banner
banner

12 Jun 2025, 00:55 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 14 May 2025, 22:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:

When was that?

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


So it seems like they changed in the 80s. I wonder why.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 14 May 2025, 23:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/03/15
Posts: 117
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: King Air
Attachment:
IMG_5359.jpeg
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.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Last edited on 15 May 2025, 13:51, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 15 May 2025, 06:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5571
Post Likes: +4295
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:

So it seems like they changed in the 80s. I wonder why.

Maybe USAF, USN and USMC just did them different? :shrug:


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 24 May 2025, 12:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
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?


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 24 May 2025, 19:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5571
Post Likes: +4295
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:
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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 24 May 2025, 21:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
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.


Say 100 foot ceiling with a PAR. Wingman transitions to runway, lead adds power and is IMC. Now what?

Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 25 May 2025, 06:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5571
Post Likes: +4295
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:

Say 100 foot ceiling with a PAR. Wingman transitions to runway, lead adds power and is IMC. Now what?

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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 25 May 2025, 21:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:

Say 100 foot ceiling with a PAR. Wingman transitions to runway, lead adds power and is IMC. Now what?

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.


That is the point, the USAF is no longer teaching section landings.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 10 Jun 2025, 09:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/03/15
Posts: 117
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: King Air
Username Protected wrote:
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?


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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: 10 Jun 2025, 10:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
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.


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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: Yesterday, 19:50 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/03/15
Posts: 117
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: King Air
Username Protected wrote:
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.


Last edited on 11 Jun 2025, 22:23, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/07/17
Posts: 553
Post Likes: +1081
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: B737,RV8,T28,B25,C47
Username Protected wrote:
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...


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
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 are 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.


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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 959
Post Likes: +982
Location: Hayward, CA
Aircraft: D50E
Username Protected wrote:
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.


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: OA-1K Skyraider
PostPosted: Yesterday, 21:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 2312
Post Likes: +1337
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
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.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



B-Kool (Top/Bottom Banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.