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
- Thread starter RV8R999
- Start date
I pulled this off the web (note the figure does not have the entry lined up with the upwind leg). My concern about the upwind leg is it puts you in a direct head on with the downwind of the opposite runway. On a still day, there may be traffic on that downwind.
*************************************************************************
The FAA's position is, regardless of whether it is a controlled or uncontrolled field is, the overhead approach is perfectly legal. The communication phraseology, ie: "3 mile initial for the overhead break", is also standard phraseology.
From the AIM:
5-4-26. Overhead Approach Maneuver
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 5-4-27.) 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. 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:
1. Pattern altitude and direction of traffic. This information may be omitted if either is standard.
PHRASEOLOGY-
PATTERN ALTITUDE (altitude). RIGHT TURNS.
2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL.
3. "Break" information and a request for the pilot to report. The "Break Point" will be specified if nonstandard. Pilots may be requested to report "break" if required for traffic or other reasons.
PHRASEOLOGY-
BREAK AT (specified point).
REPORT BREAK.
FIG 5-4-27
Overhead Maneuver
From http://www.pilotsweb.com/pcg/pcg_o.htm
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.
*************************************************************************
The FAA's position is, regardless of whether it is a controlled or uncontrolled field is, the overhead approach is perfectly legal. The communication phraseology, ie: "3 mile initial for the overhead break", is also standard phraseology.
From the AIM:
5-4-26. Overhead Approach Maneuver
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 5-4-27.) 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. 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:
1. Pattern altitude and direction of traffic. This information may be omitted if either is standard.
PHRASEOLOGY-
PATTERN ALTITUDE (altitude). RIGHT TURNS.
2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL.
3. "Break" information and a request for the pilot to report. The "Break Point" will be specified if nonstandard. Pilots may be requested to report "break" if required for traffic or other reasons.
PHRASEOLOGY-
BREAK AT (specified point).
REPORT BREAK.
FIG 5-4-27
Overhead Maneuver
From http://www.pilotsweb.com/pcg/pcg_o.htm
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.
Last edited:
So now is upwind just before crosswind? Or is upwind the same as final?
Because when you announce upwind for the overhead, which end of the runway are you?
ccsmith51
Well Known Member
A couple of questions..
Say I am approaching the left hand pattern at an uncontrolled airport from the east, to land on 27. And say that there is a plane on crosswind and downwind.
Q1) I would normally enter the pattern on what I would call the upwind. That is, to the north side of the runway, about the same distance from the center line that the downwind is. I would then fly upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, and final. Is that the correct path, and is "White RV upwind 27" correct terminology?
Q2) Is the OB an acceptable procedure in this case? If so, where would I enter, behind the plane on crosswind? If I entered between the two, would I not be considered "butting in", or something similar?
Thanks,
Say I am approaching the left hand pattern at an uncontrolled airport from the east, to land on 27. And say that there is a plane on crosswind and downwind.
Q1) I would normally enter the pattern on what I would call the upwind. That is, to the north side of the runway, about the same distance from the center line that the downwind is. I would then fly upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, and final. Is that the correct path, and is "White RV upwind 27" correct terminology?
Q2) Is the OB an acceptable procedure in this case? If so, where would I enter, behind the plane on crosswind? If I entered between the two, would I not be considered "butting in", or something similar?
Thanks,
az_gila
Well Known Member
Yes... standard phraseology when in contact with ATC, not usually at non-towered airports. The first sentence of your AIM quote gives it's applicability - "...Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)..." - that describes the rest of your quote.
I believe that is a major part of the confusion.
When I go into TUS, I expect the tower to keep the F-16s doing an overhead break away from me - I still look but I can't even hear the tower "standard phraseology" because the F-16s are on a different tower frequency that I don't even have...
PS - it is neat watching the F-16s doing an overhead break inside the class C.
PPS - I believe the FAA's position is that any pattern is legal if the the turns are in the correct direction and the right-of-way rules are followed, as per the FARs. The discussion here is what is confusing to other pilots, not legality.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Depends on the modifier used and what the other pilots need for information. If a pilot simply needs to know where I am (because he's leaving the airport environment, for instance) Then my call of "3 mile upwind, runway 29, inbound.." tells him exactly where to look in the sky: I'm on or near centerline, runway heading, at pattern altitude, 3 miles to the SE of the airport, NW bound. Now, at 3 miles, a call of "final" is likely to have me in the exact same chunk of sky, but that's all the outbound pilot cares about.
Now, for pilots remaining in the pattern, they get my position info, but because I'm upwind AND inbound, they should also expect my next step in the process to be a "civilian pilot familiar" crosswind into the downwind. Unlike the departing pilot, the pattern guys care not only where I am but what I'm going to do next.
My next call will likely be just at the airport fenceline, and I will call: "...silver RV, upwind for a midfield crosswind, left traffic, 29". This should let everyone know that I have not yet reached the middle of the airport, but it's going to happen very, very soon, and I'm going to be making a left turn to the cross.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Some airports have restrictions for noise that keep you off to one side of a runway, while others will use the "cold side" for other ops, like jump planes, tugs, or ultralights. I've been taught that upwind is pretty much directly over the centerline of the runway in use. This makes sense to me because the dead center of the runway is going to be the least congested airspace in the area.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
From the AIM, above: Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver.
I'm no lawyer and I don't even play one on tv, but it sure sounds like strictly speaking, tower or not, the OB is a VFR only event and the controlling agency is done with you (IFR) the instant you call your IP.
Last edited:
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
Sorry. It does not tell me where to look. To me "upwind" means departing the runway and "inbound" means the opposite.
Now if I am just uninformed, slow, uneducated, I can accept that. But if I am confused, maybe many other pilots would be too.
If the idea is to communicate, changing your call to the following is far better (mo better):
"3 miles east, runway 29, inbound"
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
OK, I'm with you. But without the modifier "upwind", does this call not lead most to believe I'm just setting up for the default entry, the 45 (..into the downwind for 29)?
If I call "upwind", I've established a specific leg of the pattern. You at least know I'm lined up with the runway. If I simply call "east" - well there's a lot of sky "east".
So...... is that where you will be when you call upwind....
Oh well, leave your landing light on...............we'll find ya.ps. I think Sam has his finger on the button.
az_gila
Well Known Member
Maybe, but from the next sentence in the AIM quote...
"...Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver...."
This sure sounds to me like it has to be actually a documented procedure for the airport in question, not just a spur of the moment thing....
ccsmith51
Well Known Member
Based on answers so far...
Let me ask another question. Say I am approaching the airport from the east, to land on 27. If an OB is not advised, and "White RV on upwind 27" means different things to different people, or may not be understood, what is the safest path? Divert miles to the southwest of the airport to swing around and make a 45? entry to downwind? Divert even more miles to the north of the airport, west past the airport, then south, then into the 45?? Divert to the north side, 90? south to overfly the center of the field at 1,500' and then drop to the SW then NE for the 45??
I'm not trying to be difficult, or start anything, just looking for what most pilots around the airport might be expecting...
Thanks,
Let me ask another question. Say I am approaching the airport from the east, to land on 27. If an OB is not advised, and "White RV on upwind 27" means different things to different people, or may not be understood, what is the safest path? Divert miles to the southwest of the airport to swing around and make a 45? entry to downwind? Divert even more miles to the north of the airport, west past the airport, then south, then into the 45?? Divert to the north side, 90? south to overfly the center of the field at 1,500' and then drop to the SW then NE for the 45??
I'm not trying to be difficult, or start anything, just looking for what most pilots around the airport might be expecting...
Thanks,
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
I am not sure what your plans were in the quoted post (post # 107). I just felt that I was confused on where you were. Personally, I do not believe that I ever use the term "upwind." Might be wrong.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
So...... is that where you will be when you call upwind....
ps. I think Sam has his finger on the button.
Naw....this is getting entertainin'!
I'm so confused after reading some of these posts that I'll probably mumble something about potatoes during my position reports......
az_gila
Well Known Member
Being a traditionalist...
I would "Divert miles to the southwest of the airport to swing around and make a 45? entry to downwind? "
However, if that airport was my intended destination, it would be more like a waypoint a few miles to the SW of the airport rather than a diversion.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
So...... is that where you will be when you call upwind....
Sure... Somewhere along the extended centerline of the runway... With the modifiers, far less ambiguous than the term "downwind", don't you think?
Why? This has been a polite discussion so far... Are you planning on changing that?
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Perhaps it's a regional thing? I hear and use the term often, and like I said, was taught the meaning in training. Until this thread I figured it was a universal term used to describe a leg of flight.
Overheard Breaks
No its not a spelling error. I have over heard many interesting variations on the "overhead break" many are elegant and could form the basis of an excellent amendment to or replacement for the standard in the AIM.
Here is what I see as a problem. I took my first flying lesson in 1961. I have been associated with private flying off and on since then. I have no military experience and not a lot of interest in military type flying. Yet I never knew of the overhead break until a few years ago when I read about it in this forum.
After reading this thread I have a much better understanding and can see the value of this type of approach to landing. But herein lies a problem.
What I've learned and practiced is downwind, base, final with crosswind and 45 degree entries. I can't help but think there are many pilots like me and this forms the basis for a lot of confusion at uncontrolled fields.
Unless the overhead break becomes a standard and is taught as such, we will have two systems with some uninformed pilots like me not knowing that we have two systems. Never mind those who like variations on any system.
Ken Broussard
Lafayette, LA
RV-6
No its not a spelling error. I have over heard many interesting variations on the "overhead break" many are elegant and could form the basis of an excellent amendment to or replacement for the standard in the AIM.
Here is what I see as a problem. I took my first flying lesson in 1961. I have been associated with private flying off and on since then. I have no military experience and not a lot of interest in military type flying. Yet I never knew of the overhead break until a few years ago when I read about it in this forum.
After reading this thread I have a much better understanding and can see the value of this type of approach to landing. But herein lies a problem.
What I've learned and practiced is downwind, base, final with crosswind and 45 degree entries. I can't help but think there are many pilots like me and this forms the basis for a lot of confusion at uncontrolled fields.
Unless the overhead break becomes a standard and is taught as such, we will have two systems with some uninformed pilots like me not knowing that we have two systems. Never mind those who like variations on any system.
Ken Broussard
Lafayette, LA
RV-6
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Does a stright in, base entry, downwind entry or crosswind entry cause the same level of confusion? I ask, not to be argumentative, but to find out if it's "just" the OB or anything other than the 45 entry?
I think we can all agree that straight in, downwind and crosswind entries are extremely common at uncontrolled fields... Why the focus on the overhead?
apkp777
Well Known Member
Because not everyone knows what the OB is.
moosepileit
Well Known Member
The Vans series has almost a 4 to 1 performance ratio- you can cruise almost 4x faster than stall speed. Also, the aircraft is not much of a glider power off- even more so leaning to the overhead as an option. Combine this with multiple similar aircraft, and you can all recover quickly, and if any have an engine problem, have more chances to make the runway.
Fitting in and communicating you can fit in then becomes the issue. Military pilots in the DoD HAVE to know the applicable FARs. Civie pilots don't have to know "my" flight rules.
Is an overhead careless or reckless? NO! But it isn't standard. Nor is it always a good idea. I could not imagine a fuel or engine reliability argument based on science or FAR minimums that would defend the overhead vs. the standard pattern.
At any point to a overhead pattern 500' above the standard traffic pattern you should be able to make the pavement from what, 3 miles out? You can be flying 100 mph faster than standard pattern traffic, and must therefore keep your s/a that much further ahead of the normal pattern- and communicate your intentions and pattern clearly to others, possibly less versed.
You can also fit in the pattern of others. This is a subset of the old saw for reasons to not fly the 45 degree entry standard pattern every time.
Just one mil/civil/ATP/CFI/glider/biplane/stol/yadayada pilot's internet opine.
Adding an example of how I'd use the marconi to explain how I'm going to shred the Bernoulis:
"experimental 123RV, x mile initial, 1500AGL, (or an MSL, if appropriate or published) R/L break at the numbers" then experimental 123RV R/L base, rwy xx, intention..." (full stop, T&G, etc)
Your responsibility to not cut anyone off (they are lower than you, and might have been "there" in the pattern, first) and don't descend onto anyone under you on the base to final turn off the perch. Folks may be NORDO, or acting as such, with wings configured to hide you from their scan. That plane you didn't see on the straight in or angling final might catch up to you when you both reach the threshold, do always check final twice off the perch!
Pretty easy, w/ practice. Fun, looks good, can work well, watch the big power pulls from cruise power. 1 in 4 pilots know what the heck you are talking about, YMMV.
Fitting in and communicating you can fit in then becomes the issue. Military pilots in the DoD HAVE to know the applicable FARs. Civie pilots don't have to know "my" flight rules.
Is an overhead careless or reckless? NO! But it isn't standard. Nor is it always a good idea. I could not imagine a fuel or engine reliability argument based on science or FAR minimums that would defend the overhead vs. the standard pattern.
At any point to a overhead pattern 500' above the standard traffic pattern you should be able to make the pavement from what, 3 miles out? You can be flying 100 mph faster than standard pattern traffic, and must therefore keep your s/a that much further ahead of the normal pattern- and communicate your intentions and pattern clearly to others, possibly less versed.
You can also fit in the pattern of others. This is a subset of the old saw for reasons to not fly the 45 degree entry standard pattern every time.
Just one mil/civil/ATP/CFI/glider/biplane/stol/yadayada pilot's internet opine.
Adding an example of how I'd use the marconi to explain how I'm going to shred the Bernoulis:
"experimental 123RV, x mile initial, 1500AGL, (or an MSL, if appropriate or published) R/L break at the numbers" then experimental 123RV R/L base, rwy xx, intention..." (full stop, T&G, etc)
Your responsibility to not cut anyone off (they are lower than you, and might have been "there" in the pattern, first) and don't descend onto anyone under you on the base to final turn off the perch. Folks may be NORDO, or acting as such, with wings configured to hide you from their scan. That plane you didn't see on the straight in or angling final might catch up to you when you both reach the threshold, do always check final twice off the perch!
Pretty easy, w/ practice. Fun, looks good, can work well, watch the big power pulls from cruise power. 1 in 4 pilots know what the heck you are talking about, YMMV.
Last edited:
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Does the RV aircraft have an operational need to perform the overhead break traffic pattern? As in, unable to do a standard pattern?
Wayne Gillispie
Well Known Member
Shock cooling?
Moose is the only one that mentioned it so far.
Are any of you concerned about coming in at 150 kts then pulling power to idle causing shock cooling and ring flutter?
Moose is the only one that mentioned it so far.
Are any of you concerned about coming in at 150 kts then pulling power to idle causing shock cooling and ring flutter?
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Naw....this is getting entertainin'!
I'm so confused after reading some of these posts that I'll probably mumble something about potatoes during my position reports......
Ya know I was entertained by this for awhile, but now it is approaching boringly repetitious.
Hoping it will just die a natural death-----
You want that potato baked, or deep fried
rvator51
Well Known Member
At Deer Valley Airport (KDVT), one of the busiest general aviation airports in the US, the tower frequently asks me to do an overhead break when I am inbound from the west.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
...And I would agree with you except for one minor detail that bugs me...
Despite it's formal existence as a pattern leg, we can't figure out what an "upwind" is. This fact alone completely floors me.
...and just like my poll a while back concerning your location when reporting a "2 mile base..." it seems we will never find the answer.
Let me take a shot at this..............
If you reported a 2 mile base (with a standard downwind 1/2 mile parallel to the runway and I was on downwind, I would expect you to be 1.5 miles to my side and enter the pattern in about 30 to 40 seconds on a base leg. I would see your landing light (maybe) and confirm that I have you in sight. Depending where I am on downwind someone may need to alter their flight path to make this work. And due to the fact that I took the time to fly the 45 and and downwind it would be courteous if you altered your path. But, oh I forgot, you were in a hurry to begin with.................
If the pattern is clear, I see nothing wrong with a base entry or the overhead break...........
Mike, this site is like Dish TV, you have over 102 different posts to go to......
Maybe we can get back to building airplanes........ It's Van's fault. He made it just too damned easy.........
Next problem please.................
The Key is to Yield to Traffic in the Pattern
If you come in a standard Overhead altitude you are 500 above pattern altitude.
As long as you yield to traffic in the pattern does it really matter if every pilot around understands exactly where you are or not?
Flying into Hayward Executive recently and the tower asked me to report abeam "SoCal". I of course replied, "don't know where SoCal is tower"
We non-IFR pilots usually don't know the instrument fix locations, and flying into new airports its common to not know the standard local fix locations. As long as those in the know know, then we are good. If I don't know where where a plane is due to my ignorance and they are close in altitude, then I get on the radio and fess up that I don't know where they are. Usually I get a call back that either gives me a vector and distance from the airport, or "we are no factor for you."
If you report "3 mile initial" and ALSO give your altitude that is 500 over traffic pattern altitude, then the pilots in the pattern at least have some assurance that there is 500 ft of separation.
Hans
If you come in a standard Overhead altitude you are 500 above pattern altitude.
As long as you yield to traffic in the pattern does it really matter if every pilot around understands exactly where you are or not?
Flying into Hayward Executive recently and the tower asked me to report abeam "SoCal". I of course replied, "don't know where SoCal is tower"
We non-IFR pilots usually don't know the instrument fix locations, and flying into new airports its common to not know the standard local fix locations. As long as those in the know know, then we are good. If I don't know where where a plane is due to my ignorance and they are close in altitude, then I get on the radio and fess up that I don't know where they are. Usually I get a call back that either gives me a vector and distance from the airport, or "we are no factor for you."
If you report "3 mile initial" and ALSO give your altitude that is 500 over traffic pattern altitude, then the pilots in the pattern at least have some assurance that there is 500 ft of separation.
Hans
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Wasn't looking for an answer, just making an observation that we as pilots sometimes have vastly differing understanding of "standard" stuff.
...As evidenced by this thread.
I'm happy I started this poll, gotten the info I wanted and am surprised too.
over 40% of RV pilots feel the OB is a bad idea...for myriad reasons.
Doesn't appear likely, based upon the posts, many of those folks will likely change their minds either.
I'm still going to fly the OB when I feel it is appropriate, but I'm going to be even more proactive in my comms than I already am. If nothing else, this thread has reminded me no two pilots can be expected to understand the same words 100% of the time... a good reminder for helping improve comms - for me anyway.
Thanks to all the moderators for allowing the poll to exist and carry-on so long - I know some of you had your fingers on the button
I believe it was constructive.
over 40% of RV pilots feel the OB is a bad idea...for myriad reasons.
Doesn't appear likely, based upon the posts, many of those folks will likely change their minds either.
I'm still going to fly the OB when I feel it is appropriate, but I'm going to be even more proactive in my comms than I already am. If nothing else, this thread has reminded me no two pilots can be expected to understand the same words 100% of the time... a good reminder for helping improve comms - for me anyway.
Thanks to all the moderators for allowing the poll to exist and carry-on so long - I know some of you had your fingers on the button
I believe it was constructive.
I haven't read all this, but here is my $.02.
The break is not the problem... The thing that pi$$es people off is the "I am a little better than the rest of you non-formation, non-RV non-Warbird, types" attitude that is widely held among many of my Warbird and RV friends....
There is a time and a place for a break, if you are dragging in a formation of airplanes the break is the simplest and safest way to recover them. If you are at a desolate airport with no traffic, knock yourself out! I do Overheads all the time...
But if you are single ship at a busy airport in an airplane with normal visibility, then most often the break is an ego trip.... And it is often not appreciated by the rest of the aviation community... The result is that we give ourselves and all of our peers who have good reasons to do an overhead an undeserved bad rap...
In short, apply Herb Kelleher's Southwest Airlines business philosophy, Be nice.
That is how I see it, So, move over cause here I come on a 1 mile initial to a low approach with a pitch up break at 250 kts.... ;-)
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
The break is not the problem... The thing that pi$$es people off is the "I am a little better than the rest of you non-formation, non-RV non-Warbird, types" attitude that is widely held among many of my Warbird and RV friends....
There is a time and a place for a break, if you are dragging in a formation of airplanes the break is the simplest and safest way to recover them. If you are at a desolate airport with no traffic, knock yourself out! I do Overheads all the time...
But if you are single ship at a busy airport in an airplane with normal visibility, then most often the break is an ego trip.... And it is often not appreciated by the rest of the aviation community... The result is that we give ourselves and all of our peers who have good reasons to do an overhead an undeserved bad rap...
In short, apply Herb Kelleher's Southwest Airlines business philosophy, Be nice.
That is how I see it, So, move over cause here I come on a 1 mile initial to a low approach with a pitch up break at 250 kts.... ;-)
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
There is some debate as to whether or not TPA + 500' is the correct altitude for the overhead.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
I agree. I will continue to do this entry when appropriate, but endeavor to communicate better when doing it.
Like you said, there is still a bunch that think its bad form, but at the very least, everybody who has read this thread now knows exactly what to expect when they hear "initial", "overhead", "break" and "upwind" over the radio... Overall safety has been improved since this thread started.
And as a final note on the term "upwind" just to show people that I didn't make it up in my head. The first hit on Google:
Upwind leg: A flight path parallel to and in the direction of the landing runway. This can be above the runway, as in a "low and over" or when practicing a "missed [instrument] approach," or offset to the upwind side as when inspecting the field prior to landing.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
I do believe that the term: upwind is known by most. Is it normally used in a landing procedure such as the terms: crosswind, downwind, base, and final...................no. Therefor it could easily cause confusion, to the tens of thousands who have not yet read this thread.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
As long as "most" pilots are aware of what an upwind is, I'm happy.
Doing my part to reduce confusion:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
...But it is a legitimate term, and it's enough that other pilots know that an upwind is a line parallel to the runway flown in the direction of landing traffic. Whether the pilot is able to articulate his position along that line with a radio transmission is dependant both on himself and the cognitive ability of the recipient- which is exactly the challenge we face on "downwind"...
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Wow! there's two of us!
You didn't happen to take flight training at Beale AFB, did you?
...I wonder if we had the same CFI?
ccsmith51
Well Known Member
Wow! there's two of us!
You didn't happen to take flight training at Beale AFB, did you?
...I wonder if we had the same CFI?
Nope, never in the AF, although close...
Started flight training in 1968 in South Florida.
vlittle
Well Known Member
Having been involved in a situation or two where the lack of knowledge by other pilots (or in one case a tower controller) led to a conflict during an overhead break, I have come to a personal conclusion:
Safety first: do not assume other pilots or ATC knows what you are doing. If there is any doubt, use the downwind break procedure.
This involves arriving at downwind in formation, following standard procedures. At the perch, lead breaks to base-final, followed by #2 a few seconds later (as briefed) and so on. After the break, each aircraft makes it's own calls. We use "XXXX #1 of 4 aircraft on short final 19", "YYYY #2 of 4 aircraft on short final", etc.
After the downwind break, each aircraft is responsible for its own navigation and radio calls. We use the non-standard #n of x to increase situational awareness.
The big advantage of this is if lead detects a conflict on downwind (straight in conflicting aircraft or other conflict), he can just extend downwind until there is no conflict before the break. Works at towered or untowered airports, however I would recommend briefing the tower controller on this procedure ahead of time to ensure that it is understood.
V
Safety first: do not assume other pilots or ATC knows what you are doing. If there is any doubt, use the downwind break procedure.
This involves arriving at downwind in formation, following standard procedures. At the perch, lead breaks to base-final, followed by #2 a few seconds later (as briefed) and so on. After the break, each aircraft makes it's own calls. We use "XXXX #1 of 4 aircraft on short final 19", "YYYY #2 of 4 aircraft on short final", etc.
After the downwind break, each aircraft is responsible for its own navigation and radio calls. We use the non-standard #n of x to increase situational awareness.
The big advantage of this is if lead detects a conflict on downwind (straight in conflicting aircraft or other conflict), he can just extend downwind until there is no conflict before the break. Works at towered or untowered airports, however I would recommend briefing the tower controller on this procedure ahead of time to ensure that it is understood.
V
Last edited:
jetjok
Well Known Member
Of course, I am an RV fan and love to watch a formation of experienced, trained RV pilots do their stuff, including the OB to a landing. The OB is a perfectly safe maneuver when done correctly, with both the participating aircraft, and other inbound/outbound traffic doing what they should be doing.
I myself do not recall trying it, as I am not trained and if you don't know what you are doing why try it and learn bad habits?
I myself do not recall trying it, as I am not trained and if you don't know what you are doing why try it and learn bad habits?
Confessions -
Confessions: My name is Todd (toad RV-7A) and I have a formation problem.
My 2₵ ? I recognize that there are many who do not share my views on formation flight, but I point out that many do not share my views that aircraft are safe enough to fly either. I am hurt that we are perceived as discourteous. They can?t be talking about me could they? I have made radio calls and had planes say that they choose to circle and watch. I have wondered if they think I am discourteous or they just enjoy watching. I am always ready to alter flight plans for NORAD, aircraft in the pattern, or for any reason. We try to be professional polite and safe. This is always part of the briefings.
UPWIND ? I don?t like the term for position reporting
The call of UPWIND in reference to an overhead approach. It stills seems too ambiguous to me... This applies to any position report not just formation flight.
Formation: Reporting 5 mile UPWIND for initial.
Me: and? I don?t see you.
Are you flying the upwind direction or is your position upwind of the airport?
Are you upwind of me or are you downwind of me and flying in the upwind direction?
Which way do you think the wind is blowing anyway? Are you sure? That is not what the windsock is telling me.
I would prefer reporting position in compass terms.
In my opinion this would communicate to fellow pilots who are unfamiliar with formation procedures where you are. I would like to hear a short description of the formations intentions so that I am sure you know what you are talking about. (Who are you Where are you, What are your intentions).
Example:
FlopPop flight of 4...
5 MILES NORTH of (airport) XXX ...
Inbound for initial...
Left break onto the downwind...
Landing 18.
Experience and Advice to confused pilots:
My first experience with formation was on my very first X-country and a formation flight called in a break to the pattern I was flying. It scared the @#$%^ out of me. I broke out of the pattern and flew off to the east and circled until I was sure there was no one left in the air then returned to land. Upon return to home base I asked my instructor to explain what was going on and what to do. Here was his reprimand and advice to me.
I thought I taught you to talk... Talk like I taught you (confess and beg)... Cessna 123 on downwind... Help...
Say something like? Cessna 123 on the downwind? (the same thing you reported a second ago)?
Help...
Flight of 100 overhead blanketing the sky what do you want me to do?
Talk...Say something, anything, was his advice.
I keep this (talk when confused advised) in my bag of tricks for stupid pilots. Yes I have had to use it once. Ok twice.
Confessions: My name is Todd (toad RV-7A) and I have a formation problem.
My 2₵ ? I recognize that there are many who do not share my views on formation flight, but I point out that many do not share my views that aircraft are safe enough to fly either. I am hurt that we are perceived as discourteous. They can?t be talking about me could they? I have made radio calls and had planes say that they choose to circle and watch. I have wondered if they think I am discourteous or they just enjoy watching. I am always ready to alter flight plans for NORAD, aircraft in the pattern, or for any reason. We try to be professional polite and safe. This is always part of the briefings.
UPWIND ? I don?t like the term for position reporting
The call of UPWIND in reference to an overhead approach. It stills seems too ambiguous to me... This applies to any position report not just formation flight.
Formation: Reporting 5 mile UPWIND for initial.
Me: and? I don?t see you.
Are you flying the upwind direction or is your position upwind of the airport?
Are you upwind of me or are you downwind of me and flying in the upwind direction?
Which way do you think the wind is blowing anyway? Are you sure? That is not what the windsock is telling me.
I would prefer reporting position in compass terms.
In my opinion this would communicate to fellow pilots who are unfamiliar with formation procedures where you are. I would like to hear a short description of the formations intentions so that I am sure you know what you are talking about. (Who are you Where are you, What are your intentions).
Example:
FlopPop flight of 4...
5 MILES NORTH of (airport) XXX ...
Inbound for initial...
Left break onto the downwind...
Landing 18.
Experience and Advice to confused pilots:
My first experience with formation was on my very first X-country and a formation flight called in a break to the pattern I was flying. It scared the @#$%^ out of me. I broke out of the pattern and flew off to the east and circled until I was sure there was no one left in the air then returned to land. Upon return to home base I asked my instructor to explain what was going on and what to do. Here was his reprimand and advice to me.
I thought I taught you to talk... Talk like I taught you (confess and beg)... Cessna 123 on downwind... Help...
Say something like? Cessna 123 on the downwind? (the same thing you reported a second ago)?
Help...
Flight of 100 overhead blanketing the sky what do you want me to do?
Talk...Say something, anything, was his advice.
I keep this (talk when confused advised) in my bag of tricks for stupid pilots. Yes I have had to use it once. Ok twice.
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
You have only used that twice? My most recent time was flight following to Michigan. Approaching the area south of Chicago I was advised that my current path was not good. After a bit of back and forth I finally had to ask "What can I do to make this work?" or something similar plain English.
Geez...I use flight following to play nice but I don't have the full picture of Chicago arrivals.
az_gila
Well Known Member
Thanks Vern, after 147 posts you are the first proponent to admit that he has had trouble with an overhead break and other traffic.
It's interesting to see where you think the blame lies though....
