What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Uncontrolled Field Ops - A Confession

Thanks . . . .

Thanks for this. Although the radio thing is not an excuse, I would care even if it was not pursued.

I have NORDO's at my field and mutes too. ADSB helps, but it is not required for our area.

Let us all be careful out there.
 
Speaking of pattern work and overhead breaks that were mentioned earlier. Ever been around your local airport and talked to non military/ non RV pilots/ non acro guys to see if they even know what one is? You might be surprised. I have found that not many peeps know what they are.

I would personally never do one with anyone else in the pattern for fear of confusion but that's just me. Anyways, sorry for the slight drift Dan, great post!
 
Would you prefer I do an overhead break?

Nope, just join the traffic pattern and wait your turn. It happens that the approach to a field can line up with a straight-in, but when other aircraft are in the pattern why not just join the conga line and be safe?

-Marc
 
Nope, just join the traffic pattern and wait your turn. It happens that the approach to a field can line up with a straight-in, but when other aircraft are in the pattern why not just join the conga line and be safe?
But, done properly, an overhead entry is perfectly safe…
 
Nope, just join the traffic pattern and wait your turn. It happens that the approach to a field can line up with a straight-in, but when other aircraft are in the pattern why not just join the conga line and be safe?

-Marc

John beat me to it. You are obviously saying an overhead break is unsafe, I'm interested to hear you explain why you believe so.
 
John beat me to it. You are obviously saying an overhead break is unsafe, I'm interested to hear you explain why you believe so.

Nope, didn't "obviously" say that and don't believe a *properly executed* overhead is unsafe. I do believe a straight in approach, when there are several aircraft in the pattern is unsafe. It's also contrary to what's recommended in the FAR/AIM 4.3.3. Interestingly, I couldn't find the overhead break in the FAR/AIM....

-Marc
 
Last edited:
But, done properly, an overhead entry is perfectly safe…

I think many pilots are not aware of what "initial" or "overhead break" means, so they do not know where to look or what to expect. Same as what someone earlier mentioned regarding announcing approach fix locations during VFR conditions. I believe those doing instrument approaches in VFR conditions should announce their positions relative to the airport when on the unicom freqs.
 
Well, this thread has drifted off of Dan's original point. In regard to doing an overhead approach at the airport where I'm based:

Yes, executed with no traffic conflict it works nicely.

I guess "fun" is up to individual interpretation, but I certainly don't consider it "unfun".

However....since everybody has a video camera in their pocket, and everybody can track my ADSB bread crumbs, and since so many pilots think RVers were placed on earth just to abuse the airspace system, and because it would only take one of those uninformed "corporate" students on the ramp making a complaint to the FAA about my unsafe operations to cause more attention than I need.......I don't do overhead breaks anymore.

I've learned to pick my battles. :)
 
Well, this thread has drifted off of Dan's original point. In regard to doing an overhead approach at the airport where I'm based:

Yes, executed with no traffic conflict it works nicely.

I guess "fun" is up to individual interpretation, but I certainly don't consider it "unfun".

However....since everybody has a video camera in their pocket, and everybody can track my ADSB bread crumbs, and since so many pilots think RVers were placed on earth just to abuse the airspace system, and because it would only take one of those uninformed "corporate" students on the ramp making a complaint to the FAA about my unsafe operations to cause more attention than I need.......I don't do overhead breaks anymore.

I've learned to pick my battles. :)

I had to look up a diagram for overhead break. I suppose I've never done one and don't plan to. seems that it allows for a large blind spot area for crosswind traffic. the closest I have done is an IFR circling approach.
 
But, done properly, an overhead entry is perfectly safe…

I don't believe anyone is saying that an overhead break is inherently unsafe. However, it creates inherent challenges for others in the pattern. First, if you announce that you are doing one, 95% of the other pilots have no idea what that is and therefore have limited situational awareness, as they can't predict your movements. If other pilots see you doing 150 knots on what appears to be a final approach, how are they supposed to process that and decide how to proceed. If the average pilot on downwind sees a guy on final he probably assumes he is about to get cut off. It's seems unlikely he would assume you would over fly and form up behind him. How could he possibly predict that. 100% confident he wasn't taught what one is during his training.

I believe there is a good reason that the FAA tries to standardize landing pattern as much as possible. It helps other pilots to predict each others behavior and react according. Just imagine how difficult it would be to drive defensively if other drivers were allowed to turn left from the right lane, etc.
 
Last edited:
Overhead break approaches. I know they get hashed to death on various pilot forums, pros and cons. I hate to beat the dead horse here, but since it came up…

The thing(s) about flying overhead approaches and not scaring students or other pilots who have no idea about an overhead approach is radio terminology and how you make the turn to the downwind. On the radio, don’t use the military lingo; use standard pattern phraseology that everyone knows and understands. Instead of saying “3 miles north on the initial for the overhead to 17”, say “3 miles north for an upwind to 17”. Instead of saying “on the break to 17”, say something like “overhead the field turning downwind to 17”, or something similar. It’s sorta like the IFR guys using approach fix names on their pattern/position calls; I have no idea where that is or where you are. Use plain English.

On the upwind (to rwy 17 for example), you can see everything; planes on the downwind, planes coming in from the west on a crosswind entry, planes taking off and turning crosswind… you simply lengthen or shorten the upwind leg to take spacing upon turning to the downwind leg. It’s no different or more dangerous than setting spacing on a 45 entry to the downwind; there’s no rule that says you have to break over the threshold numbers and cut into traffic on already on the downwind, that’s just rude. And as previously noted, there’s no better or more efficient way to get a multi ship formation on the ground with lead setting the spacing to turn downwind.

It ain’t rocket science. They’re so easy even a Navy pilot can fly ‘em! I keed! I’m civilian, but my Dad was Navy…
 
Just imagine how difficult it would be to drive defensively if other drivers were allowed to turn left from the right lane, etc.

Now you're throwing out a red herring - that maneuver actually IS unsafe, and is in fact illegal in most circumstances.
 
The overhead approach is in the AIM.

5-4-27 Overhead Approach Maneuver

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 canceled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-36.) 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: ....
 
At KLOU in a busy tower pattern and in an RV type- do not be surprised if tower asks you to do an overhead.

You can of course say no and be sequenced as such.

They call your "clear to descend" after the break, which isn't 100% normal. Busy place. They'll usually give you a heads up on that well before the break.

That may make you feel better about staying in practice with overheads- not everyone using them is trying to assault someone else's senses.
 
Now you're throwing out a red herring - that maneuver actually IS unsafe, and is in fact illegal in most circumstances.
Oddly enough, there are places where the left turns are done from the right lane... Albeit with advanced (or delayed) signals that hold through traffic to allow the left turns. Someone once explained to me why this was more efficient, if less logical, but I can't for the life of me remember the reasoning right now.
 
I don't believe anyone is saying that an overhead break is inherently unsafe. However, it creates inherent challenges for others in the pattern. First, if you announce that you are doing one, 95% of the other pilots have no idea what that is and therefore have limited situational awareness, as they can't predict your movements. If other pilots see you doing 150 knots on what appears to be a final approach, how are they supposed to process that and decide how to proceed. If the average pilot on downwind sees a guy on final he probably assumes he is about to get cut off. It's seems unlikely he would assume you would over fly and form up behind him. How could he possibly predict that. 100% confident he wasn't taught what one is during his training.
This is the reason that our group essentially stopped doing overhead approaches at non-towered fields... Especially busy ones. We used to do them at pattern altitude, which created a potential conflict with traffic crossing at midfield to join the circuit. Then we did them as "battle breaks," starting lower with a pitch out and up to the perch. That makes for an abbreviated circuit that fits well inside the standard circuit... But that means we're not where others expect us to be so we realized that's not ideal either.

At a towered field, the tower can ask traffic on downwind to extend to make room for our approach, or they can tell us the circuit is too full. In that case, or when we go to non-towered fields, we'll do a downwind-to-final break instead, each plane making their base turn slightly further out. That works everywhere, achieves separation, and allows an in-trail formation landing without confusing the natives.
 
Now you're throwing out a red herring - that maneuver actually IS unsafe, and is in fact illegal in most circumstances.

Of course it is. I was making the point that I KNOW to be cautious of anyone in the opposing left lane, as they could turn into me without indicating that intent. However, I don't really think about the guy in the opposing right lane turning into me. That is both a convention AND a law. Outside of complete incompetence and stupidity, knowing the conventions that other drivers follow, helps me to drive defensively. Turning left from the right lane is really not different than someone doing an overhead break from this point of view-situational awareness for others in the pattern. How does the average pilot differentiate between a guy doing a straight in approach and an overhead break. Even if you announce an overhead, this doesn't help the guy who doesn't know what that term means (most pilots).

Maybe a bad example. It was familiar to me, as I used to ride motorcycles. I learned early to NEVER take your eyes off traffic in the opposing left lane. EVER. It is the easiest way to get killed on a bike.

I agree that it is a very safe manuever. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is foreign to other pilots. It becomes unsafe for the other guy in the pattern as he starts taking evasive action to avoid conflict with the guy doing something he doesn't understand and therefore feels at risk.

Didn't mean to start a debate and will stop now.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a bad example. It was familiar to me, as I used to ride motorcycles. I learned early to NEVER take your eyes off traffic in the opposing left lane. EVER. It is the easiest way to get killed on a bike.

There we can agree - when you're on a bike, everyone is trying to kill you, all the time.

I agree that it is a very safe manuever. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is foreign to other pilots. It becomes unsafe for the other guy in the pattern as he starts taking evasive action to avoid conflict with the guy doing something he doesn't understand and therefore feels at risk.

Didn't mean to start a debate and will stop now.

Perhaps instead of telling pilots they shouldn't do manuevers that are safe, legal, and even described in the AIM because it might confuse other pilots, maybe we should up the training for PPL/BFR to include those maneuvers so they are not ignorant.
 
I'll only mention don't just look straight down the final approach path. Some airplanes like Cubs and aerobatic types often fly short curved approaches. Clear that path as well. I've had plenty of people mosey out onto the runway from the hold short line about 5 seconds before I'd be crossing the threshold, even after making position calls.
 
Tight approaches

For any airplane with poor or no forward visibility over the nose the best is a tight, curving approach all the way to the end of the runway. Also good to remember that those types can only see an airplane that enters the runway from that type of approach and usually in only one direction.
Includes many antique airplanes the Stearman being one of the more popular.
 
For any airplane with poor or no forward visibility over the nose the best is a tight, curving approach all the way to the end of the runway. Also good to remember that those types can only see an airplane that enters the runway from that type of approach and usually in only one direction.
Includes many antique airplanes the Stearman being one of the more popular.

Yep, I'll never forget my first Stearman check-out back in the '60s. The check pilot told me.
"Take a good look at the runway while on base, 'cause that's the last time you'll see it." The runway was 12' wide.
 
don't assume that even if the other guy's communications skills are good, that his radios are working. Or that he even knows it. The Mk1 eyeball rules all.

Many years ago, just after I got my PP license, was right seat in a buddy's Arrow, night flight over L.A. Coming in to the patter after the tower was closed, he was announcing positions just as he should...and as we started to descend on the downwind, I looked below us and there, *very* close below, was a Cessna. I grabbed the controls, said "my airplane", shoved everything on the quadrant forward and made a climbing left turn, much to my friend's surprise (but thanks when I explained it to him).

On the ground, we had a chat with the Cessna driver...he said he was announcing as well, and heard us. We never heard a thing from him. When he checked his radio, mounted underneath the panel, the whole thing fell off onto the floor. Root cause: identified.

So yeah, what Bill said.
 
...
On the ground, we had a chat with the Cessna driver...he said he was announcing as well, and heard us. We never heard a thing from him. When he checked his radio, mounted underneath the panel, the whole thing fell off onto the floor. Root cause: identified.

...
Good that you were still in flying mode, not restaurant planning on your ipad! :)

It would not have helped you in this specific case, and I'm not sure it's in the AIM, but I try to get some indication if the other guys in the pattern see me or can hear me on the radio. In other words, establish 2-way communications with them. If someone says "Cessna 123, downwind RWY23" I'll add "RV 456, joining downwind RWY23 behind Cessna 123, in sight". Usually this will elicit a click-click from the Cessna. Obviously a very busy pattern makes this harder.
 
If you fly long enough, eventually you can be that guy landing that is not making any radio calls. Ask me how I know. Just this past Nov 11, All appeared to normal and in order. The tx light would illuminate any time I keyed the PTT. My voice sounded normal in the head set any time I keyed the mike and I could hear all the radio calls being made by the other traffic. Arriving at the destination field I made normal calls 5 minutes before arrival, crossing overhead, downwind and final. There were 2 other AC arriving. Also 2 departing, one ahead and one behind my landing. Fortunately traffic was spaced so that there was no need for anyone to respond to my position calls. Once on the ground, I tried talking to other AC that required a response and I finally clued in that my AC was not transmitting.....:eek: After shutdown at the fuel pumps I checked all the connections and there were no issues, but still no joy. I eliminated the intercom and plumbed direct to the radio and PTT , problem solved for the rest of the day.
And this was in an AC I have owned for 25 years. Now to fix the intercom.
 
It would not have helped you in this specific case, and I'm not sure it's in the AIM, but I try to get some indication if the other guys in the pattern see me or can hear me on the radio. In other words, establish 2-way commu, the misnications with them. If someone says "Cessna 123, downwind RWY23" I'll add "RV 456, joining downwind RWY23 behind Cessna 123, in sight". Usually this will elicit a click-click from the Cessna.

Excellent suggestion! In the incident/near miss at Oceano it might have helped, but when someone is making a straight-in, or doing an overhead, you never know their speed unless you ask. If someone is inbound to an airport and descending from cruise altitude, they might be doing 150+ knots. Even if they report 10 miles and inbound, they can close the distance really quick. Coming in to the uncontrolled airport environment at twice the average speed of the pattern aircraft has bad news written al over it. Add some clouds to the mix and this has "insurance claim" written all over it.

-Marc
 
Last edited:
Might as well throw in my 0.02...

First, for better or worse, everyone can expect more straight-in approaches as the price of fuel skyrockets...particularly as small non-towered airports with light traffic. Why spend another 3 minutes in the air to end up at the same place? (Don't kill the messenger..)

Secondly, the one thing that creams my corn is the non-towered pilot who announces "Cessna 12345 departing runway 18"...and that's it. If I'm approaching the airport, this type of announcement means virtually NOTHING. For someone already in the air, the most valuable information is what he is doing AFTER his wheels leave the ground, i.e. left closed traffic, departing to the West, etc....not his choice of runways or the fact he is there at all. The purpose of communications is to do just that...communicate. Without useable information, you might as well not talk at all.

Finally, one small tip from someone who spent most of their life on the radio: Know what you are going to say BEFORE you key the mic. I always say the phrase I wish to communicate out loud to myself before actually broadcasting. Only takes a second or two. On the radio, we can all tell the pilots who have not done this...you can hear the pauses and hesitation as they search in vain for the correct phrase...and sometimes even their own type of aircraft and tail number... :)
 
Brian, I'll choose to disagree with your comment:

"the non-towered pilot who announces "Cessna 12345 departing runway 18"...and that's it. If I'm approaching the airport, this type of announcement means virtually NOTHING."

Hearing someone make that call as I'm approaching a field while monitoring is very useful. It leads me to continue the conversation to confirm the rest of the story ... this is common around my neck of the woods and seems to work well.

Maybe I'm missing your point

Cheers
 
Brian, I'll choose to disagree with your comment:

"the non-towered pilot who announces "Cessna 12345 departing runway 18"...and that's it. If I'm approaching the airport, this type of announcement means virtually NOTHING."

Hearing someone make that call as I'm approaching a field while monitoring is very useful. It leads me to continue the conversation to confirm the rest of the story ... this is common around my neck of the woods and seems to work well.

Maybe I'm missing your point

Cheers

I think what Brian is getting at (and I agree with him) is that it's a meaningless call unless there is a direction included. For example, everyone around here says "RV12345 departing runway 16 Northbound departure" I many times spice it up a bit with what direction I am turning if there is traffic in the area I know about. I also like to know if they are staying in the pattern because for some reason there are a ton of people in this world that think it's ok to not make another call until turning base or final...

Long story short, the direction of departure/ intentions means more a lot of the times.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do think you missed it

Bill...Yes, I do think you missed it. As I said, "virtually" nothing. Only seconds after departure, you really don't know where they are headed.. so their choice or runway is pretty much useless. And, of course, we should all look for aircraft in and near any airport environment, whether we hear anything or not..(NORDO, A/C on wrong frequency, etc.)....

My point is that just knowing someone is there doesn't say much to an already airborne aircraft. All is says is "lookout and be careful"...which we should do anyway. Having some idea of their AIRBORNE intentions is what really means the most.

This is one reason I dislike posting....it's sometimes difficult to convey the intent of a conversation by text. I do a better job of selling this point in person...Thanks and take care.
 
...

This is one reason I dislike posting....it's sometimes difficult to convey the intent of a conversation by text. I do a better job of selling this point in person...Thanks and take care.
Indeed - everyone has this problem - don't let that discourage you from sharing your knowledge and experience with us. Your tip here is a good one, and I have to confess I probably give information about what I'm doing after I take off about 50% of the time - thanks for the reminder to bump it up closer to 100%!
 
Intentions

I agree that adding your intentions to a radio call helps situational awareness. "Departing runway 27, left turn out to the south." for takeoff or "Left base for runway 27, full stop." gives a much clearer picture.

There is no such thing as closed traffic at a pilot controlled field. Closed traffic clearance is issued at a tower controlled field by the tower to indicate you are the only plane and you may fly your pattern without further instruction. Landing clearance will still be required from the tower prior to touch down.
 
TLDR

"Last call" is Cirrus phraseology for I've pulled the chute and I'm about to hit the ground and crush my antennas.
 
"the non-towered pilot who announces "Cessna 12345 departing runway 18"...and that's it. If I'm approaching the airport, this type of announcement means virtually NOTHING."

I’d bet such an announcement would mean a lot to you, if you were on short final for 36.
 
I'm taking runway 29..... hey, be sure to give it back, I'm going to need it.

how about just the ole fashion "taking off runway 29"?
 
I agree that I've heard all manner of radio technique over the years, but if I have concerns about a traffic conflict due to a "less-than-illuminating" radio call, I've never been shy about simply asking for clarification if that call doesn't help my situational awareness.

I start listening to CTAF about 20 miles out, and when I start taxiing after I switch from AWOS. The guys that irritate me are those whose first radio call is on short final, or when they start their takeoff roll. That is a fairly common problem at the many, many small-town pancake breakfasts around here.
 
Thanks for being open

Dan it's great to hear your story and recall that none of us are perfect. We have all had our fair share of things like this happen.

My last check point at uncontrolled fields is, like many said a final look up and down the runway, but prior to that if possible I'll do a 360* spin to check the entire pattern, usually before/when I leave the run-up area, before my call "taking the runway#" and then the final and runway clear check.
 
Back
Top