- in both the Eagle and Talon this is how we did it -- the wingman goes immediately into his aerobrake to ensure that he's slowing first and won't move too far forward in his formation position. The lead pauses a couple potatoes, ensures the wingman is fully into his aerobrake and that there is no overtake problem, and then goes into his full aerobrake. Can't speak to how they did it in the F-4 days.

In the F-4 days, wouldn't they have called it 'aero-brick'??
(sorry couldn't help it - love that rhino!!)
VL