What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

Overhead Break - Good or Bad ?

  • Good

    Votes: 185 59.5%
  • Bad

    Votes: 126 40.5%

  • Total voters
    311
  • Poll closed .

RV8R999

Well Known Member
This topic for some reason seems to really get peoples gander up...

Out of curiosity I'd like to know who feels the OB is a viable pattern entry procedure (forget that it is legal and a published procedure).

Lets establish a baseline: We are talking about well executed, courteous and thoroughly communicated OB procedures - not the guy who busts into a busy pattern unannounced.

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I said they're unnecessary except for an airshow, would I be shot? :D

I do have my opinion though. I live under an uncontrolled airport pattern, in which the 45 degree entry to downwind...........is by far the best, and most excepted. Other airports would vary.

L.Adamson --- next to U42
 
Seems to me there should be extra options, like, Do you feel that an overhead approach confuses other pilots? or Is the overhead break worth the bad reputation that it gives RV pilots? And if I agreed with LAbamson, would I too be shot? But could you shoot him first and give me a chance to run!
 
nope - I'm not interested in that. Feel free to create your own poll though its easy, I just figured it out.
 
OB

The OB is a very efficent way of getting a flight of 3 or more on the ground quickly, when the inital is flown correctly lead can determine where to break in order to not interfere with traffic. Communication with other traffic is the key.
 
The OB is a very efficent way of getting a flight of 3 or more on the ground quickly, when the inital is flown correctly lead can determine where to break in order to not interfere with traffic. Communication with other traffic is the key.

Just a thought, why not split up 10 miles from the airport doing an OB then proceed single file on the 45 to the downwind? Seems like that would work pretty well.
 
Out of curiosity I'd like to know who feels the OB is a viable pattern entry procedure (forget that it is legal and a published procedure)...

Where do you find the "OB" listed as a "legal" approach and published?
 
The OB is a very efficent way of getting a flight of 3 or more on the ground quickly, when the inital is flown correctly lead can determine where to break in order to not interfere with traffic. Communication with other traffic is the key.

I'll be honest................with as much traffic as there is around here (when the traffic builds)........considering airplane and helicopter students------------I wouldn't want to see an overhead break, because quite frankly, very few would know what was going on. Instead of efficiency, it could easily create mass confusion & worse.

For airports with little or no additional traffic at certain times of the day, then why not. But no............I wouldn't not agree with an OB at my nearby airport for the excuse of efficiency. I might even have to agree with Dr. Bruce that RV's are showboating.........if they actually pushed an OB on a saturated pattern to begin with. :eek:

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
This Poll is Silly.

If you don't know what your doing don't do it.

Second, if you don't know what it is, find out.

As for "Why don't you split off 10...20...30... miles out and just blah blah blah
is useless.

All this will succeed in finding is who the Men are.

No Flame suite required.
 
Gentle reminder

...of the "5 posting rules".
http://www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm
br,
dr

My .02...
The OH break feels great, is a challenge, rewards perfected technical skill and is in the AIM as an approved, legal arrival. I do it every chance I safely can, and the flight schools on my field teach it. And having had two engines go stupid in the air in my flying career (different planes) - I stay within gliding distance during the landing phase based on my own personally collected data set.

sources: 5-4-27 and 3.10.12
.
 
Last edited:
...is in the AIM as an approved, legal arrival.

Where do you fine that? I honestly don't see it. Surely you are not referencing AIM 5.4.26 that refers to IFR traffic...with ATC approval...with operation needs.

[ed. From dr.....5-4-27, not 26 as described above. The IFR flight becomes VFR at initial (up to 5 miles out), but I've done it dozens of times on VFR-only flights using (and not using) flight following flying into Waco's towered airport. Usually get a "Nice break, welcome back Doug" on the radio also...;^). If they are busy, they say 'no'.

Voted 'Good'.

Image courtesy FAA.gov web site (and that sure looks like the Concorde in the picture) (right click and select 'properties' for verification):
F0504027.gif


sources: 5-4-27 and 3.10.12]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oshkosh does it!

At the busiest airport in the world the tower is requesting overhead breaks all day long. If it was not legal, safe or a great way to enter the pattern I don't think they would do it.
 
Where do you find the "OB" listed as a "legal" approach and published?

I think the only place "OB" approaches are mentioned in the AIM, is in 5-4-26 where they are discussed as an option that pilots may request, from ATC, when operating on an IFR flight plan in VMC. I don't think the OB is mentioned anywhere in the FAR's.

Note: I have no potato in this fight, so have recused myself from voting in an attempt to avoid any animus. :D [ed. Nice. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm missing the black and white relevance of the overhead bread as Good or Bad. It's more a question of do you know how to fly it Safely or as another poster put it, where can I find the information of WHAT is the proper way to fly it.

A formation clinic should be in your future.

This is where you learn How to announce what your doing and why. How to complete the approach and what your looking for. Team RV operated out of a busy airport inside an aerobatic box while traffic arrives and departs below us. We offer guidence to those aircraft and always thank them for their help in avoidence of a conflict. This goes a long way towards being respected and revered, rather than loathed or feared. I voted Good.

See Section 3-10-12
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html


http://www.cannonaviation.com/overhead_pattern.php




Tad Sargent
WWW.TeamRV.us
 
Last edited:
... Note: I have no potato in this fight, so have recused myself from voting in an attempt to avoid any animus. :D

Well done, David! You get a gold star for today's work. :D

By the tone and words generated on other notable forum threads recently, it may well be that the OH approach will soon be relegated to empty patterns at uncontrolled fields, or with ATC's approval at controlled fields. Any other time may fall into the "just because I can doesn't mean that I should" category.

I enjoy watching and performing a well-executed OH break, but when I weigh my enjoyment against the angst that it seems to evoke in fellow aviators, I have to question whether the personal satisfaction is worth the headache.

I'm still weighing things ...
 
simple: good or bad :)

I just want to know how many folks like it and how many don't. Your reasons are your own but for me knowing is helpful.

If 1,000,000 people vote good and 1 person votes bad - I'd say we can leave the topic alone.

If 1 person votes good (me) and 1,000,000 vote bad - I'd say we have issues and can dissect later. I first want to find out if we have issues of significant scale to warrant more in depth discussion. Not perfect but simple.

Thanks for voting :)
 
I read the two "authorizing links" and I read it as IFR traffic. This bit is a key - "...Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft..."

The links also use the term "without a functioning control tower" which I read as the time when a tower is non-operational. The AIM uses the term "non-towered" airport for the section describing the "standard" 45 entry pattern. Different terminology for differnt airports.

Could someone provide a definite FAA definition that says the OB pattern is OK at a non-towered airport?

I just don't see it in the two links provided.
 
I just want to know how many folks like it and how many don't. Your reasons are your own but for me knowing is helpful.

If 1,000,000 people vote good and 1 person votes bad - I'd say we can leave the topic alone.

If 1 person votes good (me) and 1,000,000 vote bad - I'd say we have issues and can dissect later. I first want to find out if we have issues of significant scale to warrant more in depth discussion. Not perfect but simple.

Thanks for voting :)

Ken, I understand what you're asking. However, given the heat generated over the topic lately, I am sure that you can also understand why some are saying that it's a simple question without a simple answer.

OH approaches are great sometimes, not so great at others. Take DR's airport, 52F, for example. There are a lot of RVs there, a lot of formation flying done, a lot of RV visitors and the local flight schools even teach the approach. If you were to poll the pilots based there -- even those who never do OH approaches -- you might find that they don't have a problem with it at all.

Ask pilots at other airports (like the most vocal detractors on the other forums), and you already know what kind of response you'll get. It's not a good-or-bad issue, IMO, and whether I personally like watching or doing OH approaches is of no consequence.

To make you happy, I'll vote. But you'll have to tell me how you want me to vote. I personally like OH approaches, but I dislike the backlash from other pilots. So, how do I vote, good or bad?
 
Same as IFR practice approaches

I view overhead breaks exactly the way I view IFR practice approaches on VFR days: you are doing something that is not universally understood by every pilot. Doing it is safe and legal, but is incumbent upon those doing it to communicate to others that may not be quite as knowledgeable in language they can be expected to understand.

If you're announcing yourself as "procedure turn inbound" to an uncontrolled field on a VFR day, there is every chance that you will be just as well understood as if you had chattered it like a chipmunk. This failure to understand specialized lingo is not the fault of the VFR pilot, it is a failure on the part of the "IFR" pilot to recognize the situation for what it is and communicate appropriately.

Back before I was IFR rated and started flying an RV, I had no more idea of what an overhead break was than I did of what a procedure turn was. All I wanted to know in those cases was where you were in relation to the airport and where/when I should look for you. I don't now, and I didn't then, think it was my responsibility to learn the other pilot's language.

Basic VFR terminology is the lingua franca of VFR flying days, in my opinion. If you're going to do something that is somewhat out of the ordinary for the typical pilot, spell it out in terms they will understand.
 
Well, there are 2 ways to do the overhead approach.

One is in controlled airspace with a control tower authorizing the maneuver. That's a no brainer - it is good - facilitates traffic flow and is routine at some airports. Do not do it without tower concurrence. Locally, if you call in with an RV call sign, they sometimes ask if you want an overhead break.

The other is at uncontrolled airspace - like Class G. All FAR 91.126 says is all turns must be made to the left unless otherwise specified by light signals or other ground visual markings indicating turns should be to the right. It does not mention traffic pattern, just make all turns left (standard) or right (non-standard). Make the approach in accordance with FAR 91.126.

The overhead break is not illegal. No where in the FAR's is it prohibited. In fact it is an approach and landing procedure used for many years. It has history. But that has to be taken with a bit of common sense because an over head break that screws up normal traffic as outlined in the AIM could be a violation of other FAR's concerning reckless flight. But it could also be argued the complaining guy screwed up the over head approach so there you are, legal limbo.

I like the over head approach because of where it came from. It is a fast, efficient way to get lots of airplanes on the deck using minimum airspace.

If you can do a steep turn and maintain altitude within +/_ 50', you are qualified. :)

At an uncontrolled airport, make sure everyone in the area knows what's going on, and if need be, give way to the student just learning to fly in a Cessna on a down wind cross-county leg. We were all there once and need to cut these new pilots a bit of slack, or anyone else flying like a new pilot. That's a lot easier than having to respond to a formal complaint. All it takes is a bit of common sense.

P.S. I did not vote because I have a policy, which I tell telephone solicitors, I don't do surveys unless I get paid $100. They go away real quick and do not call back. :)
 
Last edited:
Could someone provide a definite FAA definition that says the OB pattern is OK at a non-towered airport?

Is there mention in the AIM or FARs about doing low approaches on a practice instrument approach? According to the FARs you are supposed to land. I dare say you will not find anyone disagreeing that doing a low approach on a practice instrument approach is bad. The AIM is not the FARs, just an explanation and good practices. Just because something is omitted from the AIM or FARs does not render it unacceptable.

Finding this discussion rather ridiculous. I'm not going to bother voting. Neither side of the issue will convince the other side. Now about which or if what primer to use.......:D
 
Overhead Break

In my opinion OB it's very safe if it is properly executed. It's hard to believe that some RV guys are opposed to it, i would expect that from some spam-can flyer but i guess some never change . It is the best and most efficient way to bring a flight in to an airport.
 
In my opinion OB it's very safe if it is properly executed. It's hard to believe that some RV guys are opposed to it, i would expect that from some spam-can flyer but i guess some never change . It is the best and most efficient way to bring a flight in to an airport.

Sure...............if EVERYONE is on the same page........which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

In a minute here...........I'm going to start voting for Dr. Bruce Chein, when I see comments such as above...

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Last edited:
The overhead break isn't taught to students, as far as I know. And I'd bet that most pilots wouldn't know what it was. So the burden of proper safety and separation is even higher for the pilot doing the maneuver.

Seems to me that if you called "Over the numbers at [altitude] breaking to close-in downwind," you'd be presenting a clearer picture to another pilot in the pattern than merely stating, "In the break."

Also, while flying from initial to the break you ought to have your head on a swivel and out of the cockpit. And give way to other traffic, too.

Dave
P.S. Gripe: unrelated to the overhead break - if you're about to transmit, keep your speech at a reasonable pace. Around here some pilots talk very compressed and rapidly; I cain't hardly figger 'em out.
 
...
P.S. Gripe: unrelated to the overhead break - if you're about to transmit, keep your speech at a reasonable pace. Around here some pilots talk very compressed and rapidly; I cain't hardly figger 'em out.

As opposed to TX, where you have to hang around to wait for them to finish....:D
 
Devils advocate

How do you communicate with the unseen NORDO traffic?
That's the best part of the OH extra eyes in the pattern, NORDO will be seen by someone in the pattern (hopefully lead) and a "Knock it Off" call will be made. We have actually had this happen.
 
different how?

How is an overhead any different than an upwind, cross-wind, down-wind, base and final...other than each of the legs are very short?

Rhetorical questions:
If on a 45 and the pattern is full, what do you do? Break out and try again? Fly wide? Join up and land in his/her wing? Okay, kidding on that one.

If on an upwind and the pattern is full, what do you do? Turn cross-wind (i.e. break) over the numbers, mid-field, departure end, 1 mile past, 2 miles past...you get the point.

My take; you have options when entering the pattern for an overhead via the upwind that you don't have when entering on the 45 to downwind.

-Jim
 
That's the best part of the OH extra eyes in the pattern, NORDO will be seen by someone in the pattern (hopefully lead) and a "Knock it Off" call will be made. We have actually had this happen.

Except I'll be looking for the OH traffic, and hit the NORDO... :eek:
 
Overhead Breaks and Patterns

The poll needs to define what you mean by good and bad. It is used in VMC conditions in the military by large groups of small fighters to get many airplanes on the ground quickly, usually because all are approaching or at minimum fuel. So it is GOOD from that point of view. If properly executed, it is very efficient. If there are a lot of unknowledgeable flyers in your area, help educate them on OBs and patterns--it helps OBs go more "smoothly". It is up to the flight lead to choose when and how to enter the traffic pattern with a flight and what type pattern to fly depending on traffic conflicts. I've been doing OBs and patterns for fifty years with few problems. They are only BAD when the flight lead cuts someone off that is already in the pattern.
 
The overhead break isn't taught to students, as far as I know. And I'd bet that most pilots wouldn't know what it was. So the burden of proper safety and separation is even higher for the pilot doing the maneuver.

I know there must be many people reading this who are like me....so I'll go ahead and say it. I haven't got the slightest idea what this thread is even about. As David said above, I wasn't taught what an overhead break is, I don't think I've ever executed one and wouldn't know it if it came up and introduced itself. I wasn't trained in the military, just a mom and pop fbo in Texas. Maybe I do know what it is, just by another name.

There is a lot of great opinions being tossed about. I'll go search Google and YouTube and see if I can't educate myself on what is being talked about. Admitting my ignorance to myself led me to a single observation. If I have no idea what an overhead break is, how am I going to respond when someone does it? If I was in the pattern for runway 17 and you called "123ab overhead break for 17" I wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about or where you were coming from. I'd just be doing my barn owl imitation as I try to figure out where you are.

Opinions are pretty useless if you have no knowledge of the topic. Since I'm not qualified to answer the poll I am forced to abstain. Great poll question though! Very introspective exercise.
 
I know there must be many people reading this who are like me....so I'll go ahead and say it. I haven't got the slightest idea what this thread is even about. As David said above, I wasn't taught what an overhead break is, I don't think I've ever executed one and wouldn't know it if it came up and introduced itself. I wasn't trained in the military, just a mom and pop fbo in Texas. Maybe I do know what it is, just by another name.

There is a lot of great opinions being tossed about. I'll go search Google and YouTube and see if I can't educate myself on what is being talked about. Admitting my ignorance to myself led me to a single observation. If I have no idea what an overhead break is, how am I going to respond when someone does it? If I was in the pattern for runway 17 and you called "123ab overhead break for 17" I wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about or where you were coming from. I'd just be doing my barn owl imitation as I try to figure out where you are.

Opinions are pretty useless if you have no knowledge of the topic. Since I'm not qualified to answer the poll I am forced to abstain. Great poll question though! Very introspective exercise.

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?
 
One thing I've noticed in the back country is that a low overhead approach is often a decent way to make an approach to a field that's in a tight spot. It's not useful for every such place, but it's a handy tool to have in the kit.

With that in mind and avoiding the "good" or "bad" of it, about all I can say is use it where appropriate, be **** careful of other traffic and any noise issues and don't use it where it's inappropriate.

Because of the gray nature of the matter - it's not black and white - I'm one of the people not voting. If there were an option to vote "it depends" I'd choose that one.

Dave
 
This poll is probably going to be just as useful as one that asks "Are straight-in approaches good or bad?"
 
I view overhead breaks exactly the way I view IFR practice approaches on VFR days: you are doing something that is not universally understood by every pilot. Doing it is safe and legal, but is incumbent upon those doing it to communicate to others that may not be quite as knowledgeable in language they can be expected to understand.

If you're announcing yourself as "procedure turn inbound" to an uncontrolled field on a VFR day, there is every chance that you will be just as well understood as if you had chattered it like a chipmunk. This failure to understand specialized lingo is not the fault of the VFR pilot, it is a failure on the part of the "IFR" pilot to recognize the situation for what it is and communicate appropriately.

Back before I was IFR rated and started flying an RV, I had no more idea of what an overhead break was than I did of what a procedure turn was. All I wanted to know in those cases was where you were in relation to the airport and where/when I should look for you. I don't now, and I didn't then, think it was my responsibility to learn the other pilot's language.

Basic VFR terminology is the lingua franca of VFR flying days, in my opinion. If you're going to do something that is somewhat out of the ordinary for the typical pilot, spell it out in terms they will understand.

Dave's got it right! As long as the folks doing the break spell it all out, then I don't see the issue...
 
I agree with Dave and Gil. I had no clue what this was until subscribing to this forum and would bet that 90% of the VFR flyers out there are the same. I am not opposed to using the technique, but it would make much more sense to someone unfamiliar with the procedure if the radio calls were made in terms that the average VFR pilot understands.

My two cents. No potato (or is that potatoe?) in this fight (or in my pants). It has been an interesting discussion, however.

cheers,
greg
 
Seems to me there should be extra options, like, Do you feel that an overhead approach confuses other pilots? or Is the overhead break worth the bad reputation that it gives RV pilots? And if I agreed with LAbamson, would I too be shot? But could you shoot him first and give me a chance to run!


OK
both of you take off running
 
I think I am going to talk my good friend and CFI to teach me about overhead breaks. I was totally unaware of the procedure before now. Anything I can do to keep confusion down in the pattern is a big plus for me. Right now if I heard someone announce an overhead break and saw the plane I would probably exit the pattern until the other plane was on the ground simply because it was something I wasn't expecting as normal and would probably think the other fellow was in trouble with an engine out or something. Education is what I need to make this seem like a normal event. I don't know if I want to do them my self but it will be interesting to learn the proper way to do one so I know what to expect. Who knows it might even be fun.:D
 
At the risk of jumping in here, the definition as per the Pilot/Controller Glossary from the AIM:

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. 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 conventional 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.
 
It has a place.

Once was put in orbital hold by Shreveport Downtown tower since a bomber was talking off at Barksdale. Upon release and cleared for the approach, I was way too high and close to land normally.

Tower asked if about I would be able to land since I was so high and close or would I need to be re-vectored. Told them no problem if I could get an overhead approach, mid field left break.

Tower cleared me for the approach and down I came. Guess since there is so much military traffic in the area, it wasn't a big deal. Did get a comment from the tower that it was nicely executed.

Got to admit, it was fun....and I can understand why it could be addicting to an adrenalin junkie.....Much like sitting on a large potato.....
 
Back
Top