Formation Flying over Lucan

numbnutz

Is there anything to say that formation flying over a densely populated area is prohibited. This morning we have Baldonnel's finest formation flying over housing estates. Airshows are conducted away from populated areas and their flight plans certainly do not perform formation flying over housing estates so why are we different in this country?

Tenger

Just them there myself. Looked to be 3 PC-9s. But they were quite distant, may have been 4.

Airshows acrobatic displays aren't the same as formation flying as part of a transit.

pidgeoneyes

numbnutz wrote: »

Is there anything to say that formation flying over a densely populated area is prohibited. This morning we have Baldonnel's finest formation flying over housing estates. Airshows are conducted away from populated areas and their flight plans certainly do not perform formation flying over housing estates so why are we different in this country?

It's a flypast for the National Day of Commemoration. Not an airshow.

numbnutz

I know its not an airshow. It was just for context in relation to formation flying and safety...that's all.
Don't get me wrong it's a great sight and I love watching them in Baldonnel when I get the chance, I just didn't know what the answer to my question was.

Gaoth Laidir

numbnutz wrote: »

Is there anything to say that formation flying over a densely populated area is prohibited. This morning we have Baldonnel's finest formation flying over housing estates. Airshows are conducted away from populated areas and their flight plans certainly do not perform formation flying over housing estates so why are we different in this country?

Minimum altitude above a built-up area is 1500 ft agl, unless on approach or departure from an airport. You live between two buse airports so you shouldn't be surprised to have planes flying over.

EchoIndia

numbnutz wrote: »

Is there anything to say that formation flying over a densely populated area is prohibited.

If it was prohibited do you think the Air Corps would regularly conduct such activities?

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Minimum altitude above a built-up area is 1500 ft agl, unless on approach or departure from an airport. You live between two buse airports so you shouldn't be surprised to have planes flying over.

GAT has their own 'Rules of the Air'. So the above won't necessarily apply to them.

r93kaey5p2izun

Are you new to Lucan? Planes of all types are a regular feature, given proximity to Weston, Baldonnel and even Dublin Airport. Formation flying happens over Lucan every summer with the air shows. Light aircraft doing laps all weekend is the norm. The only thing I've ever had concern about is the towing of banners, which is thankfully less common these days.

GBX

numbnutz wrote: »

Is there anything to say that formation flying over a densely populated area is prohibited. This morning we have Baldonnel's finest formation flying over housing estates. Airshows are conducted away from populated areas and their flight plans certainly do not perform formation flying over housing estates so why are we different in this country?

The airfield has been in use since 1917. Long before people lived in the housing estates in Lucan and other areas close by.

faoiarvok

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Minimum altitude above a built-up area is 1500 ft agl, unless on approach or departure from an airport. You live between two buse airports so you shouldn't be surprised to have planes flying over.

SERA 5005 says:

(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

That’s a general rule though, not formations in particular. Is there a formation rule?

Also worth noting these rules are for civil aviation, and while military will normally conform to them too, they’re not necessarily bound by them.

EchoIndia

A playback of FR24 from this morning shows the flight at 1,700 feet when holding.

numbnutz

Thanks for the replies. Very much appreciated.

HTCOne

As said, the military can pretty much do whatever they want. Civil rules don't apply to them. If they are operating under due regard or declare MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft), they don't even have to talk to ATC.

HTCOne

HTCOne wrote: »

As said, the military can pretty much do whatever they want. Civil rules don't apply to them. If they are operating under due regard or declare MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft), they don't even have to talk to ATC.

MARSA only applies in the USA, it’s an FAA term.

HTCOne

Deleted User wrote: »

MARSA only applies in the USA, it’s an FAA term.

Well that explains why only US mil have ever done it to me, thanks 👍

AnRothar

Deleted User wrote: »

GAT has their own 'Rules of the Air'. So the above won't necessarily apply to them.

GAT is general air traffic.
OAT is Operational Air Traffic or outside air temperature depending on who you ask.

MARSA only applies in the USA, it’s an FAA term.

Incorrect Eurocontrol also used it.


2.4.2 Safety Distance between two or more Formation Flights

2.4.2.2 This responsibility shall be accepted from the respective formation leaders by
stating “MARSA” , relieving the ATCO from his responsibility to maintain prescribed
IFR separation minima in regard to the formation flights concerned.

Sorry correct, I meant OAT.

You’ll find MARSA is used in Europe because of the large number of US military traffic in Germany etc. It isn’t used here which is more to the point.

AnRothar

Deleted User wrote: »

You’ll find MARSA is used in Europe because of the large number of US military traffic in Germany etc.

You are incorrect.
Eurocontrol saught to develop rules for the enhanced integration of Operational Air Traffic in the European region.

It was suggested that the current US phrase could be used.

Hence the adoption in 2018.
Why invent something when a perfectly good phrase already exists.

wrote:

It isn’t used here which is more to the point.

I respectfully must correct your misunderstanding but it is used "here".