- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah plenty of sep. Although, the VV/VM did the fan break on occasion. That’s simultaneously in close formation. Usually not a very aggressive break from what I’ve seen.
"Overhead to the initial", say what?
- Thread starter Lndwarrior
- Start date
Yeah plenty of sep. Although, the VV/VM did the fan break on occasion. That’s simultaneously in close formation. Usually not a very aggressive break from what I’ve seen.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Never heard of ‘fan break’ but I get the picture.
dtuuri
Final Approach
So your point is, what? Civilian pilots should do their overhead breaks at aircraft carriers?
dtuuri
Final Approach
"Prescribed", man, "pre-scribed".
Last edited:
Pugs
Cleared for Takeoff
Even ashore in the Navy you generally fly like you do at the ship. If you're doing a T&G or waiveoff or a bolter at the ship with no interval on downwind it's an immediate turn to downwind for another pass. No need to press upwind and clean up, you may need that gas for another pass. Once the gear/flaps/slats/hook are down leave it down. 30 seconds clean doesn't save much and we flew a 126 (ish depending on fuel) KTS approach and went dirty at 185 KTS so not like you were going to be varying that much. The only time you cleanup is at night where you're going to generally get sent back out a few miles to sequence back into the guys coming out of holding.
Ashore the only difference is usually the break altitude. Most fields require higher for noise so you can't do the 800' level break you do at the ship. Oddly, going back into Andrews was an 800' speed unrestricted (largely) break. I'm sure there was a limit but usually broke at 400 KTS. Perhaps they just liked to see it after dealing with helos and transports all day.
From abeam to touchdown same pattern, always turning and descending. Try to keep a 50 second interval on the guy in front of you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah what’s your point? I fly an aircraft. It’s prescribed for aircraft. It doesn’t say prescribed for fighter aircraft. Doesn’t say only allowed at towered fields.
While it’s design is for operational need, there’s nothing regulatory in restricting those that don’t have an operation need from doing it. Pattern entry is a recommendation and as long as they are complying with 91.126 and a pattern laid out in 90-66B, they’re legal.
Non-towered fields-
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
My point was that your statement was inaccurate. I also explained why it was inaccurate. No need to be snarky or defensive.
As a side note, I’ve flown AF and Navy patterns. Without a doubt the “positive control” from tower is
less efficient and creates more confusion. Maybe because the controllers are mostly 19 year old airmen.
Personally, I think this thread sets pretty low expectations for GA pilots. Pattern mgmt and SA are skills that CFIs should work to develop in their students. Teaching them what an initial and overhead is, is pretty simple stuff.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,723
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Don't ya know, there's reeeejonal jobz to be had man....teaching overheads to the ATITPPA crowd?
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,384
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
Because it is fun and if we never did things that other people don’t know about or understand we would do nothing. Play safe and be smart. Don’t worry about the kid under the slide eating buggers
Obviously spelling is not my thing... I’ll leave it as originally posted because it’s funny.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
dtuuri
Final Approach
You have no point then because I made no inaccurate statement.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Prescribed by the airbase commander? Prescribed means by authority. Traffic patterns are prescribed procedures. Towers can authorize them because they have the authority. The mention of them in AC 90-66 makes sense because some people do them not because some people should do them.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Relax man, it’s ok to admit you’re wrong. Are you more correctable in the aircraft than you are on this forum?
dtuuri
Final Approach
IF I'm wrong, it would only be to the extent of the subset of civil landing areas consisting of aircraft carriers. To that much I'll concede.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Actually, your inaccuracy was in how you characterized military pattern ops, which I corrected. For some reason that challenged your ego in some way. I’m not trying to get into a who’s smarter debate, just trying to keep the information accurate for those reading the thread.
dtuuri
Final Approach
We were specifically discussing land operations at a civilian airport. I don't see what lifting my comparison out of context does to further the debate, but I can see how it obfuscates what I was saying. What's done is done. My point's been made and I don't see how anybody else can mess it up any worse than... Velocity173. Your ball. I'm going back to evicting some dandy lions from my lawn.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
You also referenced his experience as a military aviator, which is the context I addressed.
But that’s fine, no need to beat a dead horse.
Digging is better than spraying for dandelions.
But that’s fine, no need to beat a dead horse.
Digging is better than spraying for dandelions.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
You have the authority by it being a prescribed pattern in the AIM and 90-66B (non-towered airport ops). Are you trying to say that it must be a published procedure specifically for that particular airport? If that’s the case, you’re wrong again.
Listen, you never have any references when it comes to your argument against the overhead. No CC letter, which I’m sure you’ve written the FAA to try and get some sort of formal ban on overheads. You have no facts. If you did, then the FAA would be violating civ pilots left and right...but they aren’t. You have an unfounded opinion on that you don’t like overheads because of safety. I could understand if you pointed to multiple cases of midairs resulting from them but you can’t. Most (around 80%) occurred on final and that had nothing to do with the overhead.
Last edited:
Hacker
Pre-takeoff checklist
What he really means is from the "perch point" -- the point on the downwind leg that is 45-degrees off from the runway threshold -- it is a 180-degree constant-bank descending turn which continues through base leg and rolls out on short final.
Hacker
Pre-takeoff checklist
Every USAF pilot training base has a runway that the T-6 undergrad pilots use and which primarily uses procedural deconfliction to separate up to 12-ish aircraft...all flying overhead patterns of every variation. It is "controlled" by a pilot who is in a mini-tower and is on a discrete frequency.
Again, it is primarily operated via *procedure* (e.g. rules of the road, position reports, and eyeballs out) and is flown by sub-100 hour *students*.
So, no, the success of the overhead pattern and all its variations does not rely on a tower and any control or information it might provide. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Maybe @hindsight2020 can take you out to the RSU on his base and let you have a look. It might be an educational opportunity you'll enjoy.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I guess based on the broad definition of traffic pattern, since it’s “prescribed” I need the base commander’s approval to fly any pattern...at a non-towered field.
No, it's not. The whole maneuver is the OVERHEAD. It makes no sense to call overhead as a position.
dtuuri
Final Approach
§ 157.3 Projects requiring notice.
Each person who intends to do any of the following shall notify the Administrator in the manner prescribed in § 157.5:
...
(f) Change any traffic pattern or traffic pattern altitude or direction.
Each person who intends to do any of the following shall notify the Administrator in the manner prescribed in § 157.5:
...
(f) Change any traffic pattern or traffic pattern altitude or direction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/157.3
ROTFLMAO! Ha, ha ha! You don't know me at ALL!
Brilliant observation. 100% of all flights converge on the numbers. Where else would the odds be worse? Does that mean we don't separate traffic elsewhere as best we can? Flying head-on toward opposite direction traffic and T-boning right in front of them (or worse) ought to be a no-brainer. Well, IMO, actually, I guess it is.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
That's not going to happen, but it would be nice. The thing is, I bet there are no J-3 Cubs and other GA airplanes wandering into the pattern sans radio like there can be at a GA airport, so it wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. Those are the folks who have the only credible voice in proper airport behavior, not ex-military, war-bird formation flyers or air traffic controllers. When an equivalent level of safety is provided, such as separate patterns, air traffic control, etc., then I'll be for it. Right now, it's the Wild West. Here's how it can effect various other flight paths in the pattern (excuse the straight lines, not too good at circles):
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Airsoft isn't that bad, but those paintballs hurt!!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
??? Never said to call the overhead a position.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
§ 157.3 Projects requiring notice.
Each person who intends to do any of the following shall notify the Administrator in the manner prescribed in § 157.5:
...
(f) Change any traffic pattern or traffic pattern altitude or direction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/157.3
ROTFLMAO! Ha, ha ha! You don't know me at ALL!
Brilliant observation. 100% of all flights converge on the numbers. Where else would the odds be worse? Does that mean we don't separate traffic elsewhere as best we can? Flying head-on toward opposite direction traffic and T-boning right in front of them (or worse) ought to be a no-brainer. Well, IMO, actually, I guess it is.
Who said anything about changing the pattern? The overhead is already an established pattern. Get rid of the definition in the PCG and the 90-66B and you’d have somewhat of a valid argument. With those two publications, it is a “prescribed” pattern. No requirement to change anything. Furthermore, no requirement to have it published in the AFD for the airport to conduct it. It’s done at civilian Ds, Cs, and Bs on a daily basis.
If you’re worried about getting T-boned then you don’t understand (obviously) how the overhead is conducted. You’d have more of a chance getting T boned from the “alternate midfield entry from the upwind leg side of the airport.” Perhaps you should write both the FAA and AOPA to remove these recommended entry procedures. Personally, I’ll take their judgment over yours.
focal_plane
Pre-takeoff checklist
Since it is safer and more efficient, can't we get the airlines to start using the overhead break?
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,723
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
As opposed to the standard 45°entry VFR traffic pattern they currently use?
focal_plane
Pre-takeoff checklist
Why not towered airports, maybe even more so than untowered?
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't care if you spiral from 5,000 feet above the airport into the final, just announce what you are doing in a way I can figure out where you are and what you are doing.
catmandu
Pattern Altitude
I still want to know what happened to the Dandy Lions:
And I rode in the back of a (D)C-9 that did an overhead, FWIW.
And I rode in the back of a (D)C-9 that did an overhead, FWIW.
Hacker
Pre-takeoff checklist
Here's my "credible voice" apple for the "apples to apples comparison".
Wood wings, fabric covered, no electrical system (and thus no radio) taildragger, just about to enter the pattern at a small GA airport. Using just my eyeballs to clear my flight path and not be a conflict for other aircraft in the pattern.
Last edited:
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I’m sorry, I didn’t think you were serious.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Whoa. No radios? Now you go too far. Well, I suppose with your transponder I’ll at least see you on my ADS-B 30 mile puck. That’ll give me a warm fuzzy.
dtuuri
Final Approach
In 1989 the PCG said this: "OVERHEAD MANEUVER− A series of predetermined maneuvers prescribed for military aircraft (often in formation)..."
Now, I suppose somebody thought, "Hey, we have to include the CIA pilots too," or something like that. There's no testing requirement for any FAA rating I know of that includes knowledge of that maneuver.
All tower controlled, not reliant on the eyesight of the mischief maker. Not apples to apples.
The jokes on you. If you are right, you're the one who should write a letter. Tell them that after at least 30 years you're the first guy who noticed they put "Overhead maneuver" in the wrong section of the AIM. Instead of at the tail end of the IFR Arrival section explaining to military pilots how an IFR clearance ends at "Initial" when they arrive in accordance with their base's "developed" pattern, it's really supposed to be in the Airport operations section.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
No requirement to publish in AF/D, but it is done. Here’s one, NUW. The military has, maybe had, I dunno if it’s still around, a similar thing. The FLIP, Flight Information Publication. There was the IFR Supplement and the VFR Supplement which would be the equivalent of the AF/D. If those are still around betcha you would find Initial, Break and Pattern altitudes for most military tactical type airports there. Yeah, Yeah, I know the whole point of the thread is about GA mixing it up with overhead approaches and we ain’t got access to the FLIP.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Heh. I go on a "Dandy Lion" hunt every day. My dog thinks it's a Squirrel Hunt. To each his own. Got 'em pretty well under control now. Crabgrass too. Today was a major Safari — hunted down two pails full of Wild African Violets.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I still want to know what happened to the Dandy Lions:
And I rode in the back of a (D)C-9 that did an overhead, FWIW.
I’ve seen that. Other planes I’ve seen do the break. C5, C141’s, C141’s in formation. C130’s, single and formations as large as four.