Ok but what is formation flying? This could be debated

There's something missing in all this. I don't get the problem. This is NOT a formation with 1,000 feet ATC assigned separation.

First, this was NOT an air traffic controller, but a supervisor, just like in DCA last week. Yes, the agency actually has supervisors who were never controllers, or failed trainees, etc. They typically aren't checked out on all positions in a facility / radar facility area, and most definitely did NOT get to their lofty positions based on being a stellar air traffic controller.

Second, on the surface, I see no loss of separation, and actually I don't see a problem. There is something missing. Every day, aircraft pass each other at 1,000 feet ALL OVER THE WORLD, safely and legally. Having the crew ask to check on another aircraft, regardless of type, or how man pax on board, seems perfectly responsible and reasonable to me with 1,000 feet separation.

Third, it doesn't appear that the Cirrus was VFR. Also, wake turbulence shouldn't be an issue here.

Lastly, visual separation doesn't appear to have been used, or necessary. Also, visual separation is not applicable for enroute operations (not sure if this was terminal or enroute ops). ATC must have communication with both aircraft, or the ABILITY to communicate with both:

b. EN ROUTE. Visual separation may be used up
to but not including FL 180 when the following
conditions are met:
1. Direct communication is maintained with one
of the aircraft involved and there is an ability to
communicate with the other.

a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied
between aircraft under the control of the same facility
within the terminal area up to but not including
FL180, provided:
1. Communication is maintained with at least
one of the aircraft involved or the capability to
communicate immediately as prescribed in
para3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara
a2 is available, and:
2. The aircraft are visually observed by the
tower and visual separation is maintained between
the aircraft by the tower. The tower shall not provide
visual separation between aircraft when wake
turbulence separation is required or when the lead
aircraft is a B757.
3. A pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed
to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as
follows:
(a) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft
including position, direction and, unless it is obvious,
the other aircraft's intention.
(b) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot
that the other aircraft is in sight."

I think your wording needs a little clean up. The controller will ASSIGN visual separation when certain conditions are met.

The pilot may either comply, or like virtually any clearance, turn it down based on safety.

All technicalities aside, I think the biggest point is, as a pilot, why put yourself in a position you would have to explain later on? Sadly, we live in a litigious society where it pays to try to think like an attorney would – in what context are my actions going to be framed on?

Sometimes good intentions can come back and bite us in the butt. Be careful out there.

As to the "definition" of Formation flying....you won't find one. As far as the FAA is concerned, it's contained in 91.111 where it says that no airplane shall fly close enough to another to create a 'hazard'. To me, that's a loose enough phrase for any FAA lawyer to drive a 737 through so I don't want to test the boundaries.

If ATC asks me to be a comms relay for a lost jet...hey, glad to help. If he asks me during the normal course of my route from departure to destination airport to look out the window for somebody, I'll do my darndest. The problem comes when he starts actively vectoring me or asking me to climb/descend for the sole purpose of getting me closer to another jet when I'm full of paying pax who didn't sign up for that. All the articles I've seen (including the FAA's own press release) say that there was a loss of normal separation standards. That to me says that either the controller purposely vectored/descended the 737 into a closer position for no other reason than a 'look see' or the 737 crew voluntarily maneuvered their jet towards another aircraft...either way it just doesn't pass the sniff test to me

But hey, last week I had no problem with the crews landing at DCA once they declared it an uncontrolled field and set up the approach that way. I guess that's what these boards are for, to debate different viewpoints of what we would have done from our comfy armchairs.

I just read the article on CNN among other sources. At first I heard the controller was suspended...

After reading that the crew was suspended as well is just outrageous! In fact, it's infuriating.

This type of thing de-incentivizes moral behavior that can help save lives!

Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies - CNN.com

It's hard to make an informed judgement if we don't know how close the aircraft came.

Now, how close are aircraft flying into SNA? Are they closer than the SW jet was to the Cirrus? If yes, is the FAA, and D.S. Babbitt, going to go back and take thousands of pilots, and controllers, licenses that have operated into SNA? How about parallel visuals? Is that seperation unsafe?

Let's find out what the seperation actually was.

How about the old STOL operations in DCA with Dash 7's? :D
What was that seperation???? :eek:

It was not only unsafe, it was, at best, foolhardy. How close do you think you'd have to get to read the registration number?

Makes me pine for the good old days! Which actually were quite good.

The good old days always seem to look better in retrospect. The last 4 years have had a single air carrier fatality. I think in terms of safety, these are the good old days.

I may not have eagle eyes but in order to see inside of a Cirrus I am going to need to be a lot closer than 1000 ft and I'm guessing inside of 1/4 mile. Forget that. Do you think they wrote on the back of the release "contact APP on 123.45" and put it up to the window?