wannabe wrote:58 Skylane and Oregon-180

Now, there is one Lancair up there that fit into a similar catagory, it is a 300 or so HP Turbine powered Lancair
Hopefully he was pulling someone's leg with "positions" reports.

cc

If the pilot of the Lancair was pulling someone's leg, I'll fully apoligize for calling him an idiot and by him breakfast at the Pancake House.

Now I know this is not right but it did happen. Going in to OHS this summer a guy comes on the approach freq. N123BS here I am I think, I um, um, um, bla bla bla, for like 15 seconds. Before a controller can say a thing a voice comes on and yells SHUT THE FUC% UP!!!! I am sure I was not the only person thinking that way

The information in the AFD's on the the proper pattern for McCall, prohibits striaght-ins for McCall


That is not something the owner of an airport has any say over.

RobBurson wrote:Now I know this is not right but it did happen. Going in to OHS this summer a guy comes on the approach freq. N123BS her I am I think, I um, um, um, bla bla bla, for like 15 seconds. Before a controller can say a thing a voice comes on and yells SHUT THE FUC% UP!!!! I am sure I was not the only person thinking that way

There was a guy over at Nampa yesterday morning doing that. There were alot of um's, ah's and bla bla bla's in is possition reports. But it wasn't too busy at the time, so no big deal. But still, WTF??

RobBurson wrote:Now I know this is not right but it did happen. Going in to OHS this summer a guy comes on the approach freq. N123BS her I am I think, I um, um, um, bla bla bla, for like 15 seconds. Before a controller can say a thing a voice comes on and yells SHUT THE FUC% UP!!!! I am sure I was not the only person thinking that way

Shit, was that last June? I think that was me looking for JC.

Bonanza Man wrote:The information in the AFD's on the the proper pattern for McCall, prohibits striaght-ins for McCall

Actually, you and I may stand to be somewhat corrected on this.

It says in the FAA AFD for McCall: Rwy 16-34 straight in VFR landings prohibited.........

So, can a plane flying IFR into McCall do a striaght in (or GPS approach) once they have the runway in site and there is no other conflicting traffic in the area/pattern?

Yep, if the approach allows it. The owner of an airport can specify left or right traffic and that's it. Everything else is a request.

Apparently hapens everywhere. During a formation flying demo in a right echelon they did a 4 second break for landing which put everyone in trail for landing. Looking as they turned base I noticed what looked like a close spacing and counted five airplanes instead of four. Guy was doing a straight in instead of flying the pattern. This was at a non-towered airport. Luckily the guy on straight in finally answered. He hadn't even called a straight in as there wasn't generally any traffic at this field in the late evenings. Lets all help each other SEE and AVOID.

Radio calls or not, I've seen more havoc raised with other traffic by flights of blue angel wannabe's bulling into the pattern with a multi-ship overhead break, than by any single straight-in. I guess some guys figure when they're in a pack that everyone else is gonna bend over backwards to accomodate them. It's up to them to fit into the flow, not up to the flow to fit into them.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote:Radio calls or not, I've seen more havoc raised with other traffic by flights of blue angel wannabe's bulling into the pattern with a multi-ship overhead break, than by any single straight-in. I guess some guys figure when they're in a pack that everyone else is gonna bend over backwards to accomodate them. It's up to them to fit into the flow, not up to the flow to fit into them.

Eric

Easy Eric...an overhead pattern is as much a legal and published pattern as the standard Left or Right hand pattern. I fly them all the time whether solo or in a formation, but I also use better judgement in a crowded pattern as many other pilots don't know or understand the overhead pattern. If it is flown properly and the positions are reported correctly (Initial, Break, Downwind, Short Final) it will allow seemless intagration into the pattern and actually minimize the time that the aircraft are taking up space in the airport environment. The key is that the break point must not cutoff an aircraft already on downwind...break after the downwind traffic passes abeam your wing. Once the break has begun the aircraft flying the overhead now has the right of way over others entering the pattern from other angles (ie 45 degree entry to downwind) since the breaking aircraft is now actively entering the downwind leg.

The overhead is the safest and most efficient way to land a formation flight period...otherwise the flight must break formation early, extend seperation from each other and try to integrate multiple aircraft into a standard pattern with other traffic. Imagine trying to keep up with the position of 4 aircraft all trying to enter the pattern one at a time along with multiple others entering from different direction. In a formation overhead pattern (assuming you understand it), all other traffic will know precisely where all formation aircraft are at any given point in the approach...it is always much safer when you know where the traffic is and what they are going to do than if you are trying to guess where, how, and how many to avoid.

You may find this article interesting...it was published in the EAA WARBIRDS magazine: http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/featured/Fe ... terson.pdf

lowflybye wrote:
Easy Eric...an overhead pattern is as much a legal and published pattern as the standard Left or Right hand pattern. I fly them all the time whether solo or in a formation, but I also use better judgement in a crowded pattern as many other pilots don't know or understand the overhead pattern. If it is flown properly and the positions are reported correctly (Initial, Break, Downwind, Short Final) it will allow seemless intagration into the pattern ..........

I use overhead pattern entries all the time myself, either from the crosswind or the upwind leg. The key to your comment is "use better judgement"-- I don't come blowing into a crowded pattern with an overhead entry, or cut off people doing the standard (aka AIM-recommended ) 45. You're also right about a lot of pilots not savvying "overhead entry" "360 overhead" or "1 mile initial" radio calls. These are accepted military tactics, but I'm not sure if they're even in the AIM. I understand them, but lots of GA pilots don't.
"Seamless integration" into the pattern....yeah, if the pattern is empty. Here's a scenario, a flight of 4 aircraft doing an overhead break. The first aircraft pitches out onto downwind, with sufficient room between him and the guy on a 1/2 mile 45. That's fine- the trouble starts when the other 3 aircraft in the flight do their 2 second breaks, cutting off the 45 traffic. You'd think the rest of the flight would let him go by first, then do their break, but from what I've seen that's seldom the case- at least with most of the formation types around my neck of the woods. Of course, the whole flight could delay their entry until the other traffic is by them, and do their pitch-out to downwind somewhere past the airfield, but I don't see that happening much around here either. But if YOU always fly your overhead entries in a courteous fashion, I salute you & apologze for my comments.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote: But if YOU always fly your overhead entries in a courteous fashion, I salute you & apologze for my comments.

Eric

I cannot say that I have never cut someone off, but I do not do it intentionally...I think the majority of us try to fly courteously, but as is often the case, the best intentions...

I can honestly say that I have been cut off just as many times in a standard pattern as I have in an overhead and most of the time it was done unintentionally. The key to all if it is to keep your head on a swivel, realize that all of us are in different levels of experience, and try to familiarize yourself with other patterns and flying styles that are different from our own. If we understand the other pattern procedures and flying styles then we know in advance how the other aircraft "should" operate and can plan our flight accordingly. It goes both ways...

It is the responsibility of the flight lead to time the arrival to integrate with the current traffic in the pattern, but you must also remember that if the formation is already in the pattern (whether it be overhead or standard) then other aircraft not already in the pattern must give way in the same fashion. If a pilot reports 45 for downwind prior to formation reaching the initial then the lead aircraft should plan to extend the break point to fall in line or break out of the approach...it all depends on who enters the "pattern" first. We have often amended our break to fall into close trail and enter the downwind together in the standard traffic pattern and then gain seperation by 2 or 3 second base turn breaks. If we use the stagered landing techniques we can still get down and out of the way pretty quickly without extending the downleg leg into bomber pattern territory. If the formation has briefed properly then the arrival should be a non-event as either scenario will have a known execution procedure beforehand.

Interesting "warbirds" article. It seems that the other pilot was startled when the flight of 2 warbirds were on the upwind leg of their overhead arrival at approx 500' AGL, cutting across his path prior to arriving over the airport for the break. Then they pulled up in the break, doesn't say to what altitude but I'm guessing to probably 800-1000 AGL at midfield downwind. It would have been less alarming to the base traffic if the flight of two had not descended below pattern altitude until downwind abeam. The diagram following the article doesn't mention that climbing turn, only a pitchout or break to downwind. The author also mentions that the overhead entry is per the AIM- well, yes it is but it is illustrated in the section on IFR arrival procedures.
You're correct that it's up to the flight leader to time the arrival to integrate with the other traffic. Unfortunately this doesn't always happen, causing hard feelings all around. Of course, plenty of non-formation flyers bull their way into the pattern too......

Eric

hotrod150 wrote:Interesting "warbirds" article. It seems that the other pilot was startled when the flight of 2 warbirds were on the upwind leg of their overhead arrival at approx 500' AGL, cutting across his path prior to arriving over the airport for the break. Then they pulled up in the break, doesn't say to what altitude but I'm guessing to probably 800-1000 AGL at midfield downwind. It would have been less alarming to the base traffic if the flight of two had not descended below pattern altitude until downwind abeam. The diagram following the article doesn't mention that climbing turn, only a pitchout or break to downwind. The author also mentions that the overhead entry is per the AIM- well, yes it is but it is illustrated in the section on IFR arrival procedures.
You're correct that it's up to the flight leader to time the arrival to integrate with the other traffic. Unfortunately this doesn't always happen, causing hard feelings all around. Of course, plenty of non-formation flyers bull their way into the pattern too......

Eric

It would not have been alarming at all if the pilot had known about, or understood an overhead approach...ultimately his alarm came from his ignorance of the pattern procedures. In reading the article you notice 2 slightly different perspectives on the approach and how it was executed. The warbird pilots states altitudes and positions of both aircraft and the other aircraft gives generalizations of how it unfolded. The warbird pilot does state that upon crossing the numbers on initial he noted the downwind traffic on his 8 o'clock position which indicates that he did not cut off the downwind traffic turning base. This is where the traffic should be when crossing the numbers on a standard pattern as well so I am not really sure why there was any conflict...it was "different", but not wrong. He did maintain 563 feet AGL over the runway (as noted on the diagram in the article) and then executed a pitchout break for downwind...again nothing uncommon for a fast warbird, but different to some pilots and adequate spacing was maintained between the aircraft in both pattern types.

You are correct that the approach is mentioned in the AIM under IFR arrival procedures, but it also states: "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."

Just because a pattern or approach is in the IFR section does not make it invalid for VFR ops, or that VFR pilots should not be familiar with it. On the contrary, all pilots should be familiar with published patterns or procedures that are used in VFR conditions. This is one thing that instructors should be teaching their students before they solo in my opinion...know the patterns.

This discussion is beneficial to many as those who were previously unaware of the procedures are learning about them and knowledge increases safety.

Clear skies & tailwinds

I've benefited from this discussion. I was ignorant of the overhead break, and if I ever encounter it being used, I'll now understand what they are up to.

It seems to me that while an uncontrolled airport is pretty much fair game for anything, the suitability of any of these unconventional approaches should be used with common sense. I like to land on the cross wind runway at Corvallis to keep in practice for cross wind landings, but if there are other folks in the pattern, I won't usually do this to keep someone else from getting confused about what I'm doing. I also make several calls over the radio to explain my position.

From the description outlined in the article above, it seems like he did a good job of calling out his intentions. However, if his crossing in front of the other plane was kind of close, that is what probably got the other guy to make a complaint. How close he really got we'll never know.

tom

Savannah-Tom wrote:I've benefited from this discussion. I was ignorant of the overhead break, and if I ever encounter it being used, I'll now understand what they are up to.

tom

Glad it is beneficial to you Tom...this is what the overhead looks like from inside the aircraft...standard pattern for this field is Left traffic and I was the only one in the airport vicinity this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Fjezil4LE

I did not use the tactical pitchout / break in this video as I do not need it to lose speed in a Stearman, but many faster aircraft will often cross initial below the standard pattern altitude and pitch up in the break to standard pattern altitude to help bleed some airspeed...plus it looks cool. In an overhead pattern the we normally carry our cruise speed into the break and bleed it off in the 180 turn / pitchout. Pattern altitude for initial in an overhead approach is anywhere from 500 - 1500 feet AGL.

Hopefully its helps clear things up a bit more.

Clear skies & tailwinds.

I'm all for overhead entries at or above TPA, but it seems to me that an 500' AGL, 190 mph upwind entry to break at the numbers is a recipe for disaster, especially since it is being done because it "looks cool". Virtually all of the airplanes I fly, 500' AGL base to final power off drops you on the numbers from a 1/2 mile out at 55-60kts. I guarantee I am only giving a brief look right for landing traffic (in a left hand pattern) as my attention is on the turn and alignment for final (not scanning out 4 to 5 miles for someone doing 190!) and making the timing decision on my last notch of flaps. Having a P-51 planted in my ass right after I turn the corner will ruin everyone's day.

Granted, if the pattern is empty or the spacing allows it, fine, but the "below pattern" overhead entry A/C needs to be fully aware that they are almost solely responsible for the safety of the pattern, including unaware pilots and those that aren't on the radio. Flying the pattern like it should be flown (i.e. at or above pattern altitude) assures the safety of the everyone else aviating. My two cents.

Flynengr

flynengr wrote:Flying the pattern like it should be flown (i.e. at or above pattern altitude) assures the safety of the everyone else aviating. My two cents.

Flynengr

If we flew the overhead above "normal" pattern altitude then we set up blind spots and can easily lose sight of the other traffic...this is a big no-no as you could descend onto another aircraft and neither one see the other. In formation you NEVER cross over someone to change positions for the same reason...you lose them under the wing or nose. Flying above "normal" pattern altitude does not ensure the safety of everyone else and can actually decrease it...think of the low wing above / high wing below scenario or the recent mid air in NY.

500-1500 AGL is how it should be flown according to the established procedures...are you looking for someone on short final at "normal" pattern altitude when you are on downwind or are you looking for them at 500 AGL which is where they should be on 1/2 mile final? What is the difference in this approach and a Citation / Lear / King Air on short final from an ILS? Their altitude and positions on short final / initial would be the same? If the overhead pilot is making his radio calls correctly then his position should easily be known to all but NORDO pilots who should be even more attentive visually.

Again, the use of better judgement by the overhead pilot should dictate if the overhead pattern is used and at which altitude it should be flown. If the pattern is really busy then I probably will not opt to use the overhead unless I know the other pilots in the pattern and they are familiar with it. On the other hand if the pattern is not busy and I know someone is turning base when I hit initial then I will continue the approach at normal pattern altitude which allows me to cross over them at 500 feet or better depending on their altitude on final...I also confirm over the radio that I have the traffic in sight and will be no factor. If I am at initial and the other aircraft is on downwind then I may shoot the approach to 500 ft agl with a pitchout break at mid field and after passing abeam the downwind traffic. This puts me in the same positions / altitudes as you would expect for nomal pattern traffic executing a "go around" in all phases of the approach except the 180 break to downwind after which I am in sequence in the normal traffic pattern.

It is a legal and published procedure so like it or not it is something that pilots need to be familiar with. If you are not listening to the radio calls and are only giving a brief look to check for aircraft on final while on your base leg then you are asking for problems. Always check and double check for aircraft on long final, straight in, instrument approaches, and overhead patterns before you put the back of your head to them, this goes for taking the active to depart as well...you may very well be the one to cut someone else off and have some apologizing to do. Begin checking for traffic on final after you cross the midfield point on downwind followed by another check just prior to your base turn and again just prior to final turn...I add it to my GUMP check.

Bottom line: be courteous, use good judgement, and keep your head on a swivel especially when in an airport environment.

Fly safe fellows...clear skies & tailwinds

You avtards are making this way too complicated.

When approaching a busy pattern, just make a straight-in and announce on the radio when you're on 10 mile final. When someone else says they are turning base or final, reply back "Negative, Ghostrider, the pattern is full. Airplane on final has right of way."

Problem solved.

kevbert wrote:You avtards are making this way too complicated.

When approaching a busy pattern, just make a straight-in and announce on the radio when you're on 10 mile final. When someone else says they are turning base or final, reply back "Negative, Ghostrider, the pattern is full. Airplane on final has right of way."

Problem solved.

Why didn't I think of that...