I did training in the early 90's, IP the first time in late 90s/early 2000s and second time 2006-2010.

A few comments:

- Someone mentioned ground loops in the OA-1K. It's already happened.

- Wing landings: it was a single mishap in late 2019 at Vance (not Randolph) that led to the abrupt ending of wing landings. I believe it was the only wing landing Class A mishap in the 60 year history of the T-38.

- Since they couldn't do wing landings anymore in AETC, it forced them to "drop the wingman off" while the flight lead did a closed to a full stop behind the wingman.

- Ironically, 2 years later, that decision led to yet another fatality collision and crash on the runway that wouldn't have happened had it been a wing landing. Unintended consequences.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/instr ... -38-crash/
Knee jerking (the USAF standard) and throwing out wing landings maybe should be been thought through a little better?

- One person here posted this: "Even then, lead could go around and let wing land, or get some separation once they break out visually." Yeah, I agree. And one would think so. But someone died trying to do just that.

- I have no idea where the idea that formation landings had become "separate single ship landings on their half of the runway", but this is not the case from anything I've ever seen. Once going to stack level (and 10'-50' lateral spacing), the pilot maintains that position through the approach and touchdown. Yes, I've seen plenty of pilots chicken out in the flare and transition to their own landing... but that isn't what is taught.

- I've seen no significant changes in how T-38 formation approaches and landings are taught over the past 39 years.

Maybe USAF, USN and USMC just did them different?

IIRC the mishap report on the Vance fatality mentioned the each aircraft landing in the middle of their half of the runway.

I caught my eye was being a very bizarre way of doing them.

So you lead a plane down near landing and go around, and then the wing aircraft has to go around due to a vehicle on the runway. What then?

Well the lead plane has continued on and is above and to the left or right and he flies back up to join on his lead.
We must be missing something here in the conversation between formation talk, terms or services.

Well the lead plane has continued on and is above and to the left or right and he flies back up to join on his lead.
We must be missing something here in the conversation between formation talk, terms or services.

Pretty extreme...but three ideas.
First...Naval Aviation mins for single piloted aircraft are 200 1/2.
So shouldn't be attempting that approach.
Second if they did, why can't they conduct a section landing?
Third... maybe that is a one shot deal then.

Pretty extreme...but three ideas.
First...Naval Aviation mins for single piloted aircraft are 200 1/2.
So shouldn't be attempting that approach.
Second if they did, why can't they conduct a section landing?
Third... maybe that is a one shot deal then.

I went and looked at the accident report and found the sentence you are referring to. How should the landing be accomplished? #1 lands on one side of the centerline, obviously. #2 looks out and does a safety check just to ensure they are lined up safely on their side of the runway... but they still fly the landing off of #1. Runway 35C at Vance is 150' wide... so if done correctly, each jet should be near the center of their respective half.

2. If I lead a two-ship on a formation approach and initiate the go-around (probably around 500' AGL), I'll be in Mil power and cleaning up. If the wingman decides 3"-5" (or more) to go-around, they will be in trail of me. They can request permission to rejoin with me, or they can stay as a singleton and go to the overhead.

3. As for the IMC approaches, or any other scenarios, how the pilots approach the situation is based on their training and the specifics of the situation. They are paid to make solid decisions and the outcome will vary between different pilots.

The way we did it when I was flying, you increased your wingtip separation from 3 feet to 5 - 6 feet. Lead landed on the middle to slightly towards centerline and the wingman ended up just over the centerline.

150 feet wide runway 75 feet from center to center of the halves.

T-38 wingspan is 25 feet. So that means you are trying to fly a formation landing with 50 foot wing tip clearance.

If you're taking the phrase "center of your half" to be literal and precise, then yes. But 10'-50' wingtip separation is what Stack Level should be... and by definition, that's what the spacing for a wing landing should be. I personally tried to be 10'-20' wide.

I don't understand what you mean by moving from fingertip out to 5'-6'. I have never heard of that. Are you saying that you actually touched down with 5'-6' lateral spacing?

Once on glideslope and clear of the weather, the wingman should move from fingertip to Stack Level.

It really is a shame they got rid of Wing Landings. They were challenging and a lot of fun. The entire training process is dumbing down. For example, three of the four USAF pilot training bases have a new syllabus where students get 39 sorties in the T-6... are awarded their wings... and move to the next phase of training. In the case of those going to heavies, they head to their new airframe and start training there. With just 39 sorties (about 55 hours) of turbine time in the T-6 turboprop.

Whoa, wait... so you're saying that a dude headed for KC-135s will allegedly have a whopping 55 hours TT when they start -135 sim training?? Holy crap...

YES, that is what the USAF changed to according to the mishap report I read. LITERALLY each airplane in the middle of their half of the runway.

Maybe out to 10 feet, but NOT 50 feet.

Did they stop training the multi engine students in T-1s after the T-6?

I remember reading that the T-1s were getting old and worn out, so they were looking at alternative path. At least while looking for a new airplane.

I just checked and I had 82 hours in the T-37. Under the 2 track system, that would be the split between fighter/attach/recce (T-38) and tanker/transport/bomber (T-1). But that included a good bit of formation flying.

So it looks like they are not that far off, but instead of T-1, just moving them to the final aircraft instead of the T-1.

Not sure how this works out economically.