Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

This is a pet peeve of mine as a controller, so I feel the need to chime in. Overheads are completely unnecessary to the majority of aircraft that request them, and nobody even does them correctly to begin with (the minority being jets and corsairs and the like). It seems to me that everyone in a T34/T6/RV painted in navy colors thinks they "need" an overhead. An overhead is not a high speed pass at 200mph (or 130mph in the T34), 5 ft off the ground, followed by a 3G climbing turn. An overhead generally uses an altitude 500 ft above TPA/other traffic. This doesn't mean an altitude will always be given, and if it's not, I couldn't care less what the pilot does, HOWEVER,

Whenever I give an altitude for the overhead, 1 of 2 things generally happen: 1) Blatant disregard for the instruction, followed by a dangerous low speed pass down the runway narrowly missing traffic on final, or 2) Grumbling from the pilot.

I'm willing to accommodate almost any reasonable request, but not when it starts to conflict with other people just trying to fit into the flow and land. I had a very unhappy T34 pilot grumble at me today because I made him follow a C150 on a mile final after his Break. Sorry bub, but the world doesn't stop for a bonanza driver in a flight suit

Echo Tango said:

....Sorry bub, but the world doesn't stop for a bonanza driver in a flight suit

Click to expand...

...how 'bout for an Air Tractor driver in a tee shirt??

Best,

pierre smith said:

...how 'bout for an Air Tractor driver in a tee shirt??

Best,

Click to expand...

in my experience, air tractors do everything they can to avoid two-way communication in the first place. tractor on

I voted no. I think they should be reserved for airports when there is NO traffic at the field or in the pattern. This procedure is giving RV'ers a bad wrap because too many people do not know what they are and its very confusing to someone who is doing what they were taught is standard proceedure, and you throw in a fast, small, barely visible RV into the mix doing something completely non-standard, it really mucks things up.

Im not saying its not legal, but it IS non-standard.

Save it for when you (or your flight) are the only ones active at the given airport. Otherwise, split up a few miles out and enter the pattern like everyone else.

Overhead Breaks in Discussion at NTSB

Recharging this thread after four years with some interesting news. NTSB recently hosted a Forum on 14 Oct 2015 entitled "Humans and Hardware: Preventing General Aviation Inflight Loss of Control". One of the Speakers was AOPA Air Safety Sr. VP George Perry who discussed excessive angle of attack and loss of control caused by overshooting the final approach. He proposed a "circular pattern" similar to the overhead break or a variant of it vs. a box pattern as an alternative. Text (which covers numerous other proposals) here:
http://ntsb.capitolconnection.org/101415/ntsb101415.htm

So we may see something out of this yet. Always added value to have an alternate procedure available, especially when perceived to enhance safety.

Gimme a break...

Bob Gordon said:

Recharging this thread after four years with some interesting news. NTSB recently hosted a Forum on 14 Oct 2015 entitled "Humans and Hardware: Preventing General Aviation Inflight Loss of Control". One of the Speakers was AOPA Air Safety Sr. VP George Perry who discussed excessive angle of attack and loss of control caused by overshooting the final approach. He proposed a "circular pattern" similar to the overhead break or a variant of it vs. a box pattern as an alternative. Text (which covers numerous other proposals) here:
http://ntsb.capitolconnection.org/101415/ntsb101415.htm

So we may see something out of this yet. Always added value to have an alternate procedure available, especially when perceived to enhance safety.

Click to expand...

Bob,
The military overhead pattern's original intent was to maximize the number of aircraft in formation transitioning from the air to the ground in the least amount of time.
In the F16 world we normally planned VFR recoveries to the overhead pattern for simplicity and to expedite recovery with the least of amount of time and fuel spent. Instrument or Simulated Flame-out approach currency training requirements of flight members, weather notwithstanding.

In 3000 RV hours I normally planned an overhead to unfamiliar, uncontrolled airports with no traffic. That's also how it's defined in the FAR/AIM.
Why? So I could see the runway, evaluate conditions and plan accordingly.

The overhead pattern is a safe, controlled and situational-aware landing procedure (as you are always looking at the runway). With proper training, standardization and competency anyone can master it and use (not abuse) it safely and efficiently.
If ATC grants permission to perform an OP, it should be executed in the same manner for the same reasons.

V/R
Smokey

Since this thing has popped up again I was wondering if anyone did Copperstate 2015, specifically Saturday? I flew in (a loose 2 ship) and because we knew it was going to be jammed, we followed the notam and did a nice calm normal 45 to the downwind. The radio was jammed and it appeared there were airplanes everywhere. About the time that I took standard separation and started inbound on the 45, we hear the "flight of 11 "warbirds" (nanchangs) on inital for the overhead break". Despite the fact that the pattern was packed and the flight was explicitly told an OB would be a bad idea, they blasted on and did it anyway. After the break, the lead started basicaly yelling on the radio for everyone to get out of the way. Long story short, the "warbirds" muscled their way in and the rest of us scattered - forming up at the start of the 45 once again.

So, While I still believe the OB is safe "when appropriate", this was my first experience where it was done really wrong. The really dangerous part however, was when we all scattered to get out of thier way. There were airplanes going every which way. But the "warbirds" got to land all together, I guess that's the important part

smokyray said:

In 3000 RV hours I normally planned an overhead to unfamiliar, uncontrolled airports with no traffic.
Why? So I could see the runway, evaluate conditions and plan accordingly.

The overhead pattern is a safe, controlled and situational-aware landing procedure (as you are always looking at the runway). With proper training, standardization and competency anyone can master it and use (not abuse) it safely and efficiently.
If ATC grants permission to perform an OP, it should be executed in the same manner for the same reasons.

V/R
Smokey

Click to expand...

I do an over head break when the pattern is empty since our airport has only 2 miles of airspace on the down wind and very hard to come in on the 45 when down wind is opposite direction you are approaching from. You would be heading directly at down wind traffic and then doing a 180 (blind to traffic on down wind do to wing up) into downwind.

That being said I think any pattern is unsafe if it not the pattern the rest of the traffic is doing. (Example given in Toobuilder post above). Best is to do the pattern the rest of traffic is flying.

smokyray said:

The overhead pattern is a safe, controlled and situational-aware landing procedure (as you are always looking at the runway).

Click to expand...

Smoky, you're 50 times the pilot I am, but I still respectfully disagree.

You know 08A. The only official FAA enforcement visit we've had in years was the result of an overhead break. A flight of Yaks, an overhead, everybody watching their lead and breaking at intervals, and nobody watching the downwind. The student pilot who almost got hit never came back. It was close.

Everybody looking at the runway or the guy in front of them is exactly why an overhead is a bad idea in mixed traffic...and the traffic is always mixed at a non-towered field.

This is obviously never going to be settled on a message board, but just because a pilot fails to clear when entering the downwind, doesn't mean the pattern is flawed.

Good on the student for being on a tight downwind.

Paige

DanH said:

Smoky, you're 50 times the pilot I am, but I still respectfully disagree.

You know 08A. The only official FAA enforcement visit we've had in years was the result of an overhead break. A flight of Yaks, an overhead, everybody watching their lead and breaking at intervals, and nobody watching the downwind. The student pilot who almost got hit never came back. It was close.

Everybody looking at the runway or the guy in front of them is exactly why an overhead is a bad idea in mixed traffic...and the traffic is always mixed at a non-towered field.

Click to expand...

That just perfectly speaks to the complete lack of discipline and the valid reason for enforcement. "Those RV hot-rod guys..." routinely don't think twice about taking a flight of 6,8,12 right on through upwind to depart the area to allow other traffic to clear or otherwise ensure coordination. Heck, if a student is on the radio in the pattern, it is an opportunity for a few minutes of wing work well clear before I take my flight in. No reason for anybody to feel crowded.

didn't read the whole thread, but:

You can't get people's gander up, unless you mean they gaze skyward.

Perhaps you meant "dander" up, which is to say that people get passionate about the topic?

Point to ponder

Looks like the thread was revived to point out that one might consider the relative merits of a descending 180 base turn to a stabilized final approach, which is similar to the end of an overhead pattern. If I'm properly interpreting the NTSB discussion point, it's not an advocacy of the overhead pattern per se, just consideration of the 180 degree base turn to final--which could just as easily be entered from a downwind that was entered mid-field from a 45 degree angle.

An on speed (1.3-1.4 Vs) final turn flown from a "base turn roll-off point" (called a "the perch" in the Air Force) properly adjusted for wind is, in fact, a very good way to consistently arrive on a stabilized final approach. 3000' from touchdown at 150-300' AGL (3-6 degree glide path commensurate with power setting desired for final approach) works well, traffic and conditions permitting. Many pilots have already been exposed to this by flying 180 degree power-off approaches during training (that's where the 6 degree final glide path comes from for the typical RV). The skill set aquired learning ground reference ground maneuvers (recall changing your bank angle in a turn around a point) along with properly picking a ground reference to begin the base turn as well as where you want to roll-out on final greatly mitigate the chance of over-shoot (but certainly don't eliminate it--sometimes you just have to go-around!).

Arriving on a stabilized final is a good way to achieve consistency in landing. Learning how to fly a good 180 degree descending base turn is a good way to consistently achieved a stabilized final approach condition that provides a consistent sight picture. Overuse of the word "consistent" is intentional...

There is discussion of different pattern techniques in Part 3 of the transition training materials in the link in the sticky at the top of this page for folks that would like more information about how this may apply when operating an RV. The appropriate sections can be accessed via the hyperlinked Table of Contents if the PDF document is downloaded.

Fly safe,

Vac

Vac said:

Looks like the thread was revived to point out that one might consider the relative merits of a descending 180 base turn to a stabilized final approach, which is similar to the end of an overhead pattern. If I'm properly interpreting the NTSB discussion point, it's not an advocacy of the overhead pattern per se, just consideration of the 180 degree base turn to final--which could just as easily be entered from a downwind that was entered mid-field from a 45 degree angle.

An on speed (1.3-1.4 Vs) final turn flown from a "base turn roll-off point" (called a "the perch" in the Air Force) properly adjusted for wind is, in fact, a very good way to consistently arrive on a stabilized final approach. 3000' from touchdown at 150-300' AGL (3-6 degree glide path commensurate with power setting desired for final approach) works well, traffic and conditions permitting. Many pilots have already been exposed to this by flying 180 degree power-off approaches during training (that's where the 6 degree final glide path comes from for the typical RV). The skill set aquired learning ground reference ground maneuvers (recall changing your bank angle in a turn around a point) along with properly picking a ground reference to begin the base turn as well as where you want to roll-out on final greatly mitigate the chance of over-shoot (but certainly don't eliminate it--sometimes you just have to go-around!).

Arriving on a stabilized final is a good way to achieve consistency in landing. Learning how to fly a good 180 degree descending base turn is a good way to consistently achieved a stabilized final approach condition that provides a consistent sight picture. Overuse of the word "consistent" is intentional...

There is discussion of different pattern techniques in Part 3 of the transition training materials in the link in the sticky at the top of this page for folks that would like more information about how this may apply when operating an RV. The appropriate sections can be accessed via the hyperlinked Table of Contents if the PDF document is downloaded.

Fly safe,

Vac

Click to expand...

...no point in pondering it, its a good way to fly the approach every time traffic permitting. Saves time, fuel, air space and is fun.

yep

Expect a formation flight to do an overhead approach.

Like Scott said the Flight Lead should adjust the "flights" path for other traffic.
Most pilots are very courteous and will offer to adjust their path to allow the flight to land without extra maneuvering. I do when I'm a single ship.

A flight of four can do an overhead and be off the runway amazingly fast.

I can only remember one case where another pilot got aggravated.
I don't remember exactly how it went down but he didn't like us doing the overhead. I told him no problem, I would take the flight around and he could do whatever he wanted to. He still smarted off a bit on the radio. I bit my tongue.

To those not familiar with formation flying, yes the wingman are always looking at lead, but you'd probably be surprised at how often a wingman will call traffic. Usually lead has already seen it though

Once we make the break we are flying in "loose" trail and have plenty of time to look ALL around for traffic. Before the break the Flight Lead is looking all around. Or should be!

Please don't think that we are fixated on looking at the runway after the break. We have plenty of time to look all around during the approach to a landing.

Mark

And again, if you formation breakers want to be understood by 99% of everyone else in the area or in the pattern, knock off this "initial" and "break" stuff in your position calls. Yes, the overhead pattern and "initial" are in the AIM, but very few know what you're up to when you say "initial" over the radio. Just say X miles out for an overhead upwind runway XX, circle to land. Most will know what that means.

luddite42 said:

And again, if you formation breakers want to be understood by 99% of everyone else in the area or in the pattern, knock off this "initial" and "break" stuff in your position calls. Yes, the overhead pattern and "initial" are in the AIM, but very few know what you're up to when you say "initial" over the radio. Just say X miles out for an overhead upwind runway XX, circle to land. Most will know what that means.

Click to expand...

Sure. At the same time, tell the IFR guys to knock off the approaches that come in 180 degrees from normal traffic, procedure turns, etc. that no VFR pilot knows anything about. Right?

Snowflake said:

Sure. At the same time, tell the IFR guys to knock off the approaches that come in 180 degrees from normal traffic.

Click to expand...

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.

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".

A great deal of this is about education, communication, and proper execution....and each of those topics applies to both those doing the overheads, and those in the standard pattern. As an FFI and FAST formation pilot, my efforts have been directed towards outreach (externally), and standardization (internally). In the end, the goal is to fly safely, and mix well with our fellow pilots.

Take for instance the FAST program that the Reno Sport and Jet Classes run just prior to Pylon Racing Seminar each June. During PRS, an FAA waiver is in effect, and the field is closed. However, for the 4 days prior, during our FAST work, there is no waiver, local traffic is abundant, and picture well over thirty daily 4-ships of race aircraft (RVs to Legacies to L-39s) coming and going all day.

We've had issues from a lead accidentally breaking towards an aircraft on downwind, to a local intentionally taking the runway as a 4-ship was on base to final to prove a point. We've seen the spectrum of "aw 'shucks'" that can happen, and we've seen the debate rage from both sides on how to work this through. This year I spent time at the Stead Airport User's Group meetings, presenting our formation procedures and communications, and we actually put the presentation on the user's group website for dissemination to area pilots. We're trying!

Similar situations sometimes occur at formation clinics, or at airports that have a lot of formation activity.

The formation crowd will tell ya that breaking up all of those flights, to enter on the 45 and try to blend with local traffic or other formation flights in the pattern, would be extremely chaotic, and would probably end up producing conflicts entering downwind, and very long downwind legs. Not good at all.

The non-formation, non-overhead guys will say they don't understand what our position reports mean, and don't know what to expect from our flight paths, and given the variety of calls I've heard and procedures I've seen used...at time...its hard to blame them.

Solution? Collaborate to graduate (standard USN/USAF term, to lead into a discussion of terms).

My request, as a formation guy, would be to humbly request my brothers and sisters in the standard pattern to learn a few very basic terms...just a few. Its actually really straight-forward, but it is a different set of terms...but not unlike the new set of terms you learned when you learned to fly. These are just a few added terms to your aviation language vocabulary. To that I would add only a request to develop a basic understanding of the procedure...just the basics.

In return, I would pledge...and ask my formation brothers and sisters to do the same...to know and use the standard terms, use them clearly and correctly on the radio, and fly the procedure in a safe and standard way. No showboating unless you're, well, in a show (legally)!

So if a lead says his flight is on a 3-mile straight-in initial for the overhead break 26, everyone knows where he is, and what his intentions are. When he says his flight is over the 26 numbers for the overhead, everyone is still in the know. When he says the flight is midfield or upwind numbers in the break, everyone knows where to look. After that, its downwind, abeam, base and final, just like everyone is used to.

The lead has the responsibility to clear the break turn and downwind for pattern traffic, and if he doesn't, he is wrong. If the pattern is full and the flight can't be integrated safely, the lead has the responsibility to fly through and depart the pattern. Navy guys call it "spinning it", but we won't use that term locally, and if the lead said he was departing the pattern to re-enter the overhead, everyone would (should) know what that meant, and would be listening for the next initial call. It takes time and burns fuel, but the safe and courteous formation pilot will do it. A flight pushing its way into a crowded pattern is wrong and dangerous, and local traffic certainly has the right to be angry about it. Formation guys can do better than that, and well-trained ones do.

The above is of course a scenario for a non-towered field. Typical overhead altitude is pattern altitude or 500' above PA. At a towered field, the tower will direct, and the formation leads and pilots have the responsibility to follow directions. The scenario Echo Tango described earlier in the thread, where the lead or pilot disregards instructions, and comes zorching into a low-pass, pitch up break without clearance or regard for other aircraft is obviously dangerous, and I find it hard to believe they came away with no paper in their file, or worse. I respect and follow tower instructions when bringing a flight into the break, as do all the well-trained formation pilots I know.

So it circles back to education, communication, and proper execution. Standardization comes into play as well. Overheads really aren't the devil's spawn. Well flown, they work great for recovering formation flights, as has been said here before. Poorly flown, with abstract communication, they are distracting, confusing and potentially dangerous...but no differently than, and no more so than, a poorly flown and communicated standard pattern entry that is anything but standard.

Not sure if we'll ever solve this debate, but my pitch is to learn the basics of both sides, and do our part to respect, communicate and integrate well with those on both sides of the fence on this. Fly like pros, and watch for those still learning. If your a formation guy, be a good ambassador!

Off the soapbox now!

Hey, and for what its worth, during FAST, PRS and Race Week, the RV flights have been lauded as doing the best overheads and race starts of all the aircraft there.

Cheers,
Bob

luddite42 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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....

jabarr said:

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".

Click to expand...

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/community/showthread.php?t=103738

Say again...

luddite42 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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=k...v=onepage&q=far/aim overhead maneuver&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

rvbuilder2002 said:

<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.

Click to expand...

Concur Scott, and thanks much!

luddite42 said:

<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/community/showthread.php?t=103738

Click to expand...

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

rvbuilder2002 said:

<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.

Click to expand...

Concur Scott, and thanks much!

luddite42 said:

<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/community/showthread.php?t=103738

Click to expand...

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

rvmills said:

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!?!

Click to expand...

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

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

I wonder which primer the overheaders used?

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.

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!

Ironflight said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

DanH said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the AIM thumpers always seem to leave that part out.

David-aviator said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

jbDC9 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

David-aviator said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

RV8iator said:

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.

Click to expand...

Size of the pattern seems to be inversely proportional to the age of the instructor.........

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!

apkp777 said:

Exactly! The "overhead break" is not part of the Private Pilot PTS and will never be. Not part of the Commercial, Instrument, CFI or ATP either. It's not actually recognized in the AIM or FARs as a optional traffic pattern. With the exception of IFR traffic and a tower and operational limitations. In light of all the current discussions on other forums about how much RV pilots suck, do you wonder why they feel that way?

Click to expand...

Ok, what forum talks bad about rv guys? I want in on that one.

At my old towered airport, I would request the OB if my inbound position would facilitate.
At non-towered, if the pattern was busy, I'd opt for the standard 45 entry.
If the pattern was empty, OB is my way to go because it's fun & I fly for fun.

roadrunner20 said:

At my old towered airport, I would request the OB if my inbound position would facilitate.
At non-towered, if the pattern was busy, I'd opt for the standard 45 entry.
If the pattern was empty, OB is my way to go because it's fun & I fly for fun.

Click to expand...

I guess the big question here is, How do you know the pattern is empty?

Mel said:

I guess the big question here is, How do you know the pattern is empty?

Click to expand...

Inbound monitoring. Of course, my head is always on the swivel, looking for traffic, just as I would on a 45 entry.

Communication is Key

Tower controlled, this is a non-issue. Non tower airport, state your intentions. If there is other traffic, communication is key. If in doubt, fall back to the boring, inefficient pattern entry techniques that are more compatible with the slower airplanes. And, if your are flying around in today's environment WITHOUT a radio, YOU ARE THE HAZARD.

I'm executing an overhead break or a pitchout at every opportunity.