My First Overhead Break.....

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Geico
Home Airfield
KCEK
I have resisted overhead breaks up to now, but no longer. :no:

I was out doing acro practice in my RV-8 and kept the floor around 2500' agl. I was fairly close to the airport so diving down I was picking up speed so I dove towards the airport and broke over the top to loose altitude and speed. Made a nice entry into the downwind about 1'000' high @ 185 knots and made the turn to base to lose more altitude and speed. Hit flap speed on final, needed a little slipping to loose more altitude, and lowered the barn door to slow the plane to landing speed of 70 knots. Landed long using the last half of the runway.

I'm hooked! :lol:

Look out below! GEICO is in overhead break mode! :eek: " Any traffic in the area please advise." :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Ho boy...... I'm going to sit back and watch the flames start on THIS one. Where's the popcorn.......:wink2:


Jeff Orear
RV6A. N782P
Peshtigo, WI
 
Was doing pattern work presolo last week (I soloed yesterday). Someone decided to do straight in landing in opposite direction, touch and go. I got experience of doing traffic avoidance in pattern while on base.

Taught me a lesson: not everyone is on the radio..

:popcorn:
 
Way to go!

Overhead is both more fun and safer.
 
MachFly said:
Way to go!

Overhead is both more fun and safer.
Click to expand...

It's only safe if you know what you're doing and others are aware of it. Entering the pattern 100 knots fast and 1K feet high and descending inside the pattern is not. Maybe some instruction in overhead patterns is warranted.
 
Witmo said:
It's only safe if you know what you're doing and others are aware of it. Entering the pattern 100 knots fast and 1K feet high and descending inside the pattern is not. Maybe some instruction in overhead patterns is warranted.
Click to expand...

Well....everything is dangerous if you do not do it properly. Given that an overhead is done correctly is it safer than a standard pattern.

When you fly the standard pattern all the maneuvering (setting up for a 45 or whatever) is done outside of the pattern, beyond glide distance, in an overhead all the maneuvering is done over the field so if you should loose your engine you can always glide to the runway.
An overhead entry into the pattern also reduces the blind spots. Because as your flying the initial you have a clear view of both downwinds, also since your 500ft higher you have a more "three dimensional" view of the aircraft in the pattern.
For comparison when your entering a standard pattern all the traffic that's on the first half of the downwind will be harder to spot from the 45 (due to all the structural parts of the cockpit that create blind spots), same thing when using a base entry. Also since you enter the normal pattern at TPA your looking at all other traffic directly from the side, which gives you a two dimensional view of the aircraft, therefore are harder to spot.
 
Next time take a video ,so we can all enjoy it.
 
Machfly: Interesting post. However, I don't often pay close attention to writers who don't follow the rules re the proper uses/differences between loose/lose and your/you're. Sloppy presentations can quickly weaken good premises.

HR
 
Lawreston said:
Machfly: Interesting post. However, I don't often pay close attention to writers who don't follow the rules re the proper uses/differences between loose/lose and your/you're. Sloppy presentations can quickly weaken good premises.

HR
Click to expand...

Well sorry. I'm at work and using the iPad, autocorrect is being a pain in the a*s.
 
Are you going to get your overhead fixed, or will you leave it broken?

Will you be fixing it better than new so that it doesn't break again, or will you be repeating the cycle? :confused:
 
MachFly said:
Well....everything is dangerous if you do not do it properly. Given that an overhead is done correctly is it safer than a standard pattern.

When you fly the standard pattern all the maneuvering (setting up for a 45 or whatever) is done outside of the pattern, beyond glide distance...
Click to expand...

Negative. If I plan my descent properly---which I strive to do---I'm never beyond glide distance.

I'll only do an "overhead break" at a quiet airfield when practicing engine out approaches. I think it's an overhead break...I call it an overhead 360.

I'll fly down the runway centerline at TPA cut the engine to idle at midfield and do a 360 to land. Is this similar?
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Negative. If I plan my descent properly---which I strive to do---I'm never beyond glide distance.

I'll only do an "overhead break" at a quiet airfield when practicing engine out approaches. I think it's an overhead break...I call it an overhead 360.

I'll fly down the runway centerline at TPA cut the engine to idle at midfield and do a 360 to land. Is this similar?
Click to expand...

What you describe is not the classic overhead pattern. I was taught in an overhead pattern you fly up initial at traffic pattern altitude and do a level 180 degree turn to "inside" downwind, slow down, configure, and descend from the perch where you fly a descending 180 degree turn to final/landing. I don't agree that flying the overhead 500 ft higher than TPA is safer. I find it more difficult to be looking down and see traffic silhouetted against terrain or buildings. Then there's the chance that you'll descend onto someone you didn't see or notice below you at the proper TPA. Unless you're in a jet or fast twin, everyone should be at the same TPA.

Whether or not it's safer is debatable. Predictability in the pattern is necessary for a safe operation when pilots are sharing the pattern. The military does overheads all the time and because everyone's on the same page of music, it's perfectly safe. At a crowded civil airfield not everyone is familiar with an overhead and it's obvious from this thread that pilots have different ideas as to how an overhead is flown. Lack of familiarity and standardization make doing overheads at uncontrolled civil fields riskier IMHO.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Negative. If I plan my descent properly---which I strive to do---I'm never beyond glide distance.

I'll only do an "overhead break" at a quiet airfield when practicing engine out approaches. I think it's an overhead break...I call it an overhead 360.

I'll fly down the runway centerline at TPA cut the engine to idle at midfield and do a 360 to land. Is this similar?
Click to expand...

Similar yes, but what you describe is a different procedure to simulate an engine out. Overhead is a maneuver designed to slow the aircraft up for landing. Really only necessary for a flight of fighters coming in for landing. Those of us who don't fly fighters simply do it for fun. It is no safer than a standard 45 entry to the downwind.
 
Screw the overhead break...why the heck couldn't you manage to touch down in the first third of the runway? A sloppy approach and landing makes the whole procedure look amateurish.
 
Brad Z said:
Screw the overhead break...why the heck couldn't you manage to touch down in the first third of the runway? A sloppy approach and landing makes the whole procedure look amateurish.
Click to expand...

My hangar is on the other end of the runway. ;)

You start out as an amateur before going pro. :lol:
 
Brad Z said:
Screw the overhead break...why the heck couldn't you manage to touch down in the first third of the runway? A sloppy approach and landing makes the whole procedure look amateurish.
Click to expand...
Lighten up...he said it was his first one.
 
timwinters said:
Negative. If I plan my descent properly---which I strive to do---I'm never beyond glide distance.

I'll only do an "overhead break" at a quiet airfield when practicing engine out approaches. I think it's an overhead break...I call it an overhead 360.

I'll fly down the runway centerline at TPA cut the engine to idle at midfield and do a 360 to land. Is this similar?
Click to expand...

Here is a diagram from AFMAN11-248.

overheadbreakcf4.png


The initial can be flown 1000-1500ft AGL.
 
Brad Z said:
Screw the overhead break...why the heck couldn't you manage to touch down in the first third of the runway? A sloppy approach and landing makes the whole procedure look amateurish.
Click to expand...

That is why you practice...
 
MachFly said:
Here is a diagram from AFMAN11-248.

overheadbreakcf4.png


The initial can be flown 1000-1500ft AGL.
Click to expand...

2000 KIAS? Holy crap!

A break at pattern altitude is not the best idea. There's a reason why the AIM specifies 500 ft above pattern altitude.

Also this is a generic example of an overhead. Some airfield that have a need for the manuver have specific procedures. It's best to check that first before doing something like this diagram.
 
Velocity173 said:
2000 KIAS? Holy crap!

A break at pattern altitude is not the best idea. There's a reason why the AIM specifies 500 ft above pattern altitude.

Also this is a generic example of an overhead. Some airfield that have a need for the manuver have specific procedures. It's best to check that first before doing something like this diagram.
Click to expand...

I think the 2000 is a typo. LMAO

Yeah I do mine at TPA+500ft, didn't want to specifically say that that's the SOP because I went to check the manual (for that diagram) and didn't see it explicitly say that.
 
Lawreston said:
Machfly: Interesting post. However, I don't often pay close attention to writers who don't follow the rules re the proper uses/differences between loose/lose and your/you're. Sloppy presentations can quickly weaken good premises.

HR
Click to expand...

Not everyone learned to speak English as a first language.
 
It's not an overhead 'break' when you do it solo, the 'break' part is splitting the formation. It used to be cool to watch the F-14s come smoking into NAS Boca Chica with the wings back and at speed in a flight of 4 and watch them break and the wings roll out in an 80°+ bank.
 
Henning said:
It's not an overhead 'break' when you do it solo, the 'break' part is splitting the formation. It used to be cool to watch the F-14s come smoking into NAS Boca Chica with the wings back and at speed in a flight of 4 and watch them break and the wings roll out in an 80°+ bank.
Click to expand...

No, the break part has nothing to do with "splitting the formation." The term "break" is used to describe the type turn that's part of the overhead. For instance, tower can sequence an overhead with other traffic by saying "break over the approach numbers" or if no traffic, "report break." It's simply the point where the aircraft starts their break turn.

Same thing if you have a single aircraft inbound for the carrier break. He's not doing the "carrier." He's doing a carrier break.

The key is not to literally break your aircraft in the turn. :(
 
Last edited:
Well to be fair, we will request the "carrier" from Navy fields who know what we are talking about. But like you said, most fields, including most Navy fields, have the overhead altitude 500' above pattern for deconfliction. At the ship, or when using the carrier break at one of the few Navy fields that still allows it (Fallon, Key West, El Centro, Pensacola), we use 800' AGL and a 600' AGL pattern. That and at Tyndall......they apparently love the carrier, though they make all the F-15 and F-22 guys break at like 2500' or something absurd.

Anyway, it isn't more dangerous or less dangerous IMHO, just different. If you are going to do it at a normal field where everyone else is doing 45 entries to the downwind, base entries, and straight ins, you need to have a pretty good idea of where everyone else is. It's easy for us, because everyone else (generally) is also breaking, so you have a simple interval calculation to work out, and tower is used to it as well so they can either call your break or at least call your interval. I've done it at plenty of civilian fields, but if they were busy at all, I'd always request a visual straight in or something just to help everyone else out. Nothing wrong with having some fun though as long as you are being smart about it (which it sounds like you are). Just my .02 for what it is or isn't worth
 
I remember when the MEU showed up to Kosovo they brought CH-53s and AH-1s. The 53s would come in for the break hauling balls and with the blades slapping the air loudly. All my UH-60 friends had no idea what they were doing. It's not exactly something that's done on an Army base. Anyway we had to copy them and started returning from flights ending with the overhead. It didn't last long though. Our BTL CDR was in the tower one day and observed one of our overheads. He wanted to pull the PIC orders of the AMC but instead just killed any future overheads. Kinda agreed with him. While it is an approved tactical maneuver for a helicopter, it really has no use for a normal landing. Helicopters are quite easy to slow up for landing. Just stick your hand out the window. :)
 
35 AoA said:
At the ship, or when using the carrier break at one of the few Navy fields that still allows it (Fallon, Key West, El Centro, Pensacola), we use 800' AGL and a 600' AGL pattern.
Click to expand...

You mean most don't allow it any more? Why?
 
Thanks for the graphics above. When the fighter pilots at my field announce their overhead breaks on the CTAF, I have no idea what they are talking about or where they are headed.
 
Velocity173 said:
Does Miramar have a carrier break? Can't remember if they had one or not. Not sure if Beaufort still has one or not but it used to be 800 and 600 as well.
Click to expand...

Miramar has a weird inner/outer pattern. You could do the carrier to the left runway if you were doing FCLP's and not stopping, since that pattern was 600', but the right runway always had to be vertically deconflicted with traffic for the left as you essentially flew the same pattern downwind/approach turn. A picture would better explain but I don't have one. I forget the numbers, but IIRC the right (the long runway that full stop traffic went to) had a break at 1500 AGL and a pattern of 1000 or something like that. I think you are right about Beaufort....I've only been there a couple times, but I seem to remember doing a carrier break there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top