Narrative:

On the date in question, both aircraft departed centennial with a prearranged prebriefed plan to form up after departing the airport area and to conduct formation flight operations. Having flown in formation for several mins, it was agreed, via air-to-air communication, that the aircraft would break formation and continue operations as single ships, to form up thereafter prior to returning to centennial. Almost immediately upon breaking formation, aircraft #2 commenced vigorous aerobatic maneuvers, without first clearing the airspace and, generally, in what was regarded by the pilot and passenger in aircraft #1 as operation without regard to due consideration to safety, other aircraft in the area, and airway/controled airspace. Aircraft #2 continued with an erratic and rather complete aerobatic profile for 20-30 mins, whereupon, at the persistent request of aircraft #1, it finally reformed with aircraft #1 in a loose formation, for return to centennial. Most of the aerobatic maneuvers performed by aircraft #2 were observed to have taken place in the vicinity of the colorado springs airport, on the airway between denver and colorado springs. In preflight, aircraft #1 had requested that aircraft #2 maintain voice communication with aircraft #1 and appropriate ATC facilities at all times. Contrary to the briefing, aircraft #2 did not do so. Upon returning to centennial in 'very loose' formation (with aircraft #1 in contact with den approach, and contrary to direction from aircraft #1), aircraft #2 entered class B airspace without prior approval. Thereafter, aircraft #2 was observed 'buzzing' the 'pinery,' a residential community just south of the centennial airport. Following the low high speed pass over the pinery, aircraft #2 abruptly pitched up and turned toward the centennial air traffic area. Most of the aforementioned occurred, at one time or other within the confines of class B and or C and or D and or east airspace. (This is inclusive of the aerobatic and formation 'flying' attempted by the 2 aircraft.) as the aircraft approached centennial on the return from the 'mission,' aircraft #1, unable to evoke any response from aircraft #2 prior to the latter's high speed low approach over the 'pinery,' advised den approach that he (aircraft #1) would continue inbound as a single ship for landing at centennial. Upon returning to centennial, having been rather 'rattled' with this entire experience, and although I was handed off by approach to centennial tower, the tower suggested that I had not made 2-WAY radio contact with it, soon enough, prior to re-entering its airspace. In fact, I thought the tower had gotten quite 'testy' with me. I returned the favor with an 'exchange of words.' what I have relearned from this experience is, first, that the cockpit is no place for the resolution of disputes, particularly with ATC. (Such matters can and should be addressed at another time and place. For example, on the ground after the completion of the flight.) in this instance, I lost sight of these principles. Candidly, I am ashamed of my lack of professionalism as a pilot, in having done so. Secondly, and also in the relearned category, the wisdom of the axiom of never attempting formation flight with someone whose flying skills and attitude are unknown to you, was once again impressed upon me. Although the foregoing might be viewed as relating principally to the operations of aircraft #2, I am submitting this report out of concern that I might be viewed as having some complicity in, and/or responsibility for, said operations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTING PLT OF THE #1 P51 MUSTANGS, OF A FLT OF 2, OBSERVED #2 DOING AEROBATICS IN CLASS B AIRSPACE AND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN AIRWAY. IN ADDITION, WHEN RPTING IN TO HOME BASE TWR, RPTR #1, WAS ACCUSED OF NOT CONTACTING TWR SOONER BEFORE ENTERING CLASS D AIRSPACE.

Narrative: ON THE DATE IN QUESTION, BOTH ACFT DEPARTED CENTENNIAL WITH A PREARRANGED PREBRIEFED PLAN TO FORM UP AFTER DEPARTING THE ARPT AREA AND TO CONDUCT FORMATION FLT OPS. HAVING FLOWN IN FORMATION FOR SEVERAL MINS, IT WAS AGREED, VIA AIR-TO-AIR COM, THAT THE ACFT WOULD BREAK FORMATION AND CONTINUE OPS AS SINGLE SHIPS, TO FORM UP THEREAFTER PRIOR TO RETURNING TO CENTENNIAL. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY UPON BREAKING FORMATION, ACFT #2 COMMENCED VIGOROUS AEROBATIC MANEUVERS, WITHOUT FIRST CLRING THE AIRSPACE AND, GENERALLY, IN WHAT WAS REGARDED BY THE PLT AND PAX IN ACFT #1 AS OP WITHOUT REGARD TO DUE CONSIDERATION TO SAFETY, OTHER ACFT IN THE AREA, AND AIRWAY/CTLED AIRSPACE. ACFT #2 CONTINUED WITH AN ERRATIC AND RATHER COMPLETE AEROBATIC PROFILE FOR 20-30 MINS, WHEREUPON, AT THE PERSISTENT REQUEST OF ACFT #1, IT FINALLY REFORMED WITH ACFT #1 IN A LOOSE FORMATION, FOR RETURN TO CENTENNIAL. MOST OF THE AEROBATIC MANEUVERS PERFORMED BY ACFT #2 WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE VICINITY OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS ARPT, ON THE AIRWAY BTWN DENVER AND COLORADO SPRINGS. IN PREFLT, ACFT #1 HAD REQUESTED THAT ACFT #2 MAINTAIN VOICE COM WITH ACFT #1 AND APPROPRIATE ATC FACILITIES AT ALL TIMES. CONTRARY TO THE BRIEFING, ACFT #2 DID NOT DO SO. UPON RETURNING TO CENTENNIAL IN 'VERY LOOSE' FORMATION (WITH ACFT #1 IN CONTACT WITH DEN APCH, AND CONTRARY TO DIRECTION FROM ACFT #1), ACFT #2 ENTERED CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. THEREAFTER, ACFT #2 WAS OBSERVED 'BUZZING' THE 'PINERY,' A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY JUST S OF THE CENTENNIAL ARPT. FOLLOWING THE LOW HIGH SPD PASS OVER THE PINERY, ACFT #2 ABRUPTLY PITCHED UP AND TURNED TOWARD THE CENTENNIAL ATA. MOST OF THE AFOREMENTIONED OCCURRED, AT ONE TIME OR OTHER WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CLASS B AND OR C AND OR D AND OR E AIRSPACE. (THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF THE AEROBATIC AND FORMATION 'FLYING' ATTEMPTED BY THE 2 ACFT.) AS THE ACFT APCHED CENTENNIAL ON THE RETURN FROM THE 'MISSION,' ACFT #1, UNABLE TO EVOKE ANY RESPONSE FROM ACFT #2 PRIOR TO THE LATTER'S HIGH SPD LOW APCH OVER THE 'PINERY,' ADVISED DEN APCH THAT HE (ACFT #1) WOULD CONTINUE INBOUND AS A SINGLE SHIP FOR LNDG AT CENTENNIAL. UPON RETURNING TO CENTENNIAL, HAVING BEEN RATHER 'RATTLED' WITH THIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE, AND ALTHOUGH I WAS HANDED OFF BY APCH TO CENTENNIAL TWR, THE TWR SUGGESTED THAT I HAD NOT MADE 2-WAY RADIO CONTACT WITH IT, SOON ENOUGH, PRIOR TO RE-ENTERING ITS AIRSPACE. IN FACT, I THOUGHT THE TWR HAD GOTTEN QUITE 'TESTY' WITH ME. I RETURNED THE FAVOR WITH AN 'EXCHANGE OF WORDS.' WHAT I HAVE RELEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE IS, FIRST, THAT THE COCKPIT IS NO PLACE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, PARTICULARLY WITH ATC. (SUCH MATTERS CAN AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT ANOTHER TIME AND PLACE. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE GND AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE FLT.) IN THIS INSTANCE, I LOST SIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES. CANDIDLY, I AM ASHAMED OF MY LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM AS A PLT, IN HAVING DONE SO. SECONDLY, AND ALSO IN THE RELEARNED CATEGORY, THE WISDOM OF THE AXIOM OF NEVER ATTEMPTING FORMATION FLT WITH SOMEONE WHOSE FLYING SKILLS AND ATTITUDE ARE UNKNOWN TO YOU, WAS ONCE AGAIN IMPRESSED UPON ME. ALTHOUGH THE FOREGOING MIGHT BE VIEWED AS RELATING PRINCIPALLY TO THE OPS OF ACFT #2, I AM SUBMITTING THIS RPT OUT OF CONCERN THAT I MIGHT BE VIEWED AS HAVING SOME COMPLICITY IN, AND/OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR, SAID OPS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.