Overhead Approach / Break

[Top_prop]

No offense, but in over 3000 hrs flying for the navy I've never seen a penalty pattern used in conjunction with the military oval pattern... might be some AF specific thing at a specific base.


If some sneeks in for a straight in you wave off at your 180 and let him be number one (in the military oval pattern you never extend your down wind unless directed by tower... it screws up the interval and turn to final for all others following you). When at the crosswind in the pattern and someone wants to break the first one to call their turn gets to go number one... or you turn as tower directs... it really is simple and efficient --- if everyone knows and follows the same rules.

I promise you we have Student Naval aviators with less than 30Hrs in the T-34 soloing at multiple fields using non towered break procedures every monday through friday... its not magic nor complicated.

[terrykohler]

Just to add some fuel to the fire, I'd like to propose a survey with the following questions:

1. As a flight instructor, have you taught the overhead to
a. Primary Students
b. Commercial Students
c. Flight Instructor or ATP candidates

2. As a Student at any level, has an instructor included the Overhead Approach as part of your training (without your prompting him/her to do so)?

3. If you are ever to be named as a contributing or proximate cause of an aircraft accident as a result of using an overhead approach in an uncontrolled environment, would you be willing to share this survey information with
a. Your insurance carrier
b. An accident or FAA investigator
c. An attorney

Finally,

4. If you are part of a formation flight entering a non-tower enviroment for an overhead approach, how much of your attention was devoted to observing other traffic in and out of the pattern, and how much was devoted to holding close flight position?


This survey will self destruct in 30 seconds.

Terry

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by terrykohler

4. If you are part of a formation flight entering a non-tower enviroment for an overhead approach, how much of your attention was devoted to observing other traffic in and out of the pattern, and how much was devoted to holding close flight position?

Gets to the point...........doesn't it!

L.Adamson

[N395V]

In 30 years I have never been interupted in a pattern by someone doing and overhead. I have never seen an overhead disrupt traffic in a pattern.
I am not aware of any accidents, incidents, or fatalities caused by an overhead. By and large those that do them are cautious and courteous and yeild to conflicting traffic .

On the other hand I frequently suffer from and observe aircraft entering straight in, from the right from the left from just about anywhere except where you would expect them. Usually when I read about a midair in proximity of an airport no mention is made of the patterns being flown. This group by and large is not courteous, not cautious, do not yeild to those with the right of way and indeed are oblivious to other traffic.

As a student pilot (at a Marine Corps Air Station) I was taught the overhead. As a CFI I taught it to all of my students primary and advanced. I also taught them to fly standard patterns and to be cautious when entering any pattern for any type of approach. I seldom do an overhead because there are usually other aircraft in the pattern at most places I fly into. But when I do one I spend a good deal of my time looking for other aircraft both in the positions they should be in as well as trying to spot those that are where they shouldn't be.

I would not hesitate to talk to my insurance company or the FAA about it. It is in th AIM, it is not illegal. If you are cautious, vigilent, courteous it is not dangerous to you or others. If it is inherently dangerous it should be removeed from the AIM and the FAA should prohibit it.

You are more likely to get involved in a midair with someone doing a nostandard (convenience) approach than you are with someone doing an overhead.

[Jim Percy]

Originally Posted by terrykohler

4. If you are part of a formation flight entering a non-tower enviroment for an overhead approach, how much of your attention was devoted to observing other traffic in and out of the pattern, and how much was devoted to holding close flight position?Terry

How much attention is devoted to looking for traffic in the pattern?
Lead: essentially all
Wingmen: essentially none (until the break, then same as lead)

[breister]

Originally Posted by Jim Percy

How much attention is devoted to looking for traffic in the pattern?
Lead: essentially all
Wingmen: essentially none (until the break, then same as lead)

Textbook answer. +1.

[rv9aviator]

After reading all the posts here is my observation. I have been flying for almost 20 years and had never heard of the Overhead before this forum. I have no military experience and learned to fly in a rural area with very few towered airports and very little military traffic. I do fly into a National Guard based airport frequently which has a lot of jet traffic. The only thing I noticed is the jets disappear when I get anywhere near Fort Smith. My instructor never mentioned this type of pattern and I would have no idea what the other pilot was talking about when he announced an OH. I am thankful for learning about this even at this late date as it might save some confusion later on. I have no issue at all with this procedure but our instructors need to educate us on this.

[gereed75]

Could'nt help but chime in here to emphasize a couple of "pro break" points -

1) The break (or overhead) is not intended to cut into a pattern without regard to those aircraft already in the pattern. The up-wind entry is extended as required to establish an interval on the last aircraft already in the pattern so as not to cut out anyone already there.

2) The downwind or final is not extended to create interval. If the entry was done correctly, it should not be necessary, or desired as noted by Top Prop. At the 180 (position abeam the landing area) you are now #1 for landing.

3) It is most certainly the primary duty of the lead to set interval for the flight (as JIm said). That's why he is the "lead"!!

4) It is certainly a way to get a smooth transistion from high speed to landing expeditiously. Rolling into a 45 or so bank level turn at 180 knots, power slowly back to idle puts me at 80 knots ready for flaps on downwind in my -6 pretty much every time.

5) It keeps the pattern neat, consistent, CLOSE, and orderly as opposed to various entries at various altitudes.

It's not perfect, it's not for everyone, but it is nothing to be scared of or shunned.

Thanks - out.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by gereed75

Could'nt help but chime in here to emphasize a couple of "pro break" points -

1) The break (or overhead) is not intended to cut into a pattern without regard to those aircraft already in the pattern. The up-wind entry is extended as required to establish an interval on the last aircraft already in the pattern so as not to cut out anyone already there.

2) The downwind or final is not extended to create interval. If the entry was done correctly, it should not be necessary, or desired as noted by Top Prop. At the 180 (position abeam the landing area) you are now #1 for landing.

3) It is most certainly the primary duty of the lead to set interval for the flight (as JIm said). That's why he is the "lead"!!

4) It is certainly a way to get a smooth transistion from high speed to landing expeditiously. Rolling into a 45 or so bank level turn at 180 knots, power slowly back to idle puts me at 80 knots ready for flaps on downwind in my -6 pretty much every time.

5) It keeps the pattern neat, consistent, CLOSE, and orderly as opposed to various entries at various altitudes.

It's not perfect, it's not for everyone, but it is nothing to be scared of or shunned.

Thanks - out.

So basically..........

It's the "lead" waiting for any traffic already in the pattern. The lead makes a landing, and all wingmen follow suit. In the meantime, it's best for any other traffic, to orbit somewhere else, for a bit... Correct?

I have nothing against the overhead approach. It doesn't look scary. It's more efficent for getting a lot of aircraft down; and it looks "cool".

But it just doesn't mix at a busy non-towered airport.........right?

L.Adamson

[zspivey]

This topic certainly has generated a lot of comments.
I was exposed to the overhead approach during my Air Force years. While in crew training for the C-130 at Little Rock, we frequently would end a tactical mission with an overhead approach. Can you imagine a 4 ship flight of Herky's coming in and doing a break? We did it although we did not fly formation in finger tip, it was always in trail.
When I started my RV8, I knew I would want to fly the overhead every chance I got. I do. If there is other traffic in the pattern, I ask myself, "Will this guy know what I am doing?" If the answer is yes, I fly an overhead. If the answer is no as is usually the case when student pilots are around, I use the normal 45 to downwind.
My feeling is the RV needs to be flown in the overhead. It is much more fun.