VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

View Poll Results: Overhead Break - Good or Bad ?
Good 185 59.49%
Bad 126 40.51%
Voters: 311. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #231  
Old 11-08-2015, 01:27 AM
rvmills's Avatar
rvmills rvmills is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,125
Default

The respect is mutual Paul, as you know. To say that an overhead is only safe at a military base because they own the airspace, is off the mark, IMO. The overhead is just as efficient, and just as safe, at a non-towered airport, if it is flown correctly, and communicated well. As Michael said, a poorly flown 45 into a crowded pattern is no less disruptive than a poorly flown overhead. And to break up a flight on the 45 and come into the pattern in trail would likely put more stress on the pattern, because the lead and his wingmen in trail don't have nearly the visibility of the overall pattern the lead would have had when coming in from the initial, and once separated on the 45, they no longer have the option to exit the pattern efficiently if the pattern is full upon arrival. That's one of the key elements here that gets forgotten: the flight inbound from the initial has options...it is not committed to break if the pattern is full. The solo pilot or the flight lead can assess the pattern and make decisions based on the situation. You don't have to own the airspace to do an overhead safely, any more than you have to own it to enter on a 45 safely. Its the decisions and the execution that make the difference.

I'm espousing courtesy, cooperation, education, standardization and professional execution. And I concur, its a large elephant to eat one bite at a time, but that doesn't mean its not a worthy effort. Certainly no less worthy than trying to train pilots how to fly a standard pattern entry, what a 45 degree angle is (I've seen plenty of variation there), and to fly a safe pattern that doesn't go to timbuktu or cuts others off.

We're only outlaws driving hotrods if we act and fly like that. To be honest, I want my flight's overhead approach to be as boring as any pattern entry, and I do them not for excitement or to look or be cool, but to get my flight safely back on the ground.

I still think cats and dogs can get along!

Chers,
Bob

PS: Can you or another mod delete the earlier duplicate post above. I phat phingered the iPad, I reckon. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight View Post
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
__________________
Bob Mills
RV-6 "Rocket Six" N49VM
Reno-Stead, NV (KRTS)
President/Sport 47/49, Sport Class Air Racing
President, Formation Flying Inc (FFI)
Flight Lead, Lightning Formation Airshows
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-08-2015, 05:33 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
Default

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.


Ok, so I read the AIM. Apparently I never need to be concerned about an overhead at my non-towered airport, as I don't fly on days that require an IFR approach, we have no ATC to authorize the manuever, and nothing based here has an operational need.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-08-2015, 06:21 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default

All the heavies have weighed in on this discussion, it's about over.

Just one more light weight comment - traffic permitting, a close in descending 180 from abeam the numbers is less contentious, is efficient, is safe and a good proficiency maneuver. I do it whenever the Cessna's are not using the pattern for cross country training.

The overhead with an RV is over the top. OK, its cool with a 4 ship gaggle, but beyond that whats the point? The maneuver requires special attention at any airport and annoys the unwashed. Yes, with military jets it is as routine as cold beer in the late afternoon, but with these little airplanes it does not fit.

Last week a couple F-18's made a break right over my hangar, now that was cool.... We are blessed in that KSUS seems to be a refueling stop for these guys going from somewhere to somewhere. One day recently there were six of them. They appeared to come and leave in pairs.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!

Last edited by David-aviator : 11-08-2015 at 10:35 AM. Reason: Removed un-civil language...
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-08-2015, 08:49 AM
A6PILOT A6PILOT is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 52
Default Overhead Breaks - Good

Hey, This is America so I get to express my opinion. After twenty years flying jets in the USN and 17 years flying heavy metal for the airline, I love the overhead break and use it whenever I can. At my small uncontrolled airport I am often the only plane in the pattern. When our local instructor is launching a solo student into the pattern I maneuver using the standard 45 degree pattern so I am behind the student. When we fly the Boy Scouts for their merit badge, my friend in a Bonanza and me flying a C172 show them a "Navy break" on returning to the field. They loved it. So like Bob Mills said, I think Cats and Dogs can live together.
__________________
Steve Richmond/Corsicana, TX/RV8 Flying /FFI, Falcon Flight
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 11-08-2015, 08:57 AM
luddite42 luddite42 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
Ok, so I read the AIM. Apparently I never need to be concerned about an overhead at my non-towered airport, as I don't fly on days that require an IFR approach, we have no ATC to authorize the manuever, and nothing based here has an operational need.
Yeah, the AIM thumpers always seem to leave that part out.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 11-08-2015, 09:15 AM
jbDC9 jbDC9 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator View Post
The overhead with an RV is over the top. OK, its cool with a 4 ship gaggle, but beyond that whats the point? The maneuver requires special attention at any airport and annoys the unwashed. Yes, with military jets it is as routine as cold beer in the late afternoon, but with these little airplanes it does not fit. Its a show. And again from he unwashed, so what, you guys are not in the military anymore, get a life. Stop trying to make it like it was.
I know we're flogging a dead horse here and we're not going to change anyone's minds on this, but the paragraph above paints unfairly with too broad a brush methinks. An overhead break in an RV is over the top... really? What's the point... really? Not in the military anymore, get a life... really?

As has been discussed here ad nauseam, in many instances the overhead just works and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not former military, yet I on occasion do an overhead entry. As to "what's the point?", again, sometimes it just works to get on the ground quickly and efficiently. Requires special attention... huh?

I often operate to a local airport with one runway, 15/33; 98% of the time I'm approaching from the north. So, if the pattern isn't busy, I fly an overhead pattern, but I don't use the military lingo on the radio. I'll call "1 mile N on an upwind for 15", followed by "turning midfield left crosswind to a close downwind 15". And so on. It creates no confusion on the radio and I'm on the ground quickly without having to fly miles out of the way to join downwind on the 45. If the pattern is indeed busy, I'll fly the overhead, yet time the "break" to join behind the other guy on downwind, easy peasy, no harm done.

If we want to solve the world's problems when it comes to pattern issues, maybe we should work on the problem of sooo many people flying wide patterns that would make a B-52 pilot proud(not to rip on B-52 dudes!); it just drives me nuts when I see a flight school 172 flying cross country miles in the pattern, grrrr. But sadly, that problem can't be fixed because it seems that almost everyone does it. Oh well...
__________________
John Bixby
RV-8 QB sn 82030 - 1750 hrs
O-360-A1D/CS/Pmags
Houston, TX

Last edited by jbDC9 : 11-08-2015 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 11-08-2015, 09:48 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbDC9 View Post
I know we're flogging a dead horse here and we're not going to change anyone's minds on this, but the paragraph above paints unfairly with too broad a brush methinks. An overhead break in an RV is over the top... really? What's the point... really? Not in the military anymore, get a life... really?

As has been discussed here ad nauseam, in many instances the overhead just works and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not former military, yet I on occasion do an overhead entry. As to "what's the point?", again, sometimes it just works to get on the ground quickly and efficiently. Requires special attention... huh?

I often operate to a local airport with one runway, 15/33; 98% of the time I'm approaching from the north. So, if the pattern isn't busy, I fly an overhead pattern, but I don't use the military lingo on the radio. I'll call "1 mile N on an upwind for 15", followed by "turning midfield left crosswind to a close downwind 15". And so on. It creates no confusion on the radio and I'm on the ground quickly without having to fly miles out of the way to join downwind on the 45. If the pattern is indeed busy, I'll fly the overhead, yet time the "break" to join behind the other guy on downwind, easy peasy, no harm done.

If we want to solve the world's problems when it comes to pattern issues, maybe we should work on the problem of sooo many people flying wide patterns that would make a B-52 pilot proud(not to rip on B-52 dudes!); it just drives me nuts when I see a flight school 172 flying cross country miles in the pattern, grrrr. But sadly, that problem can't be fixed because it seems that almost everyone does it. Oh well...
I agree John, the post was a bit harsh and I'm ex-military.

But the subject does tend to line up pilots against each other and I hate those discussions. I don't care how anyone flies an approach, just do it safely and do not inconvenience others. Truth is, the Cessna training flight pattern is more of an inconvenience than the over head approach. We can do little about that because the guys just starting need the big pattern to learn their thing, we were all there once upon a time so we need cut them a little slack.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 11-08-2015, 10:50 AM
RV8iator's Avatar
RV8iator RV8iator is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Saint Simons Island , GA
Posts: 1,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator View Post
Truth is, the Cessna training flight pattern is more of an inconvenience than the over head approach. We can do little about that because the guys just starting need the big pattern to learn their thing, we were all there once upon a time so we need cut them a little slack.
If only this were true.... The "bomber pattern" is far more prevalent than this implies. It's very rare that you get into a traffic pattern with more than one airplane in it the someone is not on a 3 mile final. Heaven help anyone whose engine quits out there..

I'm a former military and airline instructor and evaluator and know the value of stabilized approaches. I have never seen the need in a VFR pattern to get farther away from the runway than I can glide back to it if the engine quits. In fact I can argue that my power off approach from abeam the numbers is far more stabilized than a 2 mile downwind, and 3 mile final.

Bomber patterns in VFR VMC condiditons in a single engine airplane are dangerous and a waste of everybody's time.

They are not just for the newbie learning to fly. They are prevalent everywhere I go.

Rant over..

Back to bashing you crazy overhead and straight in pilots...
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 11-08-2015, 01:16 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8iator View Post

Bomber patterns in VFR VMC condiditons in a single engine airplane are dangerous and a waste of everybody's time.

They are not just for the newbie learning to fly. They are prevalent everywhere I go.
Size of the pattern seems to be inversely proportional to the age of the instructor.........
__________________
Sam Buchanan
RV-6
Fokker D.VII replica
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 11-08-2015, 04:19 PM
Paul K Paul K is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 1,004
Default

Sam, couldn't agree more! We recently had a new flight school on the field and they take that stable approach thing way to serious. Starting your turn to final two or three miles out is not only interfering with the rest of us, it's downright dangerous! With the realization that a lot of engine issues happen when we are in the pattern making adjustments, I am of the school that anyplace in the pattern better be within gliding distance to the runway. If there is no one in the pattern, an overhead break leads directly into downwind and a round base and final to the runway. Flame suite on!
__________________
Paul K
West Michigan

Unfortunately in science, what you believe is irrelevant.

2020 donation made, exempt but worth every dime!

Last edited by Paul K : 11-08-2015 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.