What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Overhead Approach / Break

Flyingguido said:
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport? :confused:
Click to expand...

You 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.
 
yea, close

sandifer said:
You 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.
Click to expand...
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- YMMV
 
Ron Lee said:
This would be confusing. Many people may expect to see you turn at a normal crosswind position.
Click to expand...

What would the average pilot (who is unfamiliar with an overhead break) expect to see? I think most would be confused at the sight of an overhead break, so I think attempting to describe it an any fashion would be unclear to those who are not accustomed to it. I think visually clearing the pattern is much more important than any actual call pertaining to the maneuver itself. Saying something like "RV123 is 1 mile initial for the overhead left break over (runway “numbers”)" is a good call for those who understand it, but will still baffle most of the other pilots we share the pattern with.
 
I am not going to say that it doesnt matter....

Flyingguido said:
What and where is the appropriate radio call for this at an uncontrolled airport? :confused:
Click to expand...

...but most GA pilots don't understand what the manuever is anyway regardless of how you call it out. Always call out "traffic permitting" and don't be afraid to fly through your initial and join the pattern or leave the area and try again if there are any doubts about where the traffic is and what the break to downwind might look like to someone poking along in the pattern. People get very upset when, in their interpretation and ignorance, they get "cut off" by the "hot dog" in that RV. Most simply do not understand that you will be gone and parked before they even turn final.
 
usually

I call an initial 2 mile or so - "RV123 at a two mile initial for the overhead entry to rwy 28". Looking and listening for other aircraft in the pattern as I approach the break. If I find other aircraft, i'll call "RV123, entering left downwind on the overhead entry, number x for landing to follow the Cessna on downwind". I hope that lets everyone know that you saw them and lets them know you will not be cutting them off. If I suspect any confusion by others in the pattern that might feel intimidated, I just weenie on the break, slow down and just call "left turn to downwind behind the Cessna, number 2 for landing" (No use pissing off the local bro's).

With no traffic, I preferably enter as fast as I can go (BTW with a bit of descent - 180 KIAS if I can get it). I briskly roll (60 degrees AOB or so) and load some G first and then smoothly reduce power (trying to keep the oil in the sump) to just above idle (minimizes a pretty prominent popping in my airplane). A few seconds of G, and with a C/S prop, I typically have no problem adjusting the turn and slowing to 80 KIAS at a nice close abeam. Stick in 1/2 flaps and fly the approach.

I think the key is the constant speed, must be much harder bleeding speed with a fixed pitch.

I think maybe the biggest misconception of those who don't understand it is that the break is a way of barging into the pattern without regard to other traffic- not so!! A proper break establishes interval on the existing traffic in an orderly, and expeditious, fashion - when done right.

Careful out there.
 
Last edited:
Nice Vids John R

and for those wondering why do a break - both vids show about 60 - 70 seconds from the break to touchdown. That is what it is for - getting lots of high performance A/C down quickly in a safe and orderly fashion. That is what "expeditious" is referring to.

Sure beats droning around in the extended box pattern waiting for something bad to happen --- fun too!!
 
Last edited:
Change it?

Ron Lee said:
My plane has a vernier throttle so I am not welcome at formation clinics.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a "major" to change to a non-vernier throttle.

There are very good reasons that vernier throttles are not safe in formation flying.
 
hydroguy2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I respect your opinion of overhead patterns, however while you may have some issue with those who conduct overhead patterns that does not change the facts. The overhead pattern is a safe, legal and efficient way to land a formation at either a controlled or uncontrolled airfield and can be accomplished without disturbing other aircraft that are in a "normal" box pattern. I would advise anyone who does request the overhead at a controlled airfield to listen to tower instructions and follow them exactly. At uncontrolled airfields when other aircraft are in the pattern it is advisable to clearly state your intentions and make sure that those who may be unfamiliar with the overhead pattern understand what you will be doing before you do it. If a conflict exists, give way to traffic in the box pattern. This is common courtesy and common sense.
 
Uncontrolled airport comment

It should be noted that at uncontrolled fields you may not be able to tell everyone in the area your intententions. My home airport (KEWK) has a couple of aircraft that do not have radios (Comm or transponder) and all the talk on the radio falls on "deaf" ears. The aircraft also are not ultralights, of which one is an RV-3, so they are in our area of performance in both speed and manueverability.

NOTE: I do love to watch a flight of aircraft arrive using the over head approach, the statement is just something everyone should ALWAYS keep in mind when flying!
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, what you describe is not "trouble with the overhead pattern". The trouble is with a pilot that performs ANY maneuver or procedure that compromises the safety of any other person in the air or on the ground. If a student pilot is in the pattern it would be wise for everyone to give him every consideration so that he can safely pilot his aircraft. If that means discontinuing an overhead pattern OR a "normal" box pattern, so be it!
 
One post mentioned a 2 second spacing on touchdown. At 60 knots each second of spacing is 100 feet. I personally would not be comfortable with a 200 foot spacing on touchdown. I don't think it would give you time to react to issues with a aircraft ahead such as a blown tire or collapsed gear ect.. A break failure in a trailing aircraft would also be a problem. For me as a personal opinion I would prefer 500 feet. That gives reaction time and room to handle something unexpected.

George
 
sailvi767 said:
One post mentioned a 2 second spacing on touchdown. At 60 knots each second of spacing is 100 feet.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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


Paige
 
Last edited:
PaigeHoffart said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
While I have not previously responded to the break threads, this time I will succumb to the temptation.

My first civilian experience with a "mixed" pattern was many years ago at a flyin in the local region. Wife was in the right seat in our Tiger. A Cub stalled its motor on the runway while I was on final. I and others behind me properly decided to go around. Unknown to us a multi aircraft flight of RV-3s had decided to do a break. My wife caught the radio call (I was busy flying the plane). I had already called our going around and the turn to downwind. Multiple calls about the fouled runway had been made by others. We started scanning like mad looking for the other aircraft.

We were about midfield on downwind when I heard some one whining he was being cut out of the pattern by a Cherokee (1st mistake) and that I needed to get out of his way (2nd mistake). One of the RV-3 drivers was incensed that I (and the aircraft behind me) had disrupted their group arrival. I made a couple of counter comments and suggested if he had a real issue to find me on the ground. He shut up at that point broke off, and entered on the 45.

Later I was approached by one of the members of the flight, who apologized for the incident. He point out it would have been fine if the runway had not unexpectedly fouled. I agreed, but pointed out his colleague's actions had added unnecessary risk, his radio call was whining, and his judgement questionable. He apologized again and we shook hands.

Since then I have managed to stay out of the way of group flights. I don't have a problem with break entry, whether singular or in a group. Done some myself. However, safety first and be aware of local traffic before doing them.
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, as long as everyone does the same thing, I don't know that deceleration makes a difference. Just to keep the math simple, Let's say we fly 120 up initial, delay 60 seconds before the break, and decelerate to 60 knots on downwind. You would fly 2 miles upwind in 60 seconds, and then you would still have 2 miles to fly back on downwind...4 mile spacing due to your speed coming up initial.

Make sense?

Paige
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...

That makes much more sense and gives the 500 feet I would prefer to see. With 500 feet you have lots of options if things go wrong ahead of you or with your aircraft.

George
 
Doesn't make that much difference what the spacing is in the break. 2 or 3 or 4 seconds gets you initially separated and if you need more or less use the base turn (notice I said turn and not base leg) to cut off or gain separation.
 
as a controller, I just want to throw my $.02 in here... if we give you a pattern altitude for your overhead (generally 500' above published TPA per our regulations), please use it. That means you're going to hit someone if you don't. I'm not issuing traffic if I've separated you vertically, so please don't go barreling down the runway at 12 ft AGL. Just ask for a low approach if you want to do that, not an overhead.
 
Last edited:
Walt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Overhead Pattern

RV8R999 said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree.
No matter how many hours a pilot, or student pilot has logged, learning can still take place. If CFI's are not teaching overhead patterns, then the students can be exposed to them by pilots that have, and are flying them. Since Wilbur and Orville, pilots have learned from pilots.

Forced landings should be taught before a PPL is earned, and forced landings began with a high key, and a 360 degree overhead pattern to touchdown. When the pattern is empty at 52F, I will enter overhead, cut the power to idle and plan the decent to a landing in the touchdown zone without the use of any power. That is he only way I can remain proficient, and be ready if the engine goes south.

As already discussed, overhead patterns can coexist with box patterns.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
RV8R999 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
AIM

az_gila said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, if that's true, what is a standard pattern entry for a uncontrolled airport? The truth is there isn't one! So all those unhappy with pilots using a overhead entry have no leg to stand on.

We share the pattern with other pilots, so we use patterns described in the AIM. At uncontrolled airports "right of way" rules apply. All types of pattern entries can coexist with the proper display of right of way and courtesy for our fellow pilots.
 
luddite42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
luddite42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ha! I was wondering when somebody was going to bring this up. The "understand what it means" that is.
A couple weekends ago I was at the neighboring airport where I always buy my fuel. I'm on the taxiway near the departure end of the runway taxiing out for departure. A local warbird duffer dude returning from a crosscountry called a "3 mile initial". That gives me plenty of time to enter the runway and depart, right? WRONG I call my intention to depart, and on the radio comes this idiot "Stop, Stop right there" "I'm on a 1 mile final". And 30 seconds later here comes this "$&!##@^@" screaming down the runway at 200mph plus. As I departed I asked him where the victory roll was, and informed him that I thought there was a difference between an "initial", and a "high speed inspection pass". Be carefull out there. Idiots abound.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
RV8iator said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, it's in the AIM. Point is, outside of the extremely few military types, military wannabes, and formation flyers, NOBODY knows what it means, and NOBODY else uses it. You NEVER hear it except for the very rare occasion when some "formation hot dog" comes in overhead. Nobody BUT the formation hot dogs say it. I guarantee you 99% of the pilots out there won't know where you are or what you're doing if you say "initial". The whole point of making a radio call is for others to understand your intentions. Saying "initial" does NOT do that 99% of the time.

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.

Whether or not you feel the general pilot population should educate themselves regarding AIM terms for overheads, this just isn't done and it's NOT put into practice. Therefore, the awareness is not there. The fact that it's in the AIM doesn't necessarily means its use is a mark of good judgment. I didn't learn what "initial" meant until I heard it for the first time after 10 years of flying...and having a radio and hearing and making calls every time I flew. And I haven't heard it since. And I don't think I'm unusual.
 
Last edited:
Sid Lambert said:
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.
Click to expand...


You can still execute the overhead if another plane is on downwind by timing the break turn appropriately to ensure interval. In truth I find this far easier and safer than entering the 45 with someone on downwind as the relative motion between the two planes make it easier to pick out of the clutter and padlock through the break turn. Personally, I wait till the other guy is at a line 45 degrees behind my wing-tip before execting the break. I'll be no closer to him than if entering the pattern in any other fashion.

Likewise, If the other pilot is performing the B52 pattern and has just turned downwind I'm ok with the break turn at the numbers well in front of him - provided, now read this carefully, provided I explain my intentions and receive his concurance as a courtesy. Otherwise I'll cut power, decel straight and level to avoid adding the the already extended downwind and execute a slightly "tamer" break when he passes my 45 line.

Considering the true lack of adherance to any real standard at non-controled fields the overhead break actually has the potential to be the gold standard for all arrivals as the intial and break points are geographically consistent unlike the other "standard" arrivals. your 45 may not match my 45 not to mention the inherent potential conflict with arrival and departing traffic with the 45 technique whch all things being equal is eliminated with an overhead.

cmon bring it... :)
 
Sid Lambert said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need a bit more of 5.4.27 to be quoted...

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:

Even the existence of the possibility of an overhead approach at any airport is not guaranteed...

Does your airport have the maneuver defined in it's operational procedures?
 
Last edited:
Sid Lambert said:
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
Click to expand...

You are way off base and also barking up the wrong tree. This "lowest common denominator" stuff has permeated flight training culture...and I vehemently dislike and disagree with it. We're talking about a SINGLE word choice...not this huge ideological thing you've blown way out of proportion. I'm not a formation hater. I think it's cool and have no problem with it. I don't do it myself. I'm more into aerobatics...and I put as much effort into it, and do it with as much skill as Team RV displays with their formation flying. You really don't need to accuse me of wanting to dumb down flying...it's not about that at all. There are lots of ways flight training is dumbed down and designed in a misguided CYA attempt to keep the lowest common denominator from killing themselves.....but the fact that flight schools and instructors don't teach "initial" as standard phraseology is not one of them. Again, IMO there's nothing special about an overhead break that REQUIRES one to make a radio call that nobody understands. I don't feel like the single word choice (or lack thereof) is indicative of any deeper sympathy for the "dumbing down" of flying.
 
What's This Formation Hot Dog Stuff?

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.
 
pvalovich said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, in accordance with the AIM, does IYK have "Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver."?

Having landed there several times in a sailplane, disrupting the pattern could have consequences for other users...:rolleyes:
 
luddite42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a stretch to say that I learn something every time I leave Mother Earth and I have been flying for 48 years now. Are you trying to tell me that I should stop learning and "dumb down" to the level of the most inexperienced pilot in the sky? Better that I should do my best to explain in simple terms to the uninformed what an overhead pattern is. If I determine that he still doesn't understand then I will give him every consideration so I don't compromise his safety. If that means that I abandon my overhead approach and follow him through the box pattern, I will do that.

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!
 
ronschreck said:
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!
Click to expand...

we know what an overhead is and how to use it and how to fit you into the pattern. 99% of the time it's perfectly fine and safe. again, we just ask that you guys know the procedures before asking for something. altitudes are very important here (if issued) and we generally separate you vertically from A/C on final/base/taking off and longitudinally once you start your break, at which point you're just another a/c in the pattern. they definitely increase workload, but i'm not going to whine about that, i'll just tell you unable ;)
 
Nobody is going to futher the cause for using the word "initial" by saying it on the radio and hoping everyone else understands what's happening...and hopefully avoiding a mid-air. Are we waiting for mid-airs to happen for folks to become educated? It is what it is. Most pilots don't know what it means. Anybody taking the "dumbing down of flying" approach needs to take it up with every flight school and CFI they meet so that new students are taught this and USE it enough to recognize the meaning when they hear it. I just don't see the justification for compromising safety only because there's an extremely obscure word that the AIM uses for a specific purpose that 99.9% of pilots do not use and have no use for. I'm NOT against overhead patterns. There are lots of ways to enter and fly a pattern. Do we need special jargon for each? Overhead is just another way.

Regarding the examples of ATC having to "educate" pilots regarding proper phraseology, I'm sure the phraselogy in question is required to be used by more than 0.1% of pilots flying in the system. Being so adamant about using "initial" just comes across as a hayseed trying make its way upwind of a hurricane. I truly can't think of another example of "smarting up flying" that would be for the benefit of such a minute few, as this thing with the word "initial". Lots of folks fly tight patterns consisting of upwind, midfield crosswind, etc. legs. This isn't really too much different from an overhead approach. Again, what makes the overhead so special that requires such a special and obscure word in the aviation lexicon? I really wouldn't care, but IMO there's a real safety risk when pilots insist on saying "initial". Change the flight training culture and I'm perfectly fine with it.
 
Last edited:
Hey Luddite, I bet you now know what initial means when you hear it on the radio.

See, we can teach old dogs new tricks.
 
I'm confused...

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. In that paragraph is where it mentions what Gil refers to: "Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver."

The next reference is in the Pilot/Controller Gloassary section, which says:

OVERHEAD MANEUVER− A series of predetermined 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.

And goes on to define procedures.

So my confusion comes from the statement "Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver."

Who develops a pattern at an airport? Who determines when aircraft have an operational need to conduct an overhead maneuver? Does section 5-4-27, and therefore the statement "Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver" pertain only to airports with IFR approaches, and aircraft operating under IFR flight plans, since that is what section 5-4 appears to deal with?

I can't seem to find anything in the AIM that says when an overhead should, or should not, or can, or cannot, be used...
 
Another twist, and applicable to the Inyokern airport user...

Glider pilots are taught (right or wrong, it's they way they are instructed) that the "Initial Point" is the entry point to the downwind leg from the 45 degree leg.

Two references here...

http://www.soarsundance.com/fieldops.html
http://www.memphis-soaring.org/Training/Chap_7.pdf

Just another thing to think of when you call "initial" hoping everyone knows what you mean....:)

As far as "right or wrong" it is actually FAA approved.

This FAA document http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-13.pdf uses the Initial Point terminology - see page 7-34. Caution, it is a 142 Mb document.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Danny King said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahh... the old "the AC doesn't really count" argument. You should also use the corresponding "the AIM doesn't really count" argument too.

Maybe they both don't count, but they are a both good guide for communications and traffic flow if you want safety...:rolleyes:

PS - It's the FARs that do count and define the right of way rules...
 
Last edited:
ccsmith51 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is lots of IFR activity at the airfields where I do my bounces. They always do a good job announcing on unicom where they are and what they are doing. I just stay out of their way. It expensive to set up and practice a full IFR approach so if there is a conflict I spin it or make other changes to let them complete their work. Its really not a big of a deal. If you bounce at a field with a ILS you will often find practice approaches ongoing.

George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top