Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by Webb

There appears to be a lot of confussion about this.

Knowledge is one component of safe flying. Although you may not ever do an overhead approach, you might as well have accurate info so if one is going on when you are in the pattern at the same airport, you will be a safer pilot.

The link below is an instructional video for ATC students.

http://realmedia.aero.und.edu/atc/www/ATCPC12.mp4

One other thing.......an overhead break is not the approach......it occurs during an overhead approach. Now where did I put that tater?

Overhead breaks are not in the FAA Pvt. question repertoire -

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/.../media/pvt.pdf

...and a link to controllers training is interesting but not really required for a VFR pilot.

All interesting and advanced training, but not expected by the FAA...

Can you find a VFR Pilot curriculum where it is mentioned? I couldn't.

It is not a tested practical item...

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/...s-8081-14a.pdf

To blame others for lack of knowledge when it is not in the learning syllabus is somewhat unfair...

As before - all comments with respect to non-towered airports.

[apkp777]

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M. or Airman's Information Manual. Oh yeah, and charge $15 bucks for it and make it valid for only one year.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by az_gila

To blame others for lack of knowledge when it is not in the learning syllabus is somewhat unfair...
As before - all comments with respect to non-towered airports.

The same could be said for people flying IFR approaches into uncontrolled airports. As a VFR pilot, I haven't a clue what their terminology means. Does that mean they shouldn't practise IFR approaches?

On the other hand, I do fly formation and overhead breaks, and i've seen them go sideways. But nobody asked whether anyone has had problems personally while doing breaks. I can count on less than one hand the number of times flying formation into a circuit has been an issue for me. I need both hands and both feet to count the number of times someone else in the circuit has done something boneheaded or borderline dangerous that i've had to take action to avoid. On average, the overhead break has been safer!

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by apkp777

...Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M...

You would think that would help, wouldn't you?

From the AIM figure 4-3-1 and paragraph 4-3-2.c:



Figure 4-3-1

c. The following terminology for the various components of a traffic pattern has been adopted as standard for use by control towers and pilots (See FIG 4-3-1):

1. Upwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing.

2. Crosswind leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its takeoff end.

3. Downwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the opposite direction of landing.

4. Base leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end and extending from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline.

5. Final approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.

6. Departure leg. The flight path which begins after takeoff and continues straight ahead along the extended runway centerline. The departure climb continues until reaching a point at least 1/2 mile beyond the departure end of the runway and within 300 feet of the traffic pattern altitude.

After reading the above, taking note of items 1, 5 and 6, should there be any confusion among anyone if a pilot reports an "upwind leg" for a runway?

...At least we settled "upwind" once and for all

[RV8R999]

Mike - for the OB when are you going to call "upwind" or "upwind leg"?

[WhiskeyMike]

Originally Posted by apkp777

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance.

In the interest of clarity, I presume you meant objective...?

Objective: without bias or personal opinion - based on facts, not emotions.

Subjective: modified by individual bias or emotion, rather than based on facts.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

Mike - for the OB when are you going to call "upwind" or "upwind leg"?

As I stated in my very first post (#57), I don't use the term "overhead" at all... I describe an upwind and crosswind to the downwind. I responded to this poll because for all appearances, the flight path I use and describe will look just like a true "initial to the OB", but I describe my intentions over the radio in terms familiar to ALL pilots so as to eliminate confusion. Right after that I got jumped because a bunch of people claimed they didn't understand the term "upwind" in ANY context. This point then became MY focus because I want to be sure I'm not just making up my own rules or was trained incorrectly.

So there are really two issues in this thread: 1: People calling into question my use of a common and legitimate aeronautical term "upwind leg", and 2: trying to determine if the terms "initial" and "overhead" are confusing.

To the first part, I have validated the use of "upwind" as a position report thanks to the AIM. If any pilots don't know what the upwind leg is, then they need to hit the books before they fly again. So in that sense, my job is done.

For the second part, I can tell you that I understand the terms related to the OB, but I'll leave it up to you guys to convince the rest of the population. In short, I aint going there!

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by apkp777

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M. or Airman's Information Manual. Oh yeah, and charge $15 bucks for it and make it valid for only one year.

An excellent book and reference.

But, as I referenced, it also covers a LOT of IFR stuff and procedures that is not usually required for the VFR pilot and is not in the curriculum for a VFR Private license.

The short section in the IAM on the Overhead Break is inserted in the middle of IFR approaches and ATC terminology.

Does the AIM even cover formation flights?

[David Fuchs]

Standard Navy Pattern Entry

I can remember 250 Knots over the approach end at 1000' AGL, 45 degree bank at the numbers, turning downwind power levers to Flight Idle, decelerating turn, flaps to manuever, flaps to approach, flying downwing to the approach end, at the numbers landing gear down, turning on final, 750' at the 90, land flaps, 160 knots decending decelerating on final...

P-3 Orion

Rota Spain

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

...To the first part, I have validated the use of "upwind" as a position report thanks to the AIM. If any pilots don't know what the upwind leg is, then they need to hit the books before they fly again. So in that sense, my job is done.
...

Extrapolating the upwind leg to a position 3 miles away from the airport is stretching the AIM picture quite a bit...

Even for those of us familiar with the AIM pattern diagram and leg names.