Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

[apkp777]

For the record, I am not opposed to the occasional use of an "overhead" approach. Certainly if you are at a towered airport, by all means, do it every time you come in. At quiet little non-towered airports as well. But this idea that it's an "alternate" approach is bologna with potatoes. The standard approach to an airport whether its a solo or flight should be 45 to the downwind. That makes you entirely predictable to other aircraft. Other aircraft and NORDO's (another sore subject of mine) can anticipate and locate you. It's hard to fulfill the responsibility to "see and avoid" when someone is coming into the pattern on some approach than many people have no clue about. And yes, I too didn't know what an "overhead" was up until a year ago. It's sort of a secret RV pilot handshake. And yes, I have a commercial multi with instrument and instructor ratings. I always thought the overhead was for military aircraft. Perhaps I am a dummy, probably, but I isn't the only one!


EDIT: P.S. And I don't take it personally when a pilot does an overhead. I have good RV friends that do them all the time and they are GREAT pilots. I just disagree with use of them.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by apkp777

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?

Well, Tony, they don't teach loops, rolls, spins or formation flying either for any of these ratings. (except CFI who has to demonstrate a spin recovery) Yet these maneuvers for many pilots are part of our flying world. Call it a "flying life" beyond merely qualifying for a particular rating. Because one doesn't know anything about a particular maneuver is not a valid argument to restrict or prohibit it.

The point that some pilots have no idea what is going on when someone says he's on initial is well taken. There has to be plenty of accommodation and it is up to the guys doing it to make sure it does not spoil someone's day.

[gereed75]

voted good. used to be a big proponent of trying to sell the value of the overhead entry to the genenaral GA population, but now I just use it when I can (on a not to **** off basis), generally at my home drone with no traffic or when everyone expects it (formation flight arriving at a fly-in).

That is enough to meet my jollies quotient.

[N8RV]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Well, Tony, they don't teach loops, rolls, spins or formation flying either for any of these ratings. (except CFI who has to demonstrate a spin recovery) Yet these maneuvers for many pilots are part of our flying world. Call it a "flying life" beyond merely qualifying for a particular rating. Because one doesn't know anything about a particular maneuver is not a valid argument to restrict or prohibit it.

The point that some pilots have no idea what is going on when someone says he's on initial is well taken. There has to be plenty of accommodation and it is up to the guys doing it to make sure it does not spoil someone's day.

I think that's a point well made, David. There are a lot of things that we are not taught in our primary training that are still valuable for us to learn on our own. Guess that's why the PPL is often referred to as a "license to learn."

Taking that to heart, the same argument could be made for another sometimes confusing report that comes across unicom frequencies often and has already been mentioned here -- the practice IFR approach in VFR.

I've heard pilots calling on unicom freqs that they were "... at XYZ procedure turn inbound ..." No clue what that means because I'm not IFR rated and wouldn't have a clue about local approach procedures.

WELL, MAYBE I SHOULD PULL MY FREAKIN' POTATO OUT OF MY SHORTS AND LEARN!

[Note: I threw the potato reference in for Dan.]

My BFR is due now (actually, overdue, I think -- oops) and I've already told my CFI that I wanted to shoot some practice approaches with him sometime because, although my plane is equipped with the equipment for ILS approaches, I've never done one. It seems logical that I should know how, just in case I get stupid sometime and find myself in need of getting down. Maybe I should request some ground time with him, going over local approaches? What a concept ...

[Bill Wightman]

I'm surprised to see how evenly the poll is split. I thought it would be at least 70% "bad". Perhaps this partially explains how I was basically beheaded in the "RV Hate" thread where I attempted to mention the OH maneuver and its potential pitfalls: there's apparently a very divided opinion out there.

I voted "good": I enjoy flying a good overhead immensely. Just like a good closed pattern.

Having said that, I personally don't fly a "military" type pattern unless I'm alone in the pattern or at a towered airport where the maneuver was requested and approved. Maybe it just luck, maybe I've done a good job over the 20 years I've flown overheads, but I've never ever been lambasted for flying an overhead pattern.

[RV7Ron]

This is pretty fascinating reading to me...mostly because I am a low time pilot with so much still to learn. As some others have pointed out, I never knew what an overhead break was until I started frequenting this site and have never done one. But I'll tell you I think it sounds like fun and quite frankly sounds safe when done properly. As a point of comparison, at my airport, none of my RV friends do it however so I think it all depends on the culture at your home base. And lastly, I notice a lot of discussion of whether it is safe...or just bad pattern etiquette. I have never read an accident report of an overhead break directly or indirectly causing an accident...has anyone else? And if its not a safety issue, the etiquette part can easily be addressed with good manners and communication I would think...no? It doesnt take an overhead break to be a jerk in the pattern...I do know this as I've already experienced it in my short flying career.

[Toobuilder]

Voted "good", but certainly there are exceptions. Also, I use terms that all other pilots are going to understand. Instead of "3 mile initial", I call "3 mile upwind"... "Break" is replaced with "crosswind"... "Downwind" is replaced with... well, no change needed, because now I'm in the pattern with everyone else.

Frankly, I like to actually see the sock before I decide what runway to use, so flying overhead the airport in often needed anyway. Blindly following the AWOS and ending up on the "wrong" 45 seems like a big waste of time to me.

[fehdxl]

I e-mailed the EAA (Warbirds@eaa.org) and they sent me a few of the posters below free of charge. Posted them at my local airports.

-Jim (voted good)

[Flyfalcons]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Well, Tony, they don't teach loops, rolls, spins or formation flying either for any of these ratings.

That may be correct, however, traffic pattern procedures are spelled out in the AIM and the overhead break maneuver is not mentioned as a standard pattern procedure except under very specific circumstances.

[nucleus]

What I like about the Overhead Break is that it maximises the energy I am carrying... I generally run full throttle until the numbers, so I am at cruise speed until I am over the runway. I like having all that excess energy when I fly low. Makes me feel safe.

Hans