Poll: Overhead Breaks - good or bad

[RV8R999]

Gil - I believe if we started a discussion of who's had trouble with 'X' entry procedure you'll find everyone will pipe in with different answers.

I've had trouble with the OB, the 45, the straight-in, crosswind, autorotation, circle-to-land, PAR hand-off to tower, and even when all of these have worked perfectly I've still had to wafe-off the landing because someone decided to T/O while I'm on short final...

Nobody is claiming the OB is perfect or any better than any other entry under all conditions, just that it is a valid entry and as safe as any other when executed properly. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly you see the logic in this?

 

[Toobuilder]

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 agree. Combining the name of a pattern leg with that fancy, secret squirrel military jargon "initial" would confuse many people. While I will agree that 5 minutes of time on Google would train the entire civilian pilot population where to look in the sky when they hear "initial", "break" "high key", and "low key", etc. - it is not going to happen. Some segment of the pilot population is much happier remaining in ignorance and complaining about things they don't want to understand. Personally, I think "2 mile initial" is a great radio call; very succinct and exact... But only for those that are trained in the procedure (or those like me who took the 5 minutes to learn it after a Google search). Unfortunately, lots of people are going to pretend that they don't know anything about that "fancy military" stuff, so we are stuck with terms we all learned in ground school...

...Like "upwind leg"

 

[Flyfalcons]

Let us not forget that we are indeed flying civilian aircraft at civilian airports. Proper, standard radio phraseology is simply good airmanship.

 

[L.Adamson]

I Personally, I think "2 mile initial" is a great radio call; very succinct and exact... But only for those that are trained in the procedure (or those like me who took the 5 minutes to learn it after a Google search). Unfortunately, lots of people are going to pretend that they don't know anything about that "fancy military" stuff, so we are stuck with terms we all learned in ground school...

And while they're all figuring what on earth... "initial" refers too............I suppose we should all know the military term known as "klick" or "click" too.

Personally, I could care less what "click" means in military terms. Just seen the definition by accident once. I'm not compelled to know the military meaning of "initial" either. IMO---------it's not the civilian pilots responsibility to know. I think it's a "un-informing" radio call for a civilian populated airport..........Google or not..

L.Adamson

 

[Tram]

Good comments. It drives me nuts when people use calls that the "layman" pilot won't understand.

It's like guys who are practicing the ILS and call PODUNK inbound and that's their only call. Well, everyone isn't an IFR rated pilot or if they are, they may very well not be local to that airport.

I think for the overhead break something like "over head for the left downwind" or something along those lines would serve everyone better.

 

[roadrunner20]

I use the OB when the pattern is not busy or when there are no students in the pattern.

 

[gasman]

I think "2 mile initial" is a great radio call; very succinct and exact... But only for those that are trained in the procedure (or those like me who took the 5 minutes to learn it after a Google search). Unfortunately, lots of people are going to pretend that they don't know anything about that "fancy military" stuff, so we are stuck with terms we all learned in ground school...

...Like "upwind leg"

So, your last 22 posts were based on a 5 minute Google search?..........

 

[gasman]

OK Toolbuilder.............


I apologize for that last post. I just couldn't help myself......................

 

[az_gila]

Gil - I believe if we started a discussion of who's had trouble with 'X' entry procedure you'll find everyone will pipe in with different answers.

I've had trouble with the OB, the 45, the straight-in, crosswind, autorotation, circle-to-land, PAR hand-off to tower, and even when all of these have worked perfectly I've still had to wafe-off the landing because someone decided to T/O while I'm on short final...

Nobody is claiming the OB is perfect or any better than any other entry under all conditions, just that it is a valid entry and as safe as any other when executed properly. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly you see the logic in this?

My comment was not meant to be snarky...

I just went back and reviewed the first 2 screens (to post #20) and not one proponent admitted to having a problem with an execution - they all justified it as "good" or "legal"...

Without reviewing #21 to #147, I still think you are the second to admit to having a problem in the past...

I do see the logic in your statement, but as mentioned earlier, it is a communication issue, and most VFR pilots have not reviewed (or even been taught) the AIM section on IFR arrivals. If people do not understand what you are going to do at arrival, then I do disagree with "just that it is a valid entry and as safe as any other when executed properly".

Unless everyone in, or intending to enter, the pattern fully understands your transmissions then I contend the safety margin is much reduced...

Added - above comments are for non-towered airports.

 

[Webb]

There appears to be a lot of confussion about this.

Knowledge is one component of safe flying. Although you may not ever do an overhead approach, you might as well have accurate info so if one is going on when you are in the pattern at the same airport, you will be a safer pilot.

The link below is an instructional video for ATC students.

http://realmedia.aero.und.edu/atc/www/ATCPC12.mp4

One other thing.......an overhead break is not the approach......it occurs during an overhead approach. Now where did I put that tater?

 

[az_gila]

There appears to be a lot of confussion about this.

Knowledge is one component of safe flying. Although you may not ever do an overhead approach, you might as well have accurate info so if one is going on when you are in the pattern at the same airport, you will be a safer pilot.

The link below is an instructional video for ATC students.

http://realmedia.aero.und.edu/atc/www/ATCPC12.mp4

One other thing.......an overhead break is not the approach......it occurs during an overhead approach. Now where did I put that tater?

Overhead breaks are not in the FAA Pvt. question repertoire -

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/pvt.pdf

...and a link to controllers training is interesting but not really required for a VFR pilot.

All interesting and advanced training, but not expected by the FAA...

Can you find a VFR Pilot curriculum where it is mentioned? I couldn't.

It is not a tested practical item...

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/media/faa-s-8081-14a.pdf

To blame others for lack of knowledge when it is not in the learning syllabus is somewhat unfair...

As before - all comments with respect to non-towered airports.

 

[apkp777]

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M. or Airman's Information Manual. Oh yeah, and charge $15 bucks for it and make it valid for only one year.

 

[Snowflake]

To blame others for lack of knowledge when it is not in the learning syllabus is somewhat unfair...
As before - all comments with respect to non-towered airports.

The same could be said for people flying IFR approaches into uncontrolled airports. As a VFR pilot, I haven't a clue what their terminology means. Does that mean they shouldn't practise IFR approaches?

On the other hand, I do fly formation and overhead breaks, and i've seen them go sideways. But nobody asked whether anyone has had problems personally while doing breaks. I can count on less than one hand the number of times flying formation into a circuit has been an issue for me. I need both hands and both feet to count the number of times someone else in the circuit has done something boneheaded or borderline dangerous that i've had to take action to avoid. On average, the overhead break has been safer!

 

[Toobuilder]

...Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M...

You would think that would help, wouldn't you?

From the AIM figure 4-3-1 and paragraph 4-3-2.c:

Figure 4-3-1

c. The following terminology for the various components of a traffic pattern has been adopted as standard for use by control towers and pilots (See FIG 4-3-1):

1. Upwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing.

2. Crosswind leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its takeoff end.

3. Downwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the opposite direction of landing.

4. Base leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end and extending from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline.

5. Final approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.

6. Departure leg. The flight path which begins after takeoff and continues straight ahead along the extended runway centerline. The departure climb continues until reaching a point at least 1/2 mile beyond the departure end of the runway and within 300 feet of the traffic pattern altitude.

After reading the above, taking note of items 1, 5 and 6, should there be any confusion among anyone if a pilot reports an "upwind leg" for a runway?

...At least we settled "upwind" once and for all

 

[RV8R999]

Mike - for the OB when are you going to call "upwind" or "upwind leg"?

 

[WhiskeyMike]

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance.

In the interest of clarity, I presume you meant objective...?

Objective: without bias or personal opinion - based on facts, not emotions.

Subjective: modified by individual bias or emotion, rather than based on facts.

 

[Toobuilder]

Mike - for the OB when are you going to call "upwind" or "upwind leg"?

As I stated in my very first post (#57), I don't use the term "overhead" at all... I describe an upwind and crosswind to the downwind. I responded to this poll because for all appearances, the flight path I use and describe will look just like a true "initial to the OB", but I describe my intentions over the radio in terms familiar to ALL pilots so as to eliminate confusion. Right after that I got jumped because a bunch of people claimed they didn't understand the term "upwind" in ANY context. This point then became MY focus because I want to be sure I'm not just making up my own rules or was trained incorrectly.

So there are really two issues in this thread: 1: People calling into question my use of a common and legitimate aeronautical term "upwind leg", and 2: trying to determine if the terms "initial" and "overhead" are confusing.

To the first part, I have validated the use of "upwind" as a position report thanks to the AIM. If any pilots don't know what the upwind leg is, then they need to hit the books before they fly again. So in that sense, my job is done.

For the second part, I can tell you that I understand the terms related to the OB, but I'll leave it up to you guys to convince the rest of the population. In short, I aint going there!

 

[az_gila]

Well, it just seems to me that when so many pilots disagree on something seemingly so important we should have a subjective handbook that we should all follow and eliminate opinions and give us clear guidance. I think we should call this thing the A.I.M. or Airman's Information Manual. Oh yeah, and charge $15 bucks for it and make it valid for only one year.

An excellent book and reference.

But, as I referenced, it also covers a LOT of IFR stuff and procedures that is not usually required for the VFR pilot and is not in the curriculum for a VFR Private license.

The short section in the IAM on the Overhead Break is inserted in the middle of IFR approaches and ATC terminology.

Does the AIM even cover formation flights?

 

[David Fuchs]

Overhead Break

Standard Navy Pattern Entry

I can remember 250 Knots over the approach end at 1000' AGL, 45 degree bank at the numbers, turning downwind power levers to Flight Idle, decelerating turn, flaps to manuever, flaps to approach, flying downwing to the approach end, at the numbers landing gear down, turning on final, 750' at the 90, land flaps, 160 knots decending decelerating on final...

P-3 Orion

Rota Spain

 

[az_gila]

...To the first part, I have validated the use of "upwind" as a position report thanks to the AIM. If any pilots don't know what the upwind leg is, then they need to hit the books before they fly again. So in that sense, my job is done.
...

Extrapolating the upwind leg to a position 3 miles away from the airport is stretching the AIM picture quite a bit...

Even for those of us familiar with the AIM pattern diagram and leg names.

 

[Ron Lee]

Extrapolating the upwind leg to a position 3 miles away from the airport is stretching the AIM picture quite a bit...

I agree. The debate may be over for Michael but I will not use it as he suggests.

 

[nucleus]

Upwind = Parallel , Initial = Centerline

As I stated in my very first post (#57), I don't use the term "overhead" at all... I describe an upwind and crosswind to the downwind. I responded to this poll because for all appearances, the flight path I use and describe will look just like a true "initial to the OB", but I describe my intentions over the radio in terms familiar to ALL pilots so as to eliminate confusion.

(snip)

So there are really two issues in this thread: 1: People calling into question my use of a common and legitimate aeronautical term "upwind leg", and 2: trying to determine if the terms "initial" and "overhead" are confusing.

To the first part, I have validated the use of "upwind" as a position report thanks to the AIM. If any pilots don't know what the upwind leg is, then they need to hit the books before they fly again. So in that sense, my job is done.

(snip)

Am I missing something?

Isn't there a fundamental difference between an Upwind Leg that is parallel to the runway and an Initial that is along the extended runway centerline?

Hans

 

[gasman]

You would think that would help, wouldn't you?

From the AIM figure 4-3-1 and paragraph 4-3-2.c:

Figure 4-3-1

c. The following terminology for the various components of a traffic pattern has been adopted as standard for use by control towers and pilots (See FIG 4-3-1):

1. Upwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of landing.

2. Crosswind leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its takeoff end.

3. Downwind leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the opposite direction of landing.

4. Base leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end and extending from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline.

5. Final approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.

6. Departure leg. The flight path which begins after takeoff and continues straight ahead along the extended runway centerline. The departure climb continues until reaching a point at least 1/2 mile beyond the departure end of the runway and within 300 feet of the traffic pattern altitude.

After reading the above, taking note of items 1, 5 and 6, should there be any confusion among anyone if a pilot reports an "upwind leg" for a runway?

...At least we settled "upwind" once and for all

Every leg in the above sketch has a start and a finish location except for the UPWIND LEG. If upwind leg is called, then does it mean that you are in the location on the sketch, within the airport boundaries? Or does it mean that you are out there somewhere going in that same direction?

 

[RV8R999]

yes, even if you are 1000 miles away

 

[Toobuilder]

Extrapolating the upwind leg to a position 3 miles away from the airport is stretching the AIM picture quite a bit...

As stated in an earlier post of mine, a call of "Upwind" (or downwind, for that matter) itself is NOT a location, it can't be. It is a direction of flight along a line relative to the identified runway. More information is needed to determine location. Common examples of "midfield" or "approach end" will pinpoint the location, just as "3 miles, inbound" does.

 

[Toobuilder]

(snip)
(snip)

Am I missing something?

Isn't there a fundamental difference between an Upwind Leg that is parallel to the runway and an Initial that is along the extended runway centerline?

Hans

Upwind is commonly referenced as directly over the centerline or slightly offset opposite the downwind. Both are "upwind". Just like the identification of initial, final, departure, low/missed approach all cover essentialy the same real estate, they speak to direction and intent more than an exact location.

 

[Toobuilder]

Every leg in the above sketch has a start and a finish location except for the UPWIND LEG. If upwind leg is called, then does it mean that you are in the location on the sketch, within the airport boundaries? Or does it mean that you are out there somewhere going in that same direction?

It means that you are out there somewhere, near centerline of the runway, level flight and at pattern altitude in a certain direction. It's up to the pilot to expand on this call to determine identify his exact position along this leg.

It's similar to downwind...Does downwind have a begining and end as a point of ground reference? Sort of, but it is also highly dependant on the number and type of aircraft in the patern. In any case, it is several miles long, just like "upwind" can be.

 

[gasman]

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.

In this case, 3 miles upwind means that he is headed upwind three miles out. He is not on the upwind leg unless he is landing at Edwards.

Then if landing on rwy 27 and you wanted to do an OHB you could call "3 mile west" and we would understand that you are 3 miles out and heading west?

Someone is wrong here, and I hope it is just me! I have been riding motorcycles for 50 years, so I expect no one to see me, and I expect anything to happen in front of me!

At least planes with no radio will never confuse you.

 

[Toobuilder]

In this case, 3 miles upwind means that he is headed upwind three miles out. He is not on the upwind leg unless he is landing at Edwards...

Yes. Let's break it down:

"upwind" = pattern altitude, level flight, runway heading, on centerline or slightly offset opposite downwind.

"3 miles" = from the airport, in one of only 2 possible directions

(and the added modifier, see post #82) "inbound" = NOT YET to the airport.

All those elements paint a fairly exact location relative to the airport - certainly much more so than the single call "downwind, 27" which we hear and accept every day.

As for not being in the pattern yet at 3 miles, technically correct, but we don't get all confused with the calls "3 mile final" or 2 mile base, do we? Same thing... we all know what it means.

 

[Toobuilder]

I agree. The debate may be over for Michael but I will not use it as he suggests.

Personal choice Ron. If you feel more comfortable describing your location over the radio as "3 miles to the east at pattern altitude, level, westbound , on extended centerline for runway 27..." then that is OK too. However, in the interest of being succinct, I like "3 mile upwind, 27, inbound" better. Both accurately convey the same position. Good thing for you the FCC doesn't charge us by the word though

 

[Ron Lee]

"3 miles to the east at pattern altitude, level, westbound , on extended centerline for runway 27..."

That is one possible transmission. Seventeen words.

Actually for this scenario I would state:

"Three miles east, Runway 27" which is six words. Eleven less that yours. Now I could add words about an overhead approach which would also be added to yours. Mine as stated is about one-third as wordy so I am OK if I get charged by the word.

 

[Toobuilder]

That is one possible transmission. Seventeen words.

Actually for this scenario I would state:

"Three miles east, Runway 27" which is six words. Eleven less that yours. Now I could add words about an overhead approach which would also be added to yours. Mine as stated is about one-third as wordy so I am OK if I get charged by the word.

OK, now I finally get to return some of the grief that I've been getting in this thread

I would interpret that transmission to indicate you are 3 miles east of runway 27 "flying around"... It's a very general position report of no specific interest to those already in the pattern. It's an "oh, by the way... " type of report. Information lacking in yours compared to mine is altitude, heading, track, whether you are climbing, level, or descending and finally, your intent to join the pattern.

With mine, you get all that info, plus at only 5 words, I'm still ahead.

 

[Flybuddy2]

FYI--the quote below is a post from the AOPA thread concerning the recent RV midair:

Originally, I had thought that the wild antics I've seen from some RV pilots was actually limited to just a small number of them. However, a new poll on the RV Air Force website, http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=75495 makes we not so sure. It indicates that more than half of them think that the Overhead Break pattern entry is a good idea. I've always thought that maneuver was very inappropriate at a non-towered airport, it's scary to think that the majority of RV'ers think it's ok.

This is probably not far off the mark on how most non-RV aviators feel about this. I wonder what the results of this poll would be if done on AOPA forum?

 

[L.Adamson]

edit out by me

 

[RVG8tor]

Learn it, Fly it

The overhead is a safe efficient pattern, please educate yourself on it I posted this in a somewhat rant on another thread.

We have all heard the call entering "45 to downwind" and you start looking, it seems guys hit the 45 anywhere along the length of the runway not just the middle. The overhead on the other hand has you fly over the numbers before downwind, you can get a nice look at anyone on inside or outside downwind, this is safe, anywhere along the way if there is a traffic conflict you climb above the pattern and re-enter same spot. It is the same spot for everyone.

Now my "Green" spin, if you are doing multiple touch and go you can get more done with less fuel burn using the closed pattern after entering from the overhead. At $6 for a gallon I would much rather get my training/practice in a shorter period of time and hence less fuel used.

I honestly feel there are folks bashing the overhead and they they have no clue to it advantages and may have never flown one.

Seems to me the EAA has a perfect organizational structure and resources to teach the value of the overhead pattern, I think once understood it would be used by many aircraft not just RVs. Let's stop appeasing the mis-informed and educate them.

I feel better now.

Cheers

See you at initial!

 

[brogers]

Recent use of an Overhead Approach

I was approaching an airport this afternoon in a manner that would make for a good strait in approach. There were two aircraft in the pattern doing T&G's. About 4 miles out it became clear that that one aircraft would confilct with at strait in approach and he was going to graciously extend the downwind for me to land first. Instead, I told him to continue his approach as normal while I perform the overhead break at midfield to fall in behind him on the downwind. I adjusted my speed such that, at the point of break, the second aircraft in the pattern was on the crosswind (in full sight). The break sequenced my aircraft evenly between the two aircraft already in the pattern without affecting any of their operations. It also allowed me to keep them both in sight on a very hazy day with the sun low in the sky. The way I communicated the OB to the other pilots did not seem to confuse them.

Just wanted to share a real world situation where I think an OB allowed for increased safety (better visability of other AC in the pattern) and more efficient operations (didn't have to fly 10 miles out of my way to enter the 45 for downwind).

Bill Rogers
RV-7

 

[Ron Lee]

.....didn't have to fly 10 miles out of my way to enter the 45 for downwind).

Bill, you reduced those meanie greenhouse gases and thus were environmentally a nice guy.

In addition, you were courteous and made the traffic flow smoothly with no ill will created among other pilots.

At my airport, I have seen EZs, Cessnas and assorted other aircraft doing the overhead approach.

 

[apkp777]

...didn't have to fly 10 miles out of my way to enter the 45 for downwind). Bill Rogers RV-7

Why would you have needed to fly 10 miles out of the way to get on the 45?

The "straight-in" wouldn't have bothered the fellow on downwind, he offered it. The guy on crosswind now has to look for traffic entering on the downwind, 45 AND overhead. It's not just about you having the other traffic in sight. They too need to see you.

 

[apkp777]

Here's the FAA's position:

"Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45-clegree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway". AC90-66A

"Compliance with the basic rectangular traffic pattern reduces the possibility of conflicts at airports without an operating control tower. It is imperative that the pilot form the habit of exercising constant vigilance in the vicinity of airports even though the air traffic appears to be light.... When approaching an airport for landing, the traffic pattern should be entered at a 45? angle to the downwind leg, headed toward a point abeam of the midpoint of the runway to be used for landing. Arriving airplanes should be at the proper traffic pattern altitude before entering the pattern, and should stay clear of the traffic flow until established on the entry leg. Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided." FAA-8083-3A Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 7

 

[RV6_flyer]

Here's the FAA's position:

"Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45-clegree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway". AC90-66A

"Compliance with the basic rectangular traffic pattern reduces the possibility of conflicts at airports without an operating control tower. It is imperative that the pilot form the habit of exercising constant vigilance in the vicinity of airports even though the air traffic appears to be light.... When approaching an airport for landing, the traffic pattern should be entered at a 45? angle to the downwind leg, headed toward a point abeam of the midpoint of the runway to be used for landing. Arriving airplanes should be at the proper traffic pattern altitude before entering the pattern, and should stay clear of the traffic flow until established on the entry leg. Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided." FAA-8083-3A Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 7

Tony:

I can think of three airports in the USA that 45 entry is seldom or not possible to do.

Look up 55S (Packwood) on AirNav, Runway Finder or SkyVector. The airport is in a valley and you cannot get to it from a 45 in a fixed wing aircraft.

Look up L05 (Kern Valley). It is another airport in a valley.

Here is one that is not in a valley but has Charlie Airspace on two sides and Delta Airspace on the other. 45 entry is under Charlie 1/2 mile between Charlie and Delta Airspace. CCB (Cable Airport, Upland) Normal entry is Crosswind for the calm wind and prevailing wind runway.

 

[Ron Lee]

Oh the humanity

Moments ago I had just finished trimming bushes...minding my own business. Not bothering anyone. Got the pooch and was heading inside when I heard something.

Yes it was an airplane but the sound was not right. It was in the wrong place. So I look to the west and there it was! It was doing an overhead approach. The break took it over my property. I was in awe.

This is odd. It is alone. I watch it curve into downwind then go inside thinking that this is just not right. The audacity of some rogue pilots. It was a canard aircraft.

 

[DanH]

191 posts to debate a potato, but 4 posts in a thread about engineering analysis of modifications.....in a homebuilt forum.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[brogers]

Why would you have needed to fly 10 miles out of the way to get on the 45?

The "straight-in" wouldn't have bothered the fellow on downwind, he offered it. The guy on crosswind now has to look for traffic entering on the downwind, 45 AND overhead. It's not just about you having the other traffic in sight. They too need to see you.

10 miles was a guess and I just did the trig to verify. You are right, it was not that far. It turns out to be 7.8 miles difference from the strait in to a 45 downwind entry. On longer flights this would diminish.

As for the fact that the guy on downwind offered, that is true and I could have taken advantage of that. I also knew that those in the pattern were flight school students paying for an airplane and instructor time. Thought it would be courteous as my flight time is much less costly. Just my opinion and I understand ths is a judgement call that could have easily gone either way with very little effect on safety. If it were another pilot that I know, I probably would have taken that advantage.

WRT the person on crosswind, don't forget that the sun was low in the western sky on a hazy day where the 45 entry would have put me flying directly into the sun. This would have made it very difficult to acquire any traffic in the haze. My position would not have made it any more difficult for the crosswind traffic to acquire me due to the weather conditions (they were looking NE to find me). As for the fact that they now have to look for me and traffic on the 45... they should be doing that anyway as there is no requirement to enter on the 45 and traffic could be coming from anywhere. Again, just my opinion.

The AC is non-regulatory in nature and should not be a substitute for good pilot judgment based on all the available information. My personal practice is to use a 45 entry unless there is a good reason not to (navigation, airspace, operational considerations, weather, existing traffic, etc.). I do not subscribe to the one size fits all situations. Again, just my opinion and YMMV.

Bill Rogers

 

[Sam Buchanan]

191 posts to debate a potato, but 4 posts in a thread about engineering analysis of modifications.....in a homebuilt forum.

I'm just sayin'.

Dan,

Anybody can (endlessly) debate a potato, but you have to know what you are talking about to discuss engineering analysis of modifications......

 

[Ron Lee]

First and foremost, please stop denigrating the potato(e). I just bought several and have been successful lately in making baked potatoes (in an oven instead of a microwave). I would hate to swear them off because of the conversation here.

This has been useful if not lengthy. I get two main points as a proponent of this approach.

1) Use better terminology that most pilots will understand.

2) Never cut off another pilot in the pattern. Better to inconvenience the overhead pilot(s) than others.

Finally, I have seen no evidence that this approach is under scrutiny by the FAA. There are real safety issues that need to be recognized and fixed. Devote the time to fixing those well known problems....become the safest group in GA...and the overhead approach will be a non-issue.

RVFlightSafety.org

 

[Flybuddy2]

Does the potato have "skin" in the game or just a "chip" on it's shoulder?

 

[Chris Hill]

As far as the general population of aviators goes, the only ones who need to know what an overhead break is are the ones performing it. I can safely do OBs all day long in a traffic pattern full of pilots who dont know what one is since the OH pattern is already deconflicted from the rest of the pattern EXCEPT in the break to downwind. On initial, you are above aircraft on base/final. Your main area of conflict is obviously turning to downwind, so clear that area aggressively and then once rolled out on DW, call your downwind if you feel like other aircraft could be low on SA.

The safe execution of the OH pattern rests entirely on the pilots performing it (same could be said for the conventional pattern...), so if you are well versed/trained in the OH, then I say its good to go.

The OB is performed WITHIN the rectangular pattern. So you can enter the rectangular pattern, fly outside DW, turn to initial, execute the break, fly inside DW-base-final and you are meeting all of the FAA reqs/guidance.

 

[Flybuddy2]

The safe execution of the OH pattern rests entirely on the pilots performing it .

Chris--this is the issue that most naysayers bring up. The other guys in the pattern have to rely on the OH pilot for the "safe execution". This may be a well versed, experienced pilot or it could be a hot dogger copy cat. All the guy on downwind knows is that someone just popped into the pattern that he probably didn't see and didn't follow the procedure his CFI taught him. Once it's explained to him (as above) that his personal safety is reliant on someone he sees as a hot dogger he will form a **** poor perception of RV pilots and equipment.

 

[Chris Hill]

You cant mix apples and oranges though. You can argue the merit of the pattern or argue quality of airmanship.

A correctly executed OH pattern is perfectly OK.

A pilot who flies poorly can screw up both an OH or standard pattern.

 

[Webb]

191 posts to debate a potato, but 4 posts in a thread about engineering analysis of modifications.....in a homebuilt forum.

I'm just sayin'.

Hey Dan - Have you used the potato for a mold so that you can glass it? Don't forget to pick one that is teardrop shape since it has the least drag. That way if it flys the overhead maneuver, it will be able to keep the speed up at 500 feet above pattern altitude so it won't conflict with other traffic in the pattern.