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]

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]

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]

Sticking my neck out (again)...

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]

Safety or Etiquette?

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 ([email protected]) and they sent me a few of the posters below free of charge. Posted them at my local airports.

-Jim (voted good)

 

[Flyfalcons]

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]

It Conserves Energy - Potential & Kinetic

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

 

[az_gila]

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.

Since a lot of (most?) non-towered airports don't have AWOS, wouldn't your call of "3 mile initial" be better as "3 miles North"? Even with AWOS the default (preferred) runway may not be into the wind for low wind speeds.

I wouldn't know where your "initial" is - again pointing out clear communications - what is easy for you to understand is not universal for VFR pilots, even the ones that read the AIM...

I do agree on the flying overhead to see the sock bit...

 

[Phil]

This questions shouldn't be asked on an RV board. It should be asked on a GA board. After all we have to share the skys, airports, and patterns with them.

 

[Bruce]

I prefer doing the overhead approach with smoke on.

Overheads are great at ATC controlled fields.

I Like the quote above. Some of you KNOW the meaning of smoke on.

 

[Toobuilder]

...I wouldn't know where your "initial" is - again pointing out clear communications - what is easy for you to understand is not universal for VFR pilots, even the ones that read the AIM...

I do agree on the flying overhead to see the sock bit...

...Which is why I don't call "initial"... I will call "3 mile upwind for runway 29". I figure that puts me in a fairly exact spot over the earth in the minds of all the other pilots out there.

 

[David Paule]

I'd understand that to mean that you're on the opposite side of the runway from downwind. I'd never understand that to mean lined up with the runway.

(At KLMO, Longmont, CO, that could put you right into the parachutists, so make it real wide.)

Dave

 

[PeteJE]

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

Coming in at 160 knots over the runway at pattern altitude doesn't sound like safe decision making at any but abandoned civil airports.

 

[az_gila]

...Which is why I don't call "initial"... I will call "3 mile upwind for runway 29". I figure that puts me in a fairly exact spot over the earth in the minds of all the other pilots out there.

My mistake... I should have referenced your original qote of "3 miles upwind"...

Your updated quote with the runway in it does sound a bit clearer to location, but not very specific... This was on wiki, not definitive but...

The AIM terms shown here -

The wiki description - this guy would put you on an upwind "leg" but travelling in the oposite direction -

Upwind and downwind for location (as opposed to pattern legs) sounds more nautical to me than aeronautical...

Again, what you think is clear is less than clear when not using terms from the AIM.

 

[Ron Lee]

Calling the initial "upwind" is 180 degrees off if I read the diagram above correct. Better to say X miles north if landing south.

 

[Wayne Gillispie]

I have 140 hrs in those slow, certified, 747 pattern, poor climbing, no blue knob, heavy, high wing, trainer, dull paint, green or maroon interior 172's. I prefer mashed taters with gravy.

I spent 6 weeks/60 hrs in training. There were many things not covered including ob's. I could write several confessionals already. I am happy for many of you pilots that have your planes finished/purchased and have large fuel budgets. I have a hard time juggling family, work, yard, plane building let alone staying proficient or even current as I am on the home stretch now.

For all of you more experienced/high time per month pilots please understand many of us are still learning and won't have clue what you are talking about even though it sure looks fun.

After reading some of these recent hot threads on various sites I can understand why some of the local "certified plane pilots" treated me different once they found out I was building an rv.

I will soon be taking some -10 transition training and will try not to forget
what I learned to fly in and let the "total performance" go to my head. I will
do my best to be polite and friendly to ALL pilots even if they fly powered parachutes.

 

[Mile High Relic]

I'd understand that to mean that you're on the opposite side of the runway from downwind. I'd never understand that to mean lined up with the runway.

(At KLMO, Longmont, CO, that could put you right into the parachutists, so make it real wide.)

Dave

Yep. Based on the diagram in post # 59, that would REALLY be bad at KLMO on a Saturday.

 

[gasman]

...Which is why I don't call "initial"... I will call "3 mile upwind for runway 29". I figure that puts me in a fairly exact spot over the earth in the minds of all the other pilots out there.

So you are saying that you are 3 miles from the departure end on runway 29? How are you going to make a break when you are coming from the wrong direction?

The AIM shows the break being two 180* turns with an approach like a long straight in final but higher and the first 180 is started at the break point that is at the approach end of the runway. The second 180 is DOWNWIND about 1.5 to 2 miles from the end of the runway.

If I was in the pattern or close by, and a call came through that said...... RV "cowboy" on 3 mile final for 29er but will execute an overhead break to enter the pattern........ I might understand where you are and what you are going to do.

As long as RV's enter the downwind doing 150kts because they have a c/s prop that will slow them down in 3 seconds to pattern speed, and as long as RV's call an overhead break and expect all other aircraft in the pattern to give way to the flight of ten because "we have arrived", We will continue to get the reputation that we have going for us.

 

[nucleus]

Coming in at 160 knots over the runway at pattern altitude doesn't sound like safe decision making at any but abandoned civil airports.

You come in at 500 feet over pattern altitude...

It varies by controller, but frequently it helps flow on a busy day, you get in and get down quick.

Hans

 

[trishrussell]

2 reasons OBs are a safe decision

A couple years ago the airport 2 miles west of my home airport reactivated its tower, squishing my home airport's departure area to less than a mile. I live 1/2 mile off the departure end of my home runway, so I get a good view of the activity in the pattern. What I saw was scary!

Without drawing a picture, let me try to explain. Our calm wind/dominate runway is 26 with right traffic.

If you enter on the 45 you will be at the edge or in the class D airspace, and in either case you will be over a sensitive (complaining neighborhood) area.

If you enter on an extended downwind you are smack dab in the class D airspace.

If you enter on crosswind you are head on with the departing traffic that are turning south because they don't want to deal with the class D airspace. (Yes, the departing traffic is in the wrong, but good luck trying to argue with them.) Most of us used to enter on the crosswind, but after being one of the near misses and watching way too many from my backyard I'm now skittish.

If you enter on upwind you are over the soccer fields and the helicopter pattern.

After much thought I decided a well announced overhead entry was the safest. I announce 4 to 5 miles east inbound for the overhead with my altitude. I announce again at 2 miles. If someone is in the pattern on the radio I communicate as if they do not know what I am doing. I proceed looking for the guy not announcing, etc. I announce where I will break. My decision as to where I will break is based on the traffic in the pattern. My goal is to blend in, just as it would be if I were entering on the 45. Because of my position I can stay out of the craziness south of the field. I can see the 45 and downwind traffic. And I can politely merge into the pattern. No, it may not be standard, but it is safe. My biggest concern is keeping myself alive.

Second reason overhead breaks are safe: When flying formation, as mentioned in previous posts, we can get a large number of planes on the ground quickly with the maneuver. A good lead will merge the flight into the pattern politely and well. I have too often seen a meandering Cessna wander between a strung out flight in trail entering on the 45. In formation we are safer together. When we separate there are more chances of encounters with other airplanes. I believe it is best to get the flight on the ground quickly, politely, and efficiently.

We can help others understand why we do overhead breaks by making good announcements, discussing the maneuver at our local FBOs and EAA meetings, and becoming good examples of the maneuver.

 

[cmdro]

I must say these last few threads about the overhead have been an interesting read for me, I never knew it was such a big deal. I come from an almost all military training background and the overhead is basically the default entry to any pattern, formation or not, towered or not, heck, even for us non-fighter guys. I flew all over south-east Texas in a King Air for the final portion of my flight training, we flew patterns at just about every airport we could find, and flew the overhead into all of them with no issues at all. Maybe people were used to us, I'm not sure?

I fully admit that I am bias on this (we all like what we are familiar with), but I think the overhead is the safest way to enter a pattern, especially when entering a pattern with disimilar aircraft. I think everyone will agree in formation the overhead makes sense, but I would argue even single ship it does, and I will try and explain what I am thinking/looking for when I enter the overhead.

-Initial (3-5 miles out on landing runway centerline) - At this point you should start getting eyes on any traffic in the pattern. Hopefully you have been listening to the radio and built a picture in your head were all the traffic is and they should be easy to find. But this also gives you a good view to find anyone who may not be talking on the radio or simply not making the correct position reports. This is also were you look to see who might be a conflict, depending on the speed of the aircraft in the pattern. It is usually the people who just turned downwind (slow guys), are on crosswind (normal), or the ones on the runway or just took off(fast guys).

- Approx. 1 mile from the numbers - At this point you should be able to tell for sure who is going to be your conflict traffic and you can plan accordingly.
Just follow one simple rule when planning the break, ALWAYS GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANYONE ALREADY IN THE PATTERN. There is no reason to cut anyone off (even the slow guys). If there is someone on downwind that will be a conflict simply extend upwind, on runway centerline until proper spacing is created. I generally use 45 behind my abeam as a starting point, if the traffic is slower I will wait longer, if the traffic is faster, I will break as early as abeam me. Nothing says you HAVE to break at the numbers or by mid-field, I have often had to wait until the departure end. Worst case, there are multiple people on downwind and you can't fit a break in by the time you cross the departure end, well, this is the beauty of the overhead, you simply turn crosswind.

If done correctly, the overhead should never mess up a pattern, no matter how busy it is (works at UPT with up to 14 student pilots, some solo, in one pattern at a time). But, as the person flying the overhead you have given yourself the most options (can enter the pattern by breaking anywhere on downwind, or worst case on crosswind), and have keep up enough energy that should something go wrong you at least have a fighting chance at using those pilot skills to get the plane on the runway.

Also, one random tip for those just starting to fly the overhead and want to create good habit patterns, always start the break FIRST then pull power. If you ever fly formation this is very important.

I know this was a little long winded, and hope it added some value for those who aren't used to the overhead. If I just made things more confusing, or if anyone has a question please let me know.

 

[nucleus]

Yes!

Thanks for the clear explanation cmdro!

 

[RV8R999]

nice write-up CMDRO!

I agree. I use this simple checklist for the break:

Flop, Chop, Check, Drop

Flop = Roll into whatever AOB is required (the break)
Chop = Power to idle (initially or as required)
Check = Check Airspeed below Vfe
Drop = Deploy Flaps

 

[RV7Ron]

I must say these last few threads about the overhead have been an interesting read for me, I never knew it was such a big deal. I come from an almost all military training background and the overhead is basically the default entry to any pattern, formation or not, towered or not, heck, even for us non-fighter guys. I flew all over south-east Texas in a King Air for the final portion of my flight training, we flew patterns at just about every airport we could find, and flew the overhead into all of them with no issues at all. Maybe people were used to us, I'm not sure?

I fully admit that I am bias on this (we all like what we are familiar with), but I think the overhead is the safest way to enter a pattern, especially when entering a pattern with disimilar aircraft. I think everyone will agree in formation the overhead makes sense, but I would argue even single ship it does, and I will try and explain what I am thinking/looking for when I enter the overhead.

-Initial (3-5 miles out on landing runway centerline) - At this point you should start getting eyes on any traffic in the pattern. Hopefully you have been listening to the radio and built a picture in your head were all the traffic is and they should be easy to find. But this also gives you a good view to find anyone who may not be talking on the radio or simply not making the correct position reports. This is also were you look to see who might be a conflict, depending on the speed of the aircraft in the pattern. It is usually the people who just turned downwind (slow guys), are on crosswind (normal), or the ones on the runway or just took off(fast guys).

- Approx. 1 mile from the numbers - At this point you should be able to tell for sure who is going to be your conflict traffic and you can plan accordingly.
Just follow one simple rule when planning the break, ALWAYS GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANYONE ALREADY IN THE PATTERN. There is no reason to cut anyone off (even the slow guys). If there is someone on downwind that will be a conflict simply extend upwind, on runway centerline until proper spacing is created. I generally use 45 behind my abeam as a starting point, if the traffic is slower I will wait longer, if the traffic is faster, I will break as early as abeam me. Nothing says you HAVE to break at the numbers or by mid-field, I have often had to wait until the departure end. Worst case, there are multiple people on downwind and you can't fit a break in by the time you cross the departure end, well, this is the beauty of the overhead, you simply turn crosswind.

If done correctly, the overhead should never mess up a pattern, no matter how busy it is (works at UPT with up to 14 student pilots, some solo, in one pattern at a time). But, as the person flying the overhead you have given yourself the most options (can enter the pattern by breaking anywhere on downwind, or worst case on crosswind), and have keep up enough energy that should something go wrong you at least have a fighting chance at using those pilot skills to get the plane on the runway.

Also, one random tip for those just starting to fly the overhead and want to create good habit patterns, always start the break FIRST then pull power. If you ever fly formation this is very important.

I know this was a little long winded, and hope it added some value for those who aren't used to the overhead. If I just made things more confusing, or if anyone has a question please let me know.

That was a great explanation, very clear, thanks!

 

[Webb]

Perhaps people are confusing a low pass that turns into an overhead approach.

If you are pouring the coals to it and coming across the numbers at 200 knots and 500' AGL, then climbing and turning it into the approach, then I can understand the negative reviews.

If you are at pattern altitude doing an overhead approach and cross the numbers at 1,000' AGL, and at some point break for the downwind, then even if someone is on final (or even base to final) you will overfly them and be able to get into the normal pattern. Isn't this really just entering the pattern straight in on the upwind........Wouldn't that be safer than doing a 5 mile final?

BTW - have a question for those that oppose......If you are are 5 miles from the airport, lined up with the prefered runway, there are planes in the pattern (some of which will be on final when you arrive), how do you enter the pattern or do you try to fit in and do a 5 mile final?

 

[gereed75]

A final word on Overhead Entries

I think that this will be my final words (for now) on the overhead entry –

1) Please enter upwind from initial at TPA slightly offset to the right side of the runway (for a left hand break). This position allows you to see everyone in the pattern, including takeoffs and even go arounds.
2) Ensure very very very carefully that you are taking interval on any and all aircraft already established in the pattern, interval sufficient for both you and your wingmen if applicable. Extend upwind as necessary to achieve the interval. To do other wise will endanger you, members of your flight (if there are any) and other planes in the pattern.
3) Make a level turn to downwind while transistioning to pattern speed. (AOB not to exceed the FAR allowable in a traffic pattern).
4) Make appropriate radio calls.

If any of this is news to you or you do not understand any of the terms used in these explanations IMMEDIATELY DESIST FROM MAKING DANGEROUS OVERHEAD ENTRIES AND SEEK INSTRUCTION from someone who knows what they are doing, preferably a FAST or FFI instructor.

A large part of flying safely is knowing exactly what to do before doing it. To do otherwise is unsafe and brings hate and discontent and un-needed death to our community.

That is all. Fly safe. (Mod - thanks for moving this)

 

[Ron Lee]

Has there been a single death by an RV doing the overhead?

 

[Vac]

As a 22-year military aviator with another 10 years of civilian flying experience, including instructing in both environments, I?ll defer to the simple elegance of Cmdro?s description of the overhead pattern. The most important point is that the airplane on initial (upwind) will give way to ALL other aircraft in the traffic pattern. The other golden rule most of us former fighter pilots follow is ?when in Rome...?

A technique that I?ve found helpful when flying an overhead at a non-towered airport is to announce my position as an upwind arrival, and if there is any doubt about traffic in the pattern, to fly that upwind 500? above published pattern altitude. I always assume that there is traffic entering 45 to downwind without making a radio call prior to breaking, in other words, it is imperative to visually confirm that a break will not put me belly-up to any potential conflict, especially one not equipped with a radio. I also assume that not everyone?s pattern ground track and speed will be the same, so my visual look-out is designed to accommodate a wide pattern and straight-in approach. If there is any doubt, the break will be delayed or not conducted at all (?carry through and re-enter? or simply knock-it-off and go somewhere else). I've been monitoring CTAF within 10 miles (or more of the field), so I've had time to build a mental picture of the traffic in the area.

I?ve learned to avoid jargon, since ?one mile initial runway 18, left break? may not mean anything to the folks flying the Mooney entering 45 to downwind. In that case, it would be more appropriate to announce ?RVXXX, one mile upwind runway 18 at XXXX feet, Mooney entering downwind in sight, RVXXX number two to follow.? In any situation, I always assume I have the responsibility to avoid conflict, so I?ll always defer to other traffic (regardless of right-of-way rules) unless I have an emergency that makes this impractical.

One other point that gets a bit obscured in the classic 45 vs. anything else dog fight is that the purpose of any landing pattern/straight-in approach is to allow the aircraft to safely land in or near the desired TDZ. In other words, the base-to-final (?final turn?) and roll-out is everything. In my RV-4, my desired roll-out for a visual final is 300 AGL 3000 feet from my planned touchdown point. This is a nominal 6 degree glide path to the runway, which based on a final approach speed equal to 1.4 Vso (as recommended by Van?s), will allow me to reach the runway at idle power with full flaps under most conditions with a little money in the bank--easily cashed out with a slip. 6 degrees was chosen because 1) the math is easy, 300 at 3000? is easy to compute and cross-check, and 2) our airplane (with its fixed-pitch Catto prop) has a best glide angle of 4.3 degrees, so I?ve got 1.7 degrees of slop to work with . This is the classic stabilized final approach flown ?on speed? (L/Dmax). It is sufficiently long to allow the airplane to settle into a crab to allow me to judge the magnitude of any cross-wind and transition to a slip prior to touchdown.

Since the airplane has only one engine, I find it desirable to fly to final approach in a predictable manner from another point where I know I?ve got sufficient energy to execute the maneuver without the use of power. Air Force pilots refer to the point at which the base turn is started as the ?perch.? If I fly to a proper "perch" point, at the right airspeed and altitude, I should be able to fly a descending base turn without use of power to arrive on final on speed. The concept is very similar to a 180-degree power off approach practiced by all private pilots.

The ?break? in the RV-4 is actually a fairly gentle maneuver with power inversely proportional to speed on initial (i.e., the faster you are, the less power used with idle being the typical power setting if you ?pitch out? at cruise speed). Due to the tight turn radius of the airplane, it?s not practical to break with 60 degrees (or more) of bank, as you would in a fighter. To fly a smooth 180 degree turn to a properly spaced downwind, an initial bank angle of 25-30 degrees is generally sufficient with than angle adjusted throughout the maneuver (just like an S-turn across a road) to compensate for over- or under-shooting winds. This gentle break combined with the bubble canopy in the RV makes clearing throughout the break much more practical than it would be in a fighter where the second half of the turn is is flown belly-up to downwind traffic. A properly flown mid-field break should put the airplane on downwind in the exact same position as would a 45 degree entry. A break over the numbers (TDZ) will result in roll-out just prior to the ?perch? (i.e., slightly beyond the midfield downwind point).

An ?overshooting? wind is one that will tend to carry you across final (i.e., a cross-wind blowing from the direction of your downwind leg), whereas an ?undershooting? wind will make you work to get to final. The ?perch? is adjusted farther from the runway if the wind is ?overshooting? and closer to the runway if the wind is ?undershooting.? The objective is to fly downwind to arrive at the "perch" at 1000 feet (or published pattern altitude) at 1.4 Vso. It may or may not be necessary to adjust power to achieve parameters. If energy (the combination of altitude and airspeed) is managed properly, the throttle will likely still be in idle. As the airplane slows in the break and rolls out on downwind, the flaps are extended, trim is adjusted for on speed (1.4 Vso) and a final GUMPS check is performed while clearing for traffic on final (i.e., no conflicting straight-in traffic is present) prior to rolling off the perch. Due to the low-wing design and bubble canopy, it doesn?t really matter if a smooth descending 180 degree turn to final is flown or if the pattern is ?squared off.? No configuration or power changes should be necessary after rolling off the perch if I?ve set things up properly. All that is necessary is to fly, picturing the point 3000? from the TDZ that I want to roll out over at 300? AGL. If the runway is equipped with VASIs or PAPIs, I know that my desired 6 degree roll-out point will be a high indication since they are set up to accommodate (usually) a 3 degree glide path. Due to the excellent glide performance and low-drag design of the airplane, I have to work hard to properly coordinate the final turn and maintain on speed (the tendency is to use insufficient inside rudder and/or allow the nose to drop and speed to build). Clearing throughout the turn continues, since I assume there is unannounced straight in traffic that can be a potential hazard, and if I?m flying a continuous 180 degree turn, I?ll dip the wing to the outside of the turn to accommodate visual search.

If I?m following traffic and have insufficient spacing, I?ll either adjust the pattern to accommodate, or break-out (power up and climb away) and start over.

The bottom line is that if thoughtfully conducted with appropriate consideration and deference, all types of patterns and approaches can peacefully co-exist. From a mishap prevention standpoint, I also think it?s important to remember that we have far more landing accidents than mid-air collisions in the traffic pattern, so I thought I?d offer up my techniques for flying a stabilized visual final approach in the RV-4.

Fly safe,

Vac

 

[Toobuilder]

So you are saying that you are 3 miles from the departure end on runway 29? How are you going to make a break when you are coming from the wrong direction?...

I was taught that "upwind" is on runway centerline, in the direction of the runway identified, anywhere within the pattern area of the airport (approaching, or departing). Now, I do call "inbound" if I have not yet reached the airport (which I forgot to mention in my last post), or "on the go" if climbing from the runway after a T&G... otherwise, it's just "upwind". These seem perfectly clear to me. A "3 mile upwind, inbound 29" is going to be the same geographic location as a "3 mile final, 29", but the intent is clearly different.

This discussion is enlightening. The idea that these variations are not in the PTS, and therefore dangerous because they cause mass confusion really speaks poorly of our collective ability to learn and adapt to new things. I was taught the "upwind" entry (vs. the "overhead break"), as well as "crosswind" entries. Interestingly enough, I was also taught that a "straight in" is exceptionally rude, and I never do it unless it's a towered airport. I've been involved in more than a few head to head encounters near the runway because of either a very late "straight in" call or none at all to the "wrong" runway. My distain for the straight in just stuck.

Some of you would have kittens landing at an airport towing gliders and dropping jumpers. These guys land on taxiways going opposite normal traffic flow - NORDO. You simply keep you eyes open, adapt and overcome.

 

[L.Adamson]

Interestingly enough, I was also taught that a "straight in" is exceptionally rude, and I never do it unless it's a towered airport.

I do straight-ins quite regularly these days, when flying to untowered airports in the vast desert of the west.................and no other aircraft in the pattern. It's the most efficent of all!

L.Adamson -- RV6A

 

[tejasflyer]

Wow! This is way more complicated than I ever thought it was. The overhead entry is really functionally no different from any other method of getting into the pattern. Why is it so complex? If you come into (11R) from the north on a weekend, calling 10 mile final, 5 mile final, etc. You will not make many friends. There are lots of hungry pilots already in the pattern, having waited in line to get there, and you just think you can cut to the front? The problem is not just safety, it's manners. The same entry made with the call of overhead to enter the pattern indicates you are going to join up in proper sequence, without prioritizing your arrival over others. This is where I see the problem exists. The perception that you have "arrived" so everybody clear a space and watch, is seen as hotshot and "cowboy". The radio calls, and fitting into the existing flow can change the perception of the OB greatly. I personally see no problem with it, and will occasionally use a form of OB to avoid conflict. I fly into an airport with a number of craft that CHOOSE not to talk a lot on the radio. I will occasionally call for a straight in approach into the field, TRAFFIC PERMITTING. Not often, but a few times someone not previously talking will pipe in that they are xx in the pattern. My approach then changes, and is announced as a overhead upwind and enter the pattern #2 or whatever number is appropriate. I think the key is manners. Perception becomes fact pretty quickly in annoyed peoples mind. Also, I use the straight in approach as my example because that is a pet peeve of mine. Unless you are a BIG aircraft, join the rest of us peons in the pattern...

KB

 

[Toobuilder]

I do straight-ins quite regularly these days...

Idunno... I like to put my eyes on the sock and other traffic before I make a landing decision. Might be silly, but even a "military" overhead seems more in the spirit of the "normal" pattern than the straight in, and I like to follow the rules.

 

[Ron Lee]

Where is the idea coming from that RVs using an overhead approach cut in front of others? I sure don't. Others in the pattern have priority.

 

[L.Adamson]

Idunno... I like to put my eyes on the sock and other traffic before I make a landing decision. Might be silly, but even a "military" overhead seems more in the spirit of the "normal" pattern than the straight in, and I like to follow the rules.

All depends were you're at. These are open airfields in the middle of open space (as in a hundred miles around), and one even has AWOS, and a good selection of different runways if required. And of course...........there are usually three or four "outlaw biker type" RV's right behind me. As a general rule, very few aircraft use the standard pattern at this particular airport. Much different than the one I live under.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Snowflake]

I am continually reminded of the parallels between the RV community relative to the rest of GA, and the Sportbike community relative to the rest of motorcycling.

On a motorcycling forum that I frequent, which happens to be sportbike focused, there is regular discussion of all the "fun" things you can do on a sportbike. People talk about participating in track days, taking courses learning to do stunts, etc. These are all things that a small percentage of the sportbike community do, but a majority of them look on with awe and respect for the increased skills these riders have. On the other hand, some members think all sportbikes should be ridden like your grandma was on the back, and there are threads occasionally flaming some "yahoo" who was doing wheelies down the highway in traffic.

When you have a "sporty" vehicle like an RV or a Sportbike, if you like to do "sporty" things you'll find a way to do so. And despite whether that sporty vehicle flies or rolls, some people just lack the judgement to go do their "sporty" things in areas where nobody is looking (aerobatics in designated areas, formation practices well outside normal VFR routes, wheelies in empty parking lots, speeding on a racetrack). All too often we see a sportbike racing past us on the highway, or doing wheelies between stoplights in town. That behaviour paints the entire sportbike community in a bad light, just like an overhead break into a crowded uncontrolled pattern would do the same for a group of RV's.

It doesn't change the fact that developing the skillset to handle a motorcycle at speed or on one wheel, or to learning fly an RV with the precision necessary for safe formation, can make you a safer rider/pilot when you're riding/flying more casually.

There's a time and a place for overhead breaks. When you're in the right time and place, they're great fun to fly, and to watch. In a furball over an uncontrolled airport, not so much.

 

[Toobuilder]

I am continually reminded of the parallels between the RV community relative to the rest of GA, and the Sportbike community relative to the rest of motorcycling...

Having spent many miles on various sportbikes over the last 20 years, I agree with the parallel between our worlds, but not the specific application of motorcycle "stunting". In the airplane world, the "overhead" is much less of a stunt than just another option to enter the pattern. The only skill required is present within any pilot - the ability to make turns in the pattern. While it may look "cool? the overhead is first and foremost a practical way to transition from the enroute segment to landing. Motorcycle stunting, while certainly impressive and "cool" (to some), serves zero practical value as a transportation element.

 

[az_gila]

I was taught that "upwind" is on runway centerline, in the direction of the runway identified, anywhere within the pattern area of the airport (approaching, or departing). Now, I do call "inbound" if I have not yet reached the airport (which I forgot to mention in my last post), or "on the go" if climbing from the runway after a T&G... otherwise, it's just "upwind". These seem perfectly clear to me. A "3 mile upwind, inbound 29" is going to be the same geographic location as a "3 mile final, 29", but the intent is clearly different.

......

Now that certianly would confuse me.

"Upwind" to most folks is the direction the wind is coming from, just like "downwind" is the direction your hat goes when it's blown off.

So your call "3 mile upwind, inbound 29" would be an exact 180 from where you think you are telling me your location!

Which text books, instructors, web pages did you learn "I was taught that "upwind" is on runway centerline, in the direction of the runway identified, anywhere within the pattern area of the airport (approaching, or departing)."??

By this logic, a final approach could be called "upwind"....

Added edit. The confusion is "upwind" vs "upwind leg" I have certainly heard of an upwind leg for a square pattern, but 3 miles upwind is confusing. Would you call a 3 mile downwind? That could also be in mutiple directions from the airport center since a pattern leg could be either direction.

The point I am trying to make in the last several posts is that the "clear radio comunications" that is claimed for non-standard pattern proponents is far less than clear to a lot of other pilots....

 

[gereed75]

What Vac said (and said well)

Thanks Vac and Cmdro,

My only disparity is with the 500' above TPA for entry. I have seen that before. I suspect that maybe it comes from the high speed community where a 500' higher pattern is established for fast mover entries??

Having always been a slow mover, our entry was at pattern altitude with a level break.

That is what is taught by the FFI guys.

Agree that all it takes is a quick tug at 30 -45 degrees AOB to bleed speed (at idle) followed by a gradual rollout to downwind. works in my C/S RV-6.

Oh yea, I said that the last post would be my last on this subject.... oh well, I'm addicted

 

[Toobuilder]

Now that certianly would confuse me.

"Upwind" to most folks is the direction the wind is coming from, just like "downwind" is the direction your hat goes when it's blown off.

...So by that logic, if the wind is calm and someone reports "left downwind for 29", mass confusion ensues because the frame of reference is the wind? Wouldn't it just be easier to use the runway?


Yes, we are talking legs of the pattern, or more to the point, steps in a process, not some nautical reference to location.

Just like you never hear "Silver RV, left downwind leg", why would dropping the word "leg" from the upwind segment of the pattern cause so much confusion? Is it really that confusing to hear "Silver RV, 2 mile upwind, inbound 29..." vs. "Silver RV, 2 mile 45 for left downwind, 29..."?

Yes, a 3 mile upwind "inbound" is roughly going to be the same place over the ground as a "3 mile final", but the major point is that as a well understood and universal process, "upwind" (like the 45) is the beginning, while "final" is, well... the final step in the pattern.

The legs of the pattern are more than geographic location, it's also useful to understand what the intentions of the pilot are.

 

[cmdro]

While it may look "cool? the overhead is first and foremost a practical way to transition from the enroute segment to landing.

This is spot on, and I think were a lot of misunderstanding or negativity comes from. Many people who are not use to the overhead view it as someone doing a "cool" approach, where a lot of us who fly it simply view it as a safe and practical way to enter an airfield. Is it more fun and challenging than a 45 entry? Sure. But there are much "cooler" and more challenging ways to enter an airfield than the overhead (granted some would probably get you violated at a civilian field *cough* random shallow *cough*). Heck, in the C-130 world the overhead is often a "lap of shame" or a reason to make fun of a fellow pilot, because it means they messed up their tactical approach and were too high on energy to land without the extra turns.

It also comes down to communication, and as the fighter guys love to rag on us heavy pilots about, they need to be clear, concise, and correct. Hopefully threads like this will help spread the understanding of the overhead, so next time someone calls "RVxx initial, runway 25" there is less confusion. But, if there is, ask them to clarify their intentions and when all else fails USE PLAIN ENGLISH! While it might not be "correct comms" to say "I am 3 miles east of the field at pattern altitude. I will be making a level left hand turn to enter downwind after crossing the approach end of runway 25." it gets the point across clearly and safely. Also, if you are a CFI, do your students a favor and at least talk about the overhead, if nothing else just in ground training so they know it exists. Even if you don't like it or disagree with me about it (which is perfectly fine), someday they will be solo in the pattern when someone flies one, and everyone is safer if they at least know what to expect.

Wow, think I reached my quota or words for the day

 

[Ron Lee]

Show me where UPWIND includes the region from the landing point backwards TBD miles...pick your altitude.

Makes more sense to say three miles north if the overhead (and landing) is to the south.

 

[Toobuilder]

Show me where UPWIND includes the region from the landing point backwards TBD miles...pick your altitude.


Makes more sense to say three miles north if the overhead (and landing) is to the south.

Perhaps, but we are really picking nits here.

 

[az_gila]

Perhaps, but we are really picking nits here.

Actually not - the subject was clear communications, and if it requires decoding by the recipient, it's not clear...

 

[gasman]

Confusion is what kills. And as you can see this subject is confusing. So if 20% of the flying population understands the overhead break, then the other 80% are confused.

As a student you are taught to announce location based on where you are in relation to the airport. "On a 3 mile 45" you know where to look. "On downwind" you would expect to see the aircraft about 1/2 mile away from the runway at about 1000 ft agl and going in the opposite direction as aircraft that are taking off. "Turning base" you would expect to find the aircraft in position to turn final. "Final" means you should be able to see the aircraft from the ground or the air on final approach.

If the aircraft makes a touch and go, then as they depart the end of the runway, they are now upwind from the runway and getting ready to turn crosswind.

So when you say upwind, you may be flying in an upwind condition, but you just told 80% of the pilots that you are upwind from the runway. The military has adapted it's way of flying for efficiency. Just don't expect GA to understand it.

No matter how you decide to arrive at an airport, turn on your landing light about 5 miles out. It may not be the cool thing to do, but it sure will help find your location when you announce that you are someplace we don't understand.

 

[RV8R999]

at this point everyone on this thread should understand where the 3 mile initial is - which is the standard phraseology, so now you know, why does anyone need some other interpretation?

when you were first learning to fly and didn't know what the "downwind" was nobody was required to come up with some other term for it were they? If I'm flying the 45 entry at a field known to have a busy flight school should I come up with a different communication procedure to announce my arrival on the 45 because some new student might be confused? Nope.. The CFI should explain it to him. If the CFI doesn't know what 3-mile-initial means read below.

Communication is not just the senders responsibility. The receiver has an obligation to provide feedback if the the message isn't clear. If traffic in the pattern doesn't understand the standard "3 mile initial" call they should simply ask for clarification - which can be followed by as verbose an explanation as required until everyone gets the message. With 2-way radio comms so prevalent it is inexcusable to get angry over something which confuses you if you didn't attempt to obtain clarification.

I will admit when entering into an airport environment with higher traffic density I'll be crystal clear and leave nothing to interpretation (upwind is confusing to me too) and say,

"xxx traffic, RV8, 10 miles south, 1000ft, inbound for the OH, RWY 36, I'll fly over the approach numbers at 1000ft and break left to the downwind, traffic please advise". Most of the time someone comes back with, "hey we are mid-field downwind now", to which I'll say, "Ok thanks, I'll sequence in with you when I'm closer" which usually results in a "roger, we'll look for you". Then at 3 miles, "XXX traffic, RV8, 3-mile initial for the OH, RWY 36, flying to the approach numbers 1000ft for a left break to downwind, XXX traffic". If I see or know where other traffic is I'll throw in "I'll break left to downwind behind the C152 turning downwind now, XXX traffic".

I'm just as concerned about traffic as the guy in the pattern so I want to be 100% clear they know where to look and what to expect.

I use this a lot and it has always worked. I like using the terms "overhead" and "break" as part of the continuous education campaign.

This is so simple and easy I just do not understand the issue at all...

 

[L.Adamson]

at this point everyone on this thread should understand where the 3 mile initial is - which is the standard phraseology, so now you know, why does anyone need some other interpretation?

when you were first learning to fly and didn't know what the "downwind" was nobody was required to come up with some other term for it were they? If I'm flying the 45 entry at a field known to have a busy flight school should I come up with a different communication procedure to announce my arrival on the 45 because some new student might be confused? Nope.. The CFI should explain it to him. If the CFI doesn't know what 3-mile-initial means read below.

In all of these years.............I've never heard the term, "3 mile initial" until now. I doubt many CFI's have either.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Toobuilder]

Confusion is what kills...

Yes, but so does expecting every other pilot in the air to follow the AIM to the letter. It would be nice, but it aint gonna happen.

To your other point: "upwind", like "downwind" or "crosswind" is not a location in and of itself... Heck, even "final" sometimes gets the modifier "short" to further pinpoint the location. Just like an airplane can be anywhere along a 4 or 5 mile line known as "downwind"; "upwind" indicates not a location, but direction of flight relative to the reference runway. If the modifiers "3 miles" and "inbound" are not clear enough, then we really are not thinking things through. I think that's really the issue here. Clear communication is the key, but we really shouldn't shut off our brains just because we don't get spoon fed a 30 second position report at every turn in the pattern.

I was taught that there are 5 legs in a civilian pattern: Upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, and final. Those that think they know where to look to find an airplane based on a cartoon in the AIM are fooling themselves.