Overhead Approaches

dtuuri said:
My point is the crossover is not compatible with the 45 unless all aircraft have mandatory radios. Staying in the pattern and entering straight onto the downwind are the same, to Canadians. Their focus of attention would be to the inside while making closed traffic, ours to the outside. I don't think their way is best, but when in Rome...

dtuuri
Click to expand...
You apparently like Rome better than you do the US where both the crossover and the 45 to the downwind are permitted no matter how much you dislike that fact.
 
Everskyward said:
You apparently like Rome better than you do the US where both the crossover and the 45 to the downwind are permitted no matter how much you dislike that fact.
Click to expand...

You have not referenced a government document from any time since the 1930s that supports that claim. Nighty nite.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
You have not referenced a government document from any time since the 1930s that supports that claim. Nighty nite.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is yours. If you are going to say something is prohibited you need to provide documentation.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 25
Huh, so, if I am reading that diagram correctly, you come in like you are going to do a straight in, just higher up (pattern altitude?). Then, you do a 180 at the departure end, followed by a 180 to short final?
...Did I get that right?
 
Ozone said:
Huh, so, if I am reading that diagram correctly, you come in like you are going to do a straight in, just higher up (pattern altitude?). Then, you do a 180 at the departure end, followed by a 180 to short final?
...Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

Correct, only the AIM specifies a break altitude 500 ft above TPA. The controller can assign a lower break altitude though. As I said earlier, everywhere I worked ATC the break altitude was 500 ft above TPA. Only exception was the carrier break. Now you're talking a whole different beast altogether.

The examples you gave were 1) just a X-WIND cross over to a downwind entry. 2) a spiral down similar to a C-130 tactical arrival and 3) a simulated flameout (SFO) that F-16s practice...although your diagram depicts an X-15.

On a side note, the SFO procedure was a contributing cause to the Green Ramp disaster at Pope AFB back in 94. A combination of controllers not being familiar with the procedure and the pilot not breaking off the procedure because of the C-130 traffic. A sad day that was.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
The burden of proof is yours. If you are going to say something is prohibited you need to provide documentation.
Click to expand...

Do you dispute the requirement to approach the airport making all turns to the left? It's pretty well documented in Part 91.

dtuuri
 
Velocity173 said:
The examples you gave were 1) just a midfield cross over to a downwind entry.
Click to expand...
That is not a midfield entry. It enters downwind beyond the departure end of the runway on a legitimate crosswind leg where there's no conflict with traffic entering on a 45° entry leg at midfield. It's very much in accord with historical FAA diagrams.

I've never seen an FAA diagram showing a midfield "cross over", ever. The idea for that is the invention of someone with close ties to the AOPA. It's totally arbitrary, not based on science. It's just a matter of time until it's regretted.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Do you dispute the requirement to approach the airport making all turns to the left? It's pretty well documented in Part 91.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

That's not what it says.

And remember, the AIM is an advisory circular. not a regulation.
 
Tom-D said:
That's not what it says.

And remember, the AIM is an advisory circular. not a regulation.
Click to expand...

What does it say then.

EDIT: Or better yet, which of these two interpretations of it do you think would result in less conflict, all four planes are making left turns as they approach the object of the regulation:
Myway yourway.jpg​

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
That is not a midfield entry. It enters downwind beyond the departure end of the runway on a legitimate crosswind leg where there's no conflict with traffic entering on a 45° entry leg at midfield. It's very much in accord with historical FAA diagrams.

I've never seen an FAA diagram showing a midfield "cross over", ever. The idea for that is the invention of someone with close ties to the AOPA. It's totally arbitrary, not based on science. It's just a matter of time until it's regretted.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Correct, upon further review it does depict flying over on the crosswind leg and not midfield. At any rate, it sure ain't an overhead.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
That's not what it says.

And remember, the AIM is an advisory circular. not a regulation.
Click to expand...

The AIM is not an "advisory circular." But you are right it isn't a regulation either.
 
dtuuri said:
I've never seen an FAA diagram showing a midfield "cross over", ever. The idea for that is the invention of someone with close ties to the AOPA. It's totally arbitrary, not based on science. It's just a matter of time until it's regretted.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

You persist in condemning the second most oft-used pattern entry in the U.S (at GA airports) as "unsafe", yet cite no statistics to support your assertion.

We cross midfield to enter the downwind every day. We have for decades, at dozens, perhaps hundreds, of airports, nationwide. Thousands of pilots do the same, and have for decades. I see by your published POA bio that you are an "ex pro-pilot, DPE, A&P, etc", yet you persist in making the assertion that everyone else is unsafe.

In fact, during a Google search for "accidents caused by crossing midfield to enter downwind", I found a long history of your vocal opposition to this common pattern entry, both here and elsewhere. I was, however, unsuccessful in finding any accidents caused by this method of entering the traffic pattern, which may simply reflect poorly on my Google juju. (Perhaps Ron W. has some stats to share here?)

The only time I would reject this pattern entry would be if there was skydiving happening over the field. Otherwise, I contend that it is a perfectly safe and often preferable method of pattern entry.

I'm trying to understand what is triggering your response. Can you cite an example of an accident caused by crossing midfield to enter downwind?
 
Tom-D said:
That's not what it says.

And remember, the AIM is an advisory circular. not a regulation.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the part he is referring to is in the FAR part 91 under operations at airports within Class G airspace, so yes, it IS regulatory.
 
Jay Honeck said:
You persist in condemning the second most oft-used pattern entry in the U.S (at GA airports) as "unsafe", yet cite no statistics to support your assertion.
Click to expand...
Show me a study that validates your preferred entry method. I don't know where you get the idea "everybody" does this and has done so for decades. Of course, if you're the only plane in the pattern (but how do you know that), it doesn't matter what you do. If anybody can justify a midfield crossing on the basis of superior field of vision, slower closure rates, more frontal area of oncoming traffic to identify, then let's hear it. All those factors are against cutting across the airport into possible traffic entering downwind as far as I can tell. Not to mention the Canadians not allowing it without mandatory radio equipment.

How do you read Part 91.126, looking for loopholes to allow your favorite maneuver or are you looking for a procedure that minimizes sudden traffic conflicts?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
How do you read Part 91.126, looking for loopholes to allow your favorite maneuver or are you looking for a procedure that minimizes sudden traffic conflicts?
Click to expand...
While I am not a huge fan of the mid-field cross-over myself, please explain how you think that 91.126 prohibits it???

§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

I've seen many pilots utilizing the mid-field cross-over who when approaching to land 'make all turns to the left'.

While it is regulatory, 91.126 in no way prohibits a mid-field cross over.
 
Fearless Tower said:
While it is regulatory, 91.126 in no way prohibits a mid-field cross over.
Click to expand...

It does, however appear to prohibit the commonly used teardrop entry to the 45, as the teardrop turn is the wrong way. Not the upwind entry, though. To be honest, that's my preferred alternative to the straight-in.
 
dtuuri said:
Show me a study that validates your preferred entry method. I don't know where you get the idea "everybody" does this and has done so for decades. Of course, if you're the only plane in the pattern (but how do you know that), it doesn't matter what you do. If anybody can justify a midfield crossing on the basis of superior field of vision, slower closure rates, more frontal area of oncoming traffic to identify, then let's hear it. All those factors are against cutting across the airport into possible traffic entering downwind as far as I can tell. Not to mention the Canadians not allowing it without mandatory radio equipment.

How do you read Part 91.126, looking for loopholes to allow your favorite maneuver or are you looking for a procedure that minimizes sudden traffic conflicts?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Sorry, debate doesn't work that way. You're arguing that a commonly used pattern entry is dangerous. This puts the burden of proof on YOU.

Since the majority of pilots clearly disagree with you, and you apparently cannot cite any accidents caused by said common pattern entry, your argument appears to be without merit.

But I shall endeavor to remain open-minded, both now and whenever I'm crossing midfield to enter the downwind leg.
:)
 
Velocity173 said:
... I've seen aircraft broadcasting the "overhead" but yet they just do a high speed pass down the runway and pitch up to the downwind. That's not an overhead.

It's true value is for military IFRs coming back as a flight. It's the easiest way to get them to the field. If you split a flight of four for individual IAPs or even two sections you've got a larger chunk of airspace to protect for now. They're flying slower and they're IFR all the way until landing threshold. With the overhead, they automatically become VFR at the initial. No traffic you have to worry about getting them to see and follow. "Maintain two thousand five hundred until the 5 mile initial, contact xyz tower." Done.
Click to expand...

I landed at LVK (Livermore, CA) this morning and got out of the plane just in time to see a P-40 and a P51 in formation doing a low, high-speed pass down the runway. They broke and climbed up to the downwind for landing. Very impressive ... and your comment had given me perspective about this. Thanks. (I didn't hear how they requested this - wish I did.)
 
noahfong said:
I landed at LVK (Livermore, CA) this morning and got out of the plane just in time to see a P-40 and a P51 in formation doing a low, high-speed pass down the runway. They broke and climbed up to the downwind for landing. Very impressive ... and your comment had given me perspective about this. Thanks. (I didn't hear how they requested this - wish I did.)
Click to expand...

You ask for a low approach. A low approach is not an overhead.
 
I will confess to not reading this many-page thread but thought I would throw out this observation. When I lived in Canada and flew there, the midfield entry was the modus operandi and it truly worked well. Everyone did it. It helped you spot traffic entering the pattern because there was only one gateway to watch. (it may have changed since) All new traffic had to enter there, so there was only one place to watch. It was like you had to only watch ONE door in a huge room full of doors. The physical confinement of entering traffic really helped a pilot narrow down the necessary visual focus.
No data that it prevented conflicts but it sure felt like it might.
Return to regular conversations.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I will confess to not reading this many-page thread but thought I would throw out this observation. When I lived in Canada and flew there, the midfield entry was the modus operandi and it truly worked well. Everyone did it. It helped you spot traffic entering the pattern because there was only one gateway to watch. (it may have changed since) All new traffic had to enter there, so there was only one place to watch. It was like you had to only watch ONE door in a huge room full of doors. The physical confinement of entering traffic really helped a pilot narrow down the necessary visual focus.
No data that it prevented conflicts but it sure felt like it might.
Return to regular conversations.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, real life experience isn't allowed in this discussion. Conjecture only please.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Im sorry, real life experience isn't allowed in this discussion. Conjecture only please.
Click to expand...

OK! I conjecture that if anyone were to try that, they would come to appreciate it! It would only work however, if everyone were to agree to the same plan!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
It would only work however, if everyone were to agree to the same plan!
Click to expand...
There's the rub. Despite the vocals here, not everybody does this. Most are good soldiers and follow the FAA's recommended entry on a 45. Note that none of the vocals against me have addressed my points or answered my questions. Read Part 91.126 above with an attitude it must be to prevent conflict and you get an entirely different interpretation than reading it looking to justify an obvious risky entry when combined with others on the 45.

dtuuri
 
If you're on the radio, and nobody is in the way, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
You seem to be at war with yourself. In your arguments, you go back and forth between recommendation and prohibition.
Click to expand...

Can you be more explicit? The FAR's give a rule for how to approach an airport. The AIM gives a recommendation for entering the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. You can enter the pattern in other ways, but if you go over the airport you run afoul of the rule, if the rule is meant to minimize sudden traffic conflicts--which I think should be the obvious reason for it.

You could enter straight into the downwind leg or enter the upwind leg, for example, yet still preserve the rule for making left turns while approaching the airport and in so doing minimize the closure rates with other aircraft.

As for the overhead break at uncontrolled civilian airports and the need to kill off speed, in my experience flying out of these airports in corporate jets I wanted to slow way down well before arrival at the airport in order to have more recognition time. The slower the better too. Even though 500' above the piston pattern, there's always a chance to meet somebody doing the (illegal, but common) teardrop entry, so the more time available to see them, the better.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
So, you chose the lower interpretation?

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I choose any one of a number of legal/allowed pattern entries every time I arrive to the pattern, whichever I determine to be appropriate to the situation at hand. That includes straight-ins, base leg entries, downwind entries, 45-to-the-downwind entries, upwind entries, midfield entries, and yes, even overhead entries.
 
dtuuri said:
Can you be more explicit?
Click to expand...
I already was.

You kept throwing around 91.126 making statements that it somehow prohibited the mid-field entry.

I quoted 91.126 verbatim and asked you how you came up with that interpretation and you ingored it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I already was.

You kept throwing around 91.126 making statements that it somehow prohibited the mid-field entry.

I quoted 91.126 verbatim and asked you how you came up with that interpretation and you ingored it.
Click to expand...

Like playing whack-a-mole isn't it?
 
Well there are so many conflicting rules that there really is no point in arguing. You're all right and all wrong so just carry on doing what you're doing.
 
narchee said:
Well there are so many conflicting rules that there really is no point in arguing. You're all right and all wrong so just carry on doing what you're doing.
Click to expand...

There's really no conflicting rule in that case. The overhead is laid out both in the P/C glossary and 5-4-27 of the AIM and it complies with 91.126. If the FAA didn't want pilots doing the maneuver at non towered fields, then they'd say so.

The only gripe one could come up with is the "operational need" of the maneuver. Is it needed at some military fields with a high density of fighter traffic? Heck yeah it is. Is it needed for some RVs out flying VFR formation? Nope, but it's their aircraft and as long as they're talking and complying with the overhead as laid out in the AIM, I don't mind.
 
Velocity173 said:
There's really no conflicting rule in that case. The overhead is laid out both in the P/C glossary and 5-4-27 of the AIM and it complies with 91.126. If the FAA didn't want pilots doing the maneuver at non towered fields, then they'd say so.

The only gripe one could come up with is the "operational need" of the maneuver. Is it needed at some military fields with a high density of fighter traffic? Heck yeah it is. Is it needed for some RVs out flying VFR formation? Nope, but it's their aircraft and as long as they're talking and complying with the overhead as laid out in the AIM, I don't mind.
Click to expand...

From AIM 5-4-27, my bold:
"Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver."​
So, give me an example we can discuss where one has been "developed" at uncontrolled civilian fields. Special ops for aerial firefighting might be one example, any others?

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top