|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|
|
View Poll Results: Overhead Break - Good or Bad ?
|
|
Good
|
 
|
185 |
59.49% |
|
Bad
|
 
|
126 |
40.51% |

11-07-2015, 11:29 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 527
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42
Well around here they'll say, "practice ILS approach runway XX". Never known anyone to misunderstand their intentions, unlike the guys who broadcast formation lingo.
|
Gotta say that going in to a Non-towered airport on a published approach I call something like "5mi north, straight-in on the GPS-18"
Calling out the waypoints of the GPS-18 means nothing to the VFR guys, but straight in, a runway, and distance is something they can process.
As an aside... are there many non-towered airports WITH ILS approaches?
__________________
Rob
RV-6A (Purchased)
2020 Dues Paid, of course
|

11-07-2015, 11:41 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Fantastic post Bob.... it should be required reading for all pilots.
I agree that miss-understood communications causes the large majority of conflicts in the pattern. It is sad that in reality this goes far beyond normal and formation traffic mix it up.
How often has anyone else heard someone report they are directly over a point that you yourself are directly over? That causes some panic for a few seconds until you see that the other traffic is a couple of miles away.
When you say you are over a landmark, you should be over it.... not looking at it just over your nose, or out to the side. In those cases you would be 2 miles south of, etc.
I digress....
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.
Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
|

11-07-2015, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 454
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarr
Like you say, the procedure is in the AIM. It's a recognized and safe procedure. The terminology is also in the AIM. If your locals don't want to read or learn the material then that's on them. Don't try to fault the informed pilots. As they say "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
|
Not disputing its safety. I take issue with the phraseology, which is not taught and extremely few know and come into contact with. That is the reality. You can talk about pilot ignorance all you want, it won't change the likelihood of communication (with understanding) taking place if you choose to keep saying things like "initial" and "break". I'm not at all against overheads, BTW. And how much do you know about microwave landing systems? It's in the AIM.  There was some good discussion on this topic here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=103738
|

11-07-2015, 01:22 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TX32
Posts: 1,891
|
|
Say again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42
Not disputing its safety. I take issue with the phraseology, which is not taught and extremely few know and come into contact with. That is the reality. You can talk about pilot ignorance all you want, it won't change the likelihood of communication (with understanding) taking place if you choose to keep saying things like "initial" and "break". I'm not at all against overheads, BTW. And how much do you know about microwave landing systems? It's in the AIM.
|
Well said.
Here is the description in the FAR/AIM of "The Overhead Maneuver".
Overhead Approach Maneuver
5-4-27. Overhead Approach Maneuver
a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument approach procedure. Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is considered to be VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-30.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft:
1. Pattern altitude and direction of traffic. This information may be omitted if either is standard.
PHRASEOLOGY-
PATTERN ALTITUDE (altitude). RIGHT TURNS.
2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL.
3. “Break” information and a request for the pilot to report. The “Break Point” will be specified if nonstandard. Pilots may be requested to report “break” if required for traffic or other reasons.
PHRASEOLOGY-
BREAK AT (specified point).
REPORT BREAK.
FIG 5-4-30
Overhead Maneuver
OVERHEAD MANEUVER− A series of pre-deter-
mined maneuvers prescribed for aircraft (often in
formation) for entry into the visual flight rules (VFR)
traffic pattern and to proceed to a landing. An
overhead maneuver is not an instrument flight rules
(IFR) approach procedure. An aircraft executing an
overhead maneuver is considered VFR and the IFR
flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the
“initial point” on the initial approach portion of the
maneuver. The pattern usually specifies the
following:
a. The radio contact required of the pilot.
b. The speed to be maintained.
c. An initial approach 3 to 5 miles in length.
d. An elliptical pattern consisting of two 180
degree turns.
e. A break point at which the first 180 degree turn
is started.
f. The direction of turns.
g. Altitude (at least 500 feet above the convention-
al pattern).
h. A “Roll-out” on final approach not less than 1/4
mile from the landing threshold and not less than 300
feet above the ground.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kt...neuver&f=false
Communication is crucial.
As RV "Bob" mentioned, it is the flight lead responsibility to execute and communicate clearly, concisely and efficiently.
Overhead patterns aren't dangerous, it's poor execution that makes it so...
V/R
Smokey
Last edited by smokyray : 11-07-2015 at 01:28 PM.
|

11-07-2015, 02:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,125
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
<snip>
I agree that miss-understood communications causes the large majority of conflicts in the pattern. It is sad that in reality this goes far beyond normal and formation traffic mix it up.
|
Concur Scott, and thanks much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42
<snip>
Not disputing its safety. I take issue with the phraseology, which is not taught and extremely few know and come into contact with. That is the reality. You can talk about pilot ignorance all you want, it won't change the likelihood of communication (with understanding) taking place if you choose to keep saying things like "initial" and "break". I'm not at all against overheads, BTW. And how much do you know about microwave landing systems? It's in the AIM.  There was some good discussion on this topic here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=103738
|
Common themes: communications and procedures. Rick, I looked at the other thread, and it's very similar to this one. I know from reading, you have a real dislike for the terms initial and break. I think I've offered a bit of phraseology that uses the terms correctly and is clear as to the position of the aircraft. One possible solution.
What I'm espousing here is a move to the middle of the road. If the formation community works to fly standard procedures, use standard terminology, in a way that makes their position and intent clear to other pilots, all in a courteous manner, then I don't feel it's unfair to ask that non-formation pilots take a little time to become aware of the procedures and terminology. I'm not saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...but work with me (us) here...a little Luv in both directions, eh!?!
A little more on this year's Reno FAST/PRS story, and how this can work in a positive way. I invited several local pilots to ride with some of our flight leads during FAST (not allowed during PRS  ). Two were flight instructors, who were among those that voiced the strongest complaints about formation and overheads (one of whom was the guy that did the intersection takeoff with the flight on final the year before). Both were too busy instructing during the FAST period to do ride-alongs (good business for them!), but I spent time with each discussing our SOPs, we coordinated working areas and timing with them, and both groups did what they said they were going to do. At the end of the week, both of them came up and enthusiastically said it was the best integration of high density ops they had ever seen...and our airport manager was very, very happy!
This stuff can work, if we work together!
Cheers,
Bob
|

11-07-2015, 04:20 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,125
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
<snip>
I agree that miss-understood communications causes the large majority of conflicts in the pattern. It is sad that in reality this goes far beyond normal and formation traffic mix it up.
|
Concur Scott, and thanks much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42
<snip>
Not disputing its safety. I take issue with the phraseology, which is not taught and extremely few know and come into contact with. That is the reality. You can talk about pilot ignorance all you want, it won't change the likelihood of communication (with understanding) taking place if you choose to keep saying things like "initial" and "break". I'm not at all against overheads, BTW. And how much do you know about microwave landing systems? It's in the AIM.  There was some good discussion on this topic here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=103738
|
Common themes: communications and procedures. Rick, I looked at the other thread, and it's very similar to this one. I know from reading, you have a real dislike for the terms initial and break. I think I've offered a bit of phraseology that uses the terms correctly and is clear as to the position of the aircraft. One possible solution.
What I'm espousing here is a move to the middle of the road. If the formation community works to fly standard procedures, use standard terminology, in a way that makes their position and intent clear to other pilots, all in a courteous manner, then I don't feel it's unfair to ask that non-formation pilots take a little time to become aware of the procedures and terminology. I'm not saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...but work with me (us) here...a little Luv in both directions, eh!?!
A little more on this year's Reno FAST/PRS story, and how this can work in a positive way. I invited several local pilots to ride with some of our flight leads during FAST (not allowed during PRS  ). Two were flight instructors, who were among those that voiced the strongest complaints about formation and overheads (one of whom was the guy that did the intersection takeoff with the flight on final the year before). Both were too busy instructing during the FAST period to do ride-alongs (good business for them!), but I spent time with each discussing our SOPs, we coordinated working areas and timing with them, and both groups did what they said they were going to do. At the end of the week, both of them came up and enthusiastically said it was the best integration of high density ops they had ever seen...and our airport manager was very, very happy!
This stuff can work, if we work together!
Cheers,
Bob
|

11-07-2015, 04:35 PM
|
 |
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvmills
What I'm espousing here is a move to the middle of the road. If the formation community works to fly standard procedures, use standard terminology, in a way that makes their position and intent clear to other pilots, all in a courteous manner, then I don't feel it's unfair to ask that non-formation pilots take a little time to become aware of the procedures and terminology. I'm not saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...but work with me (us) here...a little Luv in both directions, eh!?! 
|
With total respect Bob - here's the problem with that approach. Let's say that EVERYONE on VAF agrees to the terminology, understands it, and plays by that new paradigm. That still only touches a small proportion of the overall pilot community within the United States (alone). How do you get the word to EVERY pilot with a certificate? The FAA would have to issue an AC, and then make sure that everyone got it. Frankly, in order for this to work, you would have to require new training for every pilot. If you start now....you might get everyone up to speed in a generation. And....if you can't even get the entire RV community to agree, what are the chances that you'll get buy-in from every pilot - especially the ones that already think that the homebuilt community is a bunch of outlaws driving hot rods?
So I have said this before, but I'll say it again. The ex military guys are absolutely correct when they say that the overhead break is the most efficient way to land a group of airplanes. BUT - and here is the big caveat - that works in the military because it is SAFE if the formation OWNS the airspace, which it does when the airport is under positive control by a tower - which it pretty much always is in military operations. That makes it safe - positive control of all other traffic, and the formation owns the airspace.
In an uncontrolled environment, you can't assure that you own the airspace, so it will always be a notch less safe (no matter that it is more efficient) than everyone flying the same pattern , and the only pattern that EVERY pilot has been taught is the "standard pattern" - as boring (and inefficient) as it is.
I already know that I won't change the minds of those who have them made up - but I ask everyone to THINK, not just take a position that has been espoused by others. Again - the reason it is safer in military ops is because the tower controls the airspace for the formation. We don't have that same advantage at an uncontrolled field.
Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Last edited by Ironflight : 11-07-2015 at 04:37 PM.
|

11-07-2015, 05:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 4,435
|
|
Also, there's a whole bunch of pilots flying around out there in aircraft of vastly different speeds. Many of them don't have radios or transponders or lights, and the usual proportion will be people with minimal experience. Another batch of pilots might have gobs of experience and haven't learned a thing in the last three decades.
That's just the way it is.
Keep your eyes wide open.
Dave
|

11-07-2015, 06:03 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Saint Simons Island , GA
Posts: 1,523
|
|
I wonder which primer the overheaders used?
__________________
Jerry "Widget" Morris
RV 8, N8JL, 3,000+ hours on my 8.
VAF #818
Saint Simons Island, GA. KSSI
PIF 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
 I just wish I could afford to live the way I do
|

11-07-2015, 06:12 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
With all due respect Paul, even the standard 45 to downwind is a crapshoot. It may be the one "everyone knows", but it is seldom "standard". People have a huge disparity between where along downwind the 45 actually intercepts, how tight downwind is in relation to the runway ("halfway up the strut on a 172" is hardly a standard), and of course where to turn base (the classic "bomber" pattern, anyone). If you have 5 airplanes in the pattern, there is a good chance someone is going to be flying downwind with another airplane 200 feet off your wing because he thinks "he's" on downwind instead of you, and who knows where on the surface of the planet the guy inbound on the 45 is going to show up... Then add a guy in closed traffic doing touch and go's, a guy doing a midfield crosswind entry, and then just for fun, the NORDO Cub doing a straight in to the opposite runway.
So, yes I think everyone agrees that dragging a flight down initial and dumping them into the downwind of a packed pattern is asking for trouble. But I'm not seeing how an OB is any worse than the standard pattern if conditions are appropriate. Both can be a walk in the park if the pattern is empty, and both can be a major "Charlie Foxtrot" when you add a few airplanes into the mix.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 AM.
|