Low flying Stearman incident. October 4, 2023

[JohnB]

I saw this the other day on the UK Key publishing forum and PPRUNE and was surprised no one has mentioned it here.

Two very low flying restored Stearmans (no, not AG aircraft) flew low over a Mississippi cotton field, the right landing gear of one clipped a stationary cotton picking machine, losing its leg in the process.
The plane made a forced landing a short distance away. No injuries.
I have to wonder if the prop didn't clip the machine as well?

The incident was caught by two cell phone videos.

The farm machine that was hit was manned at the time, so things could have ended very badly.

According to the registration provided by the Aviation Safety Network website, the plane was owned/operated by Air Repair Inc, a very well known Stearman rebuilder.

Details and links to two videos here:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/346258

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens to the pilot by the FAA.

[Hooligan2]

Do you post on PPRUNE John?

Daft accident, imagine FAA will have a word or two.

[Dave Hadfield]

I saw that too, and copied it.

It appears that #2 was looking at Lead to stay in formation, which of course is proper.

I'll be presenting this at our Annual Recurrent Training next spring as a formation-training-discussion exercise. "Lead must always keep wingmen in mind."

[JohnB]

I read the posts on Pprune blaming the leader.

Yes, when performing tight formation aerobatics, follow the leader to avoid collisions, but flying straight and level in a two-ship, I would expect the #2 to use common sense and avoid hitting things.
After all, they weren't flying in an area where they had to stay tight. A bit of lateral separate would not have endangered others in the formation because it was just a two-ship.

The incident aircraft could have steered left (away from the other ac) to miss the machine without risking collision with the other aircraft.
Better yet, ease back on the stick and gain a few feet of altitude to avoid hitting the machine and its driver.

I bet the feds won't buy the "follow the leader" as an excuse.
At some point the PIC is responsible for "see and avoid" even if he is in a formation and dealing with the Stearman's not so great forward visibility.

I haven't seen any photos of the forced landing, but in a best case scenario, that lapse in judgement cost about $100k in damages...engine, prop, lower right wing.

I get it, Stearman were pretty much made to fly low over Mississippi cotton fields and have been doing so for a long time, but General Aviation and the war bird community doesn't need any more bad PR, increased federal oversight and higher insurance rates due to REALLY avoidable accidents.

[OD/NG]

I read the posts on Pprune blaming the leader.

Yes, when performing tight formation aerobatics, follow the leader to avoid collisions, but flying straight and level in a two-ship, I would expect the #2 to use common sense and avoid hitting things.
After all, they weren't flying in an area where they had to stay tight. A bit of lateral separate would not have endangered others in the formation because it was just a two-ship.

The incident aircraft could have steered left (away from the other ac) to miss the machine without risking collision with the other aircraft.
Better yet, ease back on the stick and gain a few feet of altitude to avoid hitting the machine and its driver.

I bet the feds won't buy the "follow the leader" as an excuse.
At some point the PIC is responsible for "see and avoid" even if he is in a formation and dealing with the Stearman's not so great forward visibility.

I haven't seen any photos of the forced landing, but in a best case scenario, that lapse in judgement cost about $100k in damages...engine, prop, lower right wing.

I get it, Stearman were pretty much made to fly low over Mississippi cotton fields and have been doing so for a long time, but General Aviation and the war bird community doesn't need any more bad PR, increased federal oversight and higher insurance rates due to REALLY avoidable accidents.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how formation works. The leader is to blame in this case, not the wingman.

[JohnB]

No, I understand completely, call me old fashioned, but I think any PIC, a wingman or not, has the responsibility of NOT hitting something.

When I did my training, the instructor did not have to tell me not to hit something.
Some things are given.
And avoiding a large, stationary, brightly colored piece of farm equipment would be a given to me.

This wasn't combat, not a fast jet aerobatic team where follow the leader is critical from a safety standpoint.
Thankfully, it wasn't the 1982 Thunderbirds crash.

Okay, let's play legalese...
We don't know how formal the formation flight was.
For all we know it was just two guys out having fun and one guy was in front.
If they had a formal preflight briefing saying "I'm the lead, you're my wingman", that would be one thing.
Did he take formal responsibility for the flight?
Was he aware he was supposed to be looking out for #2?

Do the FAA rules automatically make the guy in front the official/legal/responsible formation lead?

I would guess in absence of a officially stated agreed upon formation, the lead figured the second pilot would look after himself.
I bet that's what the lead pilot's attorney is saying.

On top of whatever lead/wingman justification may or may not be out there, the fact remains they busted legal limits by flying too low to the occupied vehicle.

Per the FAA:
"An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

If the accident pilot uses the "I was only following...blame the other guy" defense, will he use the same line to excuse the busted altitude rule?
Would the FAA buy that?

Interesting stuff.

[Tim Savage]

.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how formation works. The leader is to blame in this case, not the wingman.[/quote]

Exactly. If I am flying lead and I see my wingman looking the other direction then he will quickly be a single ship because I will be up and out of there. Every single formation pilot I have talked to about this incident has said the same thing…and I have talked to quite a few. Including a guy who makes his living flying close formation.

Last edited by Tim Savage on Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Hooligan2]

I recall a Mustang pair displaying at an airshow years ago, wingman echelon right. The lead got quite low during one curving dive in to the display line - not sure how close to the ground his number two was but I'd say considerably less than 50 feet; several people commented on it later - I imagine it was discussed by the pilots and the safety team.

[Dave Hadfield]

John B, It's not physically possible to look and focus at two places at once.

I agree that it was not a close formation, and of course as I've said many times "accident investigation by social media is unprofessional"; but in my own experience as #2 I've found that I can hardly glance away from Lead to check the coolant temp gauge. The instant I look away I start to move out of position.

We worked-up this 3-ship formation last summer. I'm in the Spitfire. All I saw during practice was a brown hunchbacked airplane.

[Dan Jones]

I don’t think the FAA is gonna absolve the pilot who hit the machine of responsibility because “he was #2 and just following lead”. He was the PIC. If this were “done properly” (so to speak) it would have been the lead that hit the combine, not his wingman. Not scraping your wingmen off on terrain or obstacles is responsibility ONE for the leader.

Idiots, both of them. And judging by how quickly the incident aircraft landed I’d suspect he did get the prop as well.

[Matt Gunsch]

when you are flying wing, your entire focus is on keeping 2 points on the lead plane aligned, and nothing else. You do not look at your instruments, or radios, or anything else. I was #4 in a 4 ship. rt echelon, doing a low pass with a LT fan break, all I saw was my leader, and cactus and trees flashing by in my peripheral vision, but you cannot take your eyes off your lead.

[Randy Haskin]

Yes, it is 100% lead's responsibility to clear for the formation, and it is #2's responsibility to be in position or correcting. Those roles and responsibilities are part of the contract between two pilots when they decide to fly formation together.

As Tim said, when #2 starts mistrusting #1 enough that he starts to clear his own flight path, it is time to stop flying formation together.

Yes, the FAA will call both of them to the carpet.

20160411190136-f262a5b2.jpg (223.41 KiB) Viewed 4655 times

[Randy Haskin]

when you are flying wing, your entire focus is on keeping 2 points on the lead plane aligned, and nothing else. You do not look at your instruments, or radios, or anything else.

Well, that's overstating things a bit.

A wingman should be entirely capable of glances away from the aircraft he is in formation with (to make radio frequency changes and make "ops checks" of engine and fuel gauges) without hitting the other aircraft or making major deviations from the tolerances of formation position.

The "never take your eyes off lead, ever!!" mantra is repeated in NATA quite often, but that is a NATA cultural decision...not an absolute statement about formation flying writ large. It mostly has to do with the training, experience, and proficiency level of the pilots who participate in NATA formations.

But, as it applies to the topic of this thread, those other tasks do not include clearing your own flightpath.

[Chris Brame]

HOLY ____! Info and outcome please??

[Dan Jones]

I don’t think “Billy & Bubba” are going to be treated as would be the Thunderbirds or the Blue Angels. I’d say they’re in trouble.