Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Ya know I was entertained by this for awhile, but now it is approaching boringly repetitious.

Mike, this site is like Dish TV, you have over 102 different posts to go to......

Maybe we can get back to building airplanes........ It's Van's fault. He made it just too damned easy.........

Next problem please.................

[nucleus]

If you come in a standard Overhead altitude you are 500 above pattern altitude.

As long as you yield to traffic in the pattern does it really matter if every pilot around understands exactly where you are or not?

Flying into Hayward Executive recently and the tower asked me to report abeam "SoCal". I of course replied, "don't know where SoCal is tower"

We non-IFR pilots usually don't know the instrument fix locations, and flying into new airports its common to not know the standard local fix locations. As long as those in the know know, then we are good. If I don't know where where a plane is due to my ignorance and they are close in altitude, then I get on the radio and fess up that I don't know where they are. Usually I get a call back that either gives me a vector and distance from the airport, or "we are no factor for you."

If you report "3 mile initial" and ALSO give your altitude that is 500 over traffic pattern altitude, then the pilots in the pattern at least have some assurance that there is 500 ft of separation.

Hans

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by gasman

Let me take a shot at this..............

If you reported a 2 mile base...

Wasn't looking for an answer, just making an observation that we as pilots sometimes have vastly differing understanding of "standard" stuff.

...As evidenced by this thread.

[RV8R999]

I'm happy I started this poll, gotten the info I wanted and am surprised too.

over 40% of RV pilots feel the OB is a bad idea...for myriad reasons.

Doesn't appear likely, based upon the posts, many of those folks will likely change their minds either.

I'm still going to fly the OB when I feel it is appropriate, but I'm going to be even more proactive in my comms than I already am. If nothing else, this thread has reminded me no two pilots can be expected to understand the same words 100% of the time... a good reminder for helping improve comms - for me anyway.

Thanks to all the moderators for allowing the poll to exist and carry-on so long - I know some of you had your fingers on the button

I believe it was constructive.

[B25Flyer]

I haven't read all this, but here is my $.02.

The break is not the problem... The thing that pi$$es people off is the "I am a little better than the rest of you non-formation, non-RV non-Warbird, types" attitude that is widely held among many of my Warbird and RV friends....

There is a time and a place for a break, if you are dragging in a formation of airplanes the break is the simplest and safest way to recover them. If you are at a desolate airport with no traffic, knock yourself out! I do Overheads all the time...

But if you are single ship at a busy airport in an airplane with normal visibility, then most often the break is an ego trip.... And it is often not appreciated by the rest of the aviation community... The result is that we give ourselves and all of our peers who have good reasons to do an overhead an undeserved bad rap...

In short, apply Herb Kelleher's Southwest Airlines business philosophy, Be nice.

That is how I see it, So, move over cause here I come on a 1 mile initial to a low approach with a pitch up break at 250 kts.... ;-)

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

[Tram]

Originally Posted by nucleus

If you come in a standard Overhead altitude you are 500 above pattern altitude.

If you report "3 mile initial" and ALSO give your altitude that is 500 over traffic pattern altitude, then the pilots in the pattern at least have some assurance that there is 500 ft of separation.

There is some debate as to whether or not TPA + 500' is the correct altitude for the overhead.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

I'm happy I started this poll, gotten the info I wanted and am surprised too...

...I believe it was constructive.

I agree. I will continue to do this entry when appropriate, but endeavor to communicate better when doing it.

Like you said, there is still a bunch that think its bad form, but at the very least, everybody who has read this thread now knows exactly what to expect when they hear "initial", "overhead", "break" and "upwind" over the radio... Overall safety has been improved since this thread started.

And as a final note on the term "upwind" just to show people that I didn't make it up in my head. The first hit on Google:

Upwind leg: A flight path parallel to and in the direction of the landing runway. This can be above the runway, as in a "low and over" or when practicing a "missed [instrument] approach," or offset to the upwind side as when inspecting the field prior to landing.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

And as a final note on the term "upwind" just to show people that I didn't make it up in my head. The first hit on Google:

Upwind leg: A flight path parallel to and in the direction of the landing runway. This can be above the runway, as in a "low and over" or when practicing a "missed [instrument] approach," or offset to the upwind side as when inspecting the field prior to landing.

I do believe that the term: upwind is known by most. Is it normally used in a landing procedure such as the terms: crosswind, downwind, base, and final...................no. Therefor it could easily cause confusion, to the tens of thousands who have not yet read this thread.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by L.Adamson

I do believe that the term: upwind is known by most...

As long as "most" pilots are aware of what an upwind is, I'm happy.

Originally Posted by L.Adamson

...Is it normally used in a landing procedure such as the terms: crosswind, downwind, base, and final...................no. Therefor it could easily cause confusion, to the tens of thousands who have not yet read this thread....

Doing my part to reduce confusion:

[Ron Lee]

I will not use UPWIND in reference to an overhead approach. Stills seems too ambiguous.