Flyingguido
Member
Other than Technique......
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport?
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport?
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport?
The overhead is non-standard. It is up you to fit into the pattern flow. I try to fit in behind or in front of other traffic and not disrupt flow if there is potential conflict. I use the terminology: RV123 is 1 mile initial for the overhead left break over (runway ?numbers?). If there are any questions from inbound traffic I would add- this is a left 360 over (runway ?numbers?) for landing. It is my goal to always have the runway ?made? when I hit the 1 mile initial. I find for me a reduced power setting is in order for a complete 360 to the numbers and break at 120Kts- YMMVYou could say "entering overhead upwind for a crosswind turn to downwind". You'll be on the ground quick enough that further calls trying to clarify a non-existent "base" and "final" may be pointless. But you could make a short final call if you think there could be someone else on downwind looking for you.
You could say "entering overhead upwind for a crosswind turn to downwind".
This would be confusing. Many people may expect to see you turn at a normal crosswind position.
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport?
I call an initial 2 mile or so - "RV123 at a two mile initial for the overhead entry to rwy 28".
My plane has a vernier throttle so I am not welcome at formation clinics.
Depends on location.
If the Flight of RV's is at a uncontrolled field, I say break up the spacing as you get closer to the field and do a normal pattern like everyone else.
The trouble with the Overhead pattern is it's "non standard" and most folks are not familiar with it. Many folks that "hang out" in the pattern are learning to fly, they can barely keep up with the airplane and what's going on around them, a non standard procedure is greek to them.
I think that might have been me in the other thread that was closed briefly. I might have worded that badly, what I meant to say was that we do a 2-second spacing on the *break*, which is done at 130-140 kts. That usually results in about a 500' space between planes at touchdown.One post mentioned a 2 second spacing on touchdown. At 60 knots each second of spacing is 100 feet.
If you use 2 second spacing in the break, you're traveling 4 seconds farther at 140 knots due to the 180 deg reversal. 140 kts x 1.69 x 4 = 946 feet
If you were doing 140 all the way around the 180, yes. But in the break you're pulling 2g and decelerating to flap extension speed, so it comes out closer.
I think that might have been me in the other thread that was closed briefly. I might have worded that badly, what I meant to say was that we do a 2-second spacing on the *break*, which is done at 130-140 kts. That usually results in about a 500' space between planes at touchdown.
The trouble with the Overhead pattern is it's "non standard" and most folks are not familiar with it. Many folks that "hang out" in the pattern are learning to fly, they can barely keep up with the airplane and what's going on around them, a non standard procedure is greek to them.
Walt - I think a better term is "non-familiar". It is standardized in the AIM yet it appears to have been neglected in the list of training objectives of most civilian CFI's
Walt - I think a better term is "non-familiar". It is standardized in the AIM yet it appears to have been neglected in the list of training objectives of most civilian CFI's
A bit of an over-reach...
It is "standardized" in the AIM only for controlled airports.
Almost all of the VAF discussion seems based on its effect at non-towered airports.
Question for the formation/overhead pattern guys - Why do many of you say "initial" when you are approaching the pattern at a GA airport where nobody knows what "initial" means? That's formation jargon, and helps nobody understand where you are or what you're doing. It really doesn't sound that cool, if that's it. Why not just say you're X miles out, for an overhead upwind? Most folks would understand that. I do overheads from time to time, but I make an effort to report in a way that other pilots will understand.
Question for the formation/overhead pattern guys - Why do many of you say "initial" when you are approaching the pattern at a GA airport where nobody knows what "initial" means? That's formation jargon, and helps nobody understand where you are or what you're doing. It really doesn't sound that cool, if that's it. Why not just say you're X miles out, for an overhead upwind? Most folks would understand that. I do overheads from time to time, but I make an effort to report in a way that other pilots will understand.
Overheads and formation are two totally separate things. The term "initial" is shown in the AIM as the entry for the overhead approach. All of the pattern is defined there. It can and is flown as a single ship or a formation.
I don't mean to sound flippant here, but all of this is thoroughly discussed in the AIM. It's not just something that the "formation hot dogs" have made up.
It seems many here haven't bothered to read the regulations about 'overheads'....
It exists for towered and non-towered airports. - AIM 5.4.27
"...Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver..."
You call it "Initial" when talking to a tower or common traffic - AIM 5.4.27
"...2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL..."
You can't do it if traffic in the pattern (rectangle or overhead) won't allow you to do it safely. - AIM 5.4.27
"...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..."
It's just common sense when and where it's appropriate. Use the radio to tell people what you are doing using 'Standard' overhead terms. If someone doesn't understand it, then ask them to land so you can explain it to them but do not perform the overhead if they are on downwind.
Fly safe.
It seems many here haven't bothered to read the regulations about 'overheads'....
It exists for towered and non-towered airports. - AIM 5.4.27
"...Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver..."
You call it "Initial" when talking to a tower or common traffic - AIM 5.4.27
"...2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL..."
You can't do it if traffic in the pattern (rectangle or overhead) won't allow you to do it safely. - AIM 5.4.27
"...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..."
It's just common sense when and where it's appropriate. Use the radio to tell people what you are doing using 'Standard' overhead terms. If someone doesn't understand it, then ask them to land so you can explain it to them but do not perform the overhead if they are on downwind.
Fly safe.
I agree. We should dumb all of our flying down for the lowest common denominator. Team RV should just practice touch & go's for their next airshow and we all should discuss airplanes using only terms that the non-flying public understands. That sure makes explaining that a stall has nothing to do with the engine quitting a whole lot easier on me. /sarcasm
I will use an overhead entry as a single if no one else is in the pattern - it's just easier. Usually at IYK, an uncontrolled airport, but will also request it at towered airports.
I will always call: "RV 192NM, 3 mile initial for the overhead, runway xx, Inyokern (or whatever the airport is).
If an unknown aircraft is in the pattern, this call gives him a heads up that someone is 3 miles away, inbound - even if he doesn't know what an overhead pattern is (doubtful).
For formation flights, the overhead entry is by far the easiest and safest way of getting a gaggle into the pattern with resonable spacing and SA. And for those of you also baffled by the terms "Overhead" and "Initial", SA is Situational Awareness.
Point being, why not use terminology that others will understand? Why not just say "overhead upwind"? What's so special about flying an overhead pattern that requires special jargonesque terms? I've never felt the need to say "initial". "Overhead upwind" and "360 to land" works for me. C'mon, you must admit that some folks think "initial" sounds cool and that it fits their wannabe military persona in the cockpit. Not painting with a broad brush, though. It's really about courtesy and common sense...and not expecting 99.9% of pilots to accommodate the lingo that 0.1% of pilots use.
I regularly hear ATC controllers explaining proper procedures or radio terminology to inexperienced pilots. I'm sure they tire of this and would prefer to just send the ignorant pilot packing, but no, they go out of their way to provide instruction and insure that these pilots safely reach their destination. To do anything less would be wrong and unsafe. Each of us has that same responsibility when we encounter pilots who are uninformed or misinformed.
This forum is one way to get the information out. Don't fight it. Learn from it!
Hey Luddite, I bet you now know what initial means when you hear it on the radio.
We do not disagree, but the FAA circular is only what the feds recommend. It is not binding, but simply an attempt at standardization. The airport owner can establish a pattern to be flow at his airport, or leave it up to the pilots. Like I said before, right away rules as defined in the AIM apply.
What continues to amaze me is that nobody is calling out IFR pilots for doing "non-standard" stuff at uncontrolled airports. I haven't a clue what IFR procedures are, being a VFR pilot. But every once in a while at my home airport an airport flies up the departure leg, breaks off, and joins a downwind. Confuses the heck out of me, but as it's a controlled airport I haven't concerned myself with it... The controllers will keep me safe, right?I just did a search of the 2012 AIM for "overhead". The first instance of an overhear approach or maneuver is section 5-4-27, which refers to it in the context of an IFR flight plan.
What continues to amaze me is that nobody is calling out IFR pilots for doing "non-standard" stuff at uncontrolled airports. I haven't a clue what IFR procedures are, being a VFR pilot. But every once in a while at my home airport an airport flies up the departure leg, breaks off, and joins a downwind. Confuses the heck out of me, but as it's a controlled airport I haven't concerned myself with it... The controllers will keep me safe, right?
Well, there are IFR approaches to uncontrolled airports, too. Who protects me then? It's me. I keep my eyes open, and if something I don't understand is going on I pay extra attention and even consider keeping my distance for a bit.
My point? Just because you don't read all of the AIM or know everything that might happen to you in a circuit, doesn't mean you shouldn't be ready to accommodate something you don't understand happening in the circuit.