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.
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:
.....
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?
...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...
Yes... standard phraseology when in contact with ATC, not usually at non-towered airports...
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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,
So...... is that where you will be when you call upwind......
ps. I think Sam has his finger on the button.
...Personally, I do not believe that I ever use the term "upwind." Might be wrong.
... 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...
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
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?
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......
Does the RV aircraft have an operational need to perform the overhead break traffic pattern? As in, unable to do a standard pattern?
Ya know I was entertained by this for awhile, but now it is approaching boringly repetitious...
...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.
Ya know I was entertained by this for awhile, but now it is approaching boringly repetitious.
Let me take a shot at this..............
If you reported a 2 mile base...
If you come in a standard Overhead altitude you are 500 above pattern altitude.
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.
I'm happy I started this poll, gotten the info I wanted and am surprised too...
...I believe it was constructive.
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.
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....
Doing my part to reduce confusion:
I will not use UPWIND in reference to an overhead approach. Stills seems too ambiguous...
Thanks for the drawing, that is how I normally enter a pattern and report my position when I am approaching an uncontrolled airport from the active runway heading...
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?
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.
Havin 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.
......