- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Because you don't fly an RV.
Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?
- Thread starter CC268
- Start date
Because you don't fly an RV.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Are you sure? I just read through the AIM looking for references to overhead. Not once could I find out anything about being 500ft above TPA. I was taught an overhead approach by retired fighter pilots, who demonstrated both techniques, but had a preference for TPA. They tended to only come above the TPA if someone was departing and coordinate to fly under.
Tim
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
An approach straight down the runway opposite direction; with a steep bank called a break to scrub speed and turn 180 degrees onto downwind.
Technically the approach is defined as straight over the runway, but the former military guys who trained me taught me to be offset slightly from the runway.
Tim
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
It's in the PCG:
OVERHEAD MANEUVER− A series of predeter- mined maneuvers prescribed for aircraft (often in formation) for entry into the visual flight rules (VFR) traffic pattern and to proceed to a landing. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument flight rules (IFR) approach procedure. An aircraft executing an overhead maneuver is considered VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the “initial point” on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. The pattern usually specifies the following:
a. The radio contact required of the pilot.
b. The speed to be maintained.
c. An initial approach 3 to 5 miles in length.
d. An elliptical pattern consisting of two 180 degree turns.
e. A break point at which the first 180 degree turn is started.
f. The direction of turns.
g. Altitude(atleast500feetabovetheconvention- al pattern).
Like I said, if fighters did it at TPA, that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The way it's suppose to be done. Carswell Ft Worth.
TylerSC
Pre-takeoff checklist
There are many possible reasons. Do you think there is greater risk in using that pattern entry?
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
PCG?
dtuuri
Final Approach
Yes, my case has been made often here. I'm wondering, though, what is your perception of my best argument against it and what facts you believe trump mine.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Harold Rutila
Pre-takeoff checklist
You can fly straight in. The Pilot/Controller Glossary refers to this practice in its definition of final approach (within the definition of traffic pattern): "An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered to be on final approach." Whether or not it is a good decision is your determination to make. The FAA certainly recommends the use of standard pattern entries but does not require them.
I can think of plenty of times when a straight-in approach is safer than a pattern entry. Weather, equipment issues, low fuel, sick passengers, instrument approaches, airspace constraints, black hole approaches at night, terrain and obstruction considerations, etc.
If you're going to enter the pattern, do it in the way prescribed in the AIM and in accordance with local procedures (e.g. right turns, noise abatement, etc.). If you're going to fly straight-in, it shouldn't be done in a way that disrupts other pilots' pattern operations.
It would be nonsensical to disregard the Chart Supplement (aka A/FD) entry because of a lack of a visual indicator. The AIM makes reference to the fact that they may not exist:
AIM 4-3-4 a. "At those airports without an operating control tower, a segmented circle visual indicator system, if installed, is designed to provide traffic pattern information."
Chart Supplements or Sectional Charts are the source for determining the pattern direction.
With regard to entering the pattern from the crosswind, this is not a standard entry as depicted in the AIM. If you choose to enter the pattern, it should be done via a standard entry.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Note, tspear, the procedure is a "prescribed" one, i.e., it's specified locally for a specific operational need. The procedure shown is for Carswell only. There are references to unique speeds, altitudes and even local highways and housing. The biggest thing, imo, is the control tower. Outside of military satellite training bases I don't know of any prescribed overhead break procedures for civilian uncontrolled airports. In other words, those who do them there are out and out bandits.
dtuuri
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Actually, overhead approach is defined in the AIM as a standard technique. It may not be common, and it seems to be mostly done by former military and those trained by ex-military, but that does not make them "bandits".
Tim
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
If they are doing something other than what is described in the PCG, maybe uninformed or flat out winging it. But bandits????
Last edited:
BigBadLou
Final Approach
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 5,173
- Location
- TX - the friendliest state
- Display Name
Display name:
Lou
Genius idea. How about setting up a competition?
Larry in TN
En-Route
Contact the airport manager and point out the discrepancy so that he can resolve it either by installing the approved visual markings or removing the incorrect information from the chart supplement.
Problem is too many folks are doing non-standard entries and I rather see them than blindly follow the AIM.
Avoid uncontrolled fields on nice VFR weather weekends. Then you'll miss the "cross country on down-wind" yahoos, the "straight-in-becasue-I-can" azzhats who don't make a single radio call, the "righteous-Indignation-CFIs" who carp because you took the active and rolled, just after they turned a 2 1/2 mile final. In a 172. And the guy flying a practice approach who never comes up on CTAF.
Can't we all just get along? probably not. I've held short for a biz-jet a few miles out, just to be a good neighbor. And watch the landing. Done 360 turn outs from downwind to resolve a conflict - "after you Alphonse". And a few go-rounds to help ease the backup of folks waiting to depart.
And had a Navion roll onto the active just as I crossed the fence, nary a word spoken, though he saw my finger as we flew formation for a bit, during my go-around. Also had a Huey fly across short final, leaving me to do a break turn low and slow, to avoid passing under his flight path. Probably honest mistakes, though I heard later the Navion driver was a pin head.
And, the funniest one - after a short-field landing at KFME, a 182 landed opposite direction. Never heard a word. Wind sock pointing right at me (I checked, and AWOS, thinking I might have messed up).
Can't we all just get along? probably not. I've held short for a biz-jet a few miles out, just to be a good neighbor. And watch the landing. Done 360 turn outs from downwind to resolve a conflict - "after you Alphonse". And a few go-rounds to help ease the backup of folks waiting to depart.
And had a Navion roll onto the active just as I crossed the fence, nary a word spoken, though he saw my finger as we flew formation for a bit, during my go-around. Also had a Huey fly across short final, leaving me to do a break turn low and slow, to avoid passing under his flight path. Probably honest mistakes, though I heard later the Navion driver was a pin head.
And, the funniest one - after a short-field landing at KFME, a 182 landed opposite direction. Never heard a word. Wind sock pointing right at me (I checked, and AWOS, thinking I might have messed up).
dtuuri
Final Approach
It's odd to me that it would be buried in an IFR portion of the AIM, "Arrival Procedures" (5-4-27), rather than under "Airport Operations" (Chapter 4, Section 3). Isn't it to you? Here's what the AIM actually says, but I'm just quoting the words you seemed to have missed, with my emphasis:
Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. 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.
(See FIG 5−4−32.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing
the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver...
(See FIG 5−4−32.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing
the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver...
It doesn't look to me that just any old body can up and change the official traffic pattern, ad hoc, wherever they may please. This section is addressed to IFR aircraft landing where such patterns are established or local controllers (tower) may authorize them. So, do them at controlled fields where you have somebody keeping separation from non-participating aircraft.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Well, yeah. Didn't one of those "bandits" recently steal the right-of-way from Richard Palm?If they are doing something other than what is described in the PCG, maybe uninformed or flat out winging it. But bandits????
dtuuri
The problem with non-standard entries is that there is no consensus on which method to use, which results in surprises in the pattern.
Although I was displeased at the way things worked out, I'm not convinced that using the FAA-recommended pattern entry gives me the right-of-way. The other plane was to my right, which would seem to give him the right-of-way.
dtuuri
Final Approach
You said you had a "face full" of the plane, so I interpreted that as though you were approaching head-on or nearly so. The Chief Counsel says right of way rules apply even in the pattern, so you both should have turned right--you onto downwind, it onto the upwind where it should have been anyway, imo.Although I was displeased at the way things worked out, I'm not convinced that using the FAA-recommended pattern entry gives me the right-of-way. The other plane was to my right, which would seem to give him the right-of-way.
dtuuri
"Face-full" was an exaggeration on my part, but at one point we were momentarily head on to each other, and it looked to me like we would get too close to each other if I continued onto the downwind.
One thing I didn't mention is that right traffic is specified for the runway that was in use, so he was already in a right turn. I think I was already in the left turn to downwind when I saw him, so it seemed like the quickest way to put space between us was to continue the left turn to exit the pattern.
Lindberg
Final Approach
"Conquest, Pretend Tower, you're cleared to land number two behind Piper Cub on downwind."
Solved.
Maybe every other flight I'll encounter another aircraft at an uncontrolled field. Usually our relative positions/intentions make it so there's no conflict. The odd time there are more aircraft in the pattern and there is a potential conflict, someone volunteers to do a 360 or extend their downwind/upwind leg or something pretty quick to keep things rolling smoothly.
I can't really think of an occasion I've had trouble with another pilot, it seems like most of us are polite enough and have enough common sense to want to keep our distance and avoid a close call. Straight in, teardrop, crosswind, 45 to the downwind.... you know as long as you're on the radio I don't really care just let me know where you're at and I'll tell you where I'm at and we'll figure this out.
I can't really think of an occasion I've had trouble with another pilot, it seems like most of us are polite enough and have enough common sense to want to keep our distance and avoid a close call. Straight in, teardrop, crosswind, 45 to the downwind.... you know as long as you're on the radio I don't really care just let me know where you're at and I'll tell you where I'm at and we'll figure this out.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I'd say about 95% of my operations are to and from non-towered fields, and I too cannot recall the last time I've had any sort of conflict with another pilot.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Hmm might have to try this. So on the radios you just announce, "Cessna XXXXX entering cross wind for runway XX?"
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
There's a lot of confusion here. I've flown in and out of Carswell many o times. It's a heavily NAVY-oriented base, despite Lockmart, USAFR, and ANG sharing the field.
To be clear, as a matter of PROCEDURE, the overhead break in the USAF is flown as a level turn break at the local traffic pattern altitude for turbine aircraft. You only descend out of that altitude at the perch point, not on closed downwind. In the USAF the standard pattern altitude is 1500AGL (or higher as directed by MAJCOM or local guidance) for fighter type aircraft.
ETA: I've never flown the overhead break in the manner described by @Velocity173 on a civilian or joint use field, and I do them by the dozen a week all over kingdom come. Never once has ATC queried about it, instructed or requested it be flown in that matter, in the 11 years I've been in the service. It is not the recognized procedure by the USAF and ATC has never given a single impression that it so for them either. Sounds like something a NAVY dude would come up with, with their fingerless gloves and weird nomenclature for formation positions... I keed I keed.
To be clear, as a matter of PROCEDURE, the overhead break in the USAF is flown as a level turn break at the local traffic pattern altitude for turbine aircraft. You only descend out of that altitude at the perch point, not on closed downwind. In the USAF the standard pattern altitude is 1500AGL (or higher as directed by MAJCOM or local guidance) for fighter type aircraft.
ETA: I've never flown the overhead break in the manner described by @Velocity173 on a civilian or joint use field, and I do them by the dozen a week all over kingdom come. Never once has ATC queried about it, instructed or requested it be flown in that matter, in the 11 years I've been in the service. It is not the recognized procedure by the USAF and ATC has never given a single impression that it so for them either. Sounds like something a NAVY dude would come up with, with their fingerless gloves and weird nomenclature for formation positions...
I keed I keed.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Seen it in action. If the 172 drivers aren't complete buttholes, they make space. You really do want the jet in front of you, rather than behind. They approach a LOT faster.
Gliders, piston singles, Caravans, and L39s often mix it up at Byron. Only the jumper dumper (Caravan) is a problem.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ya know, that proves the Chief Counsel doesn't contemplate aircraft making course reversals within the traffic pattern. Applying right-of-way rules would have you veering right, over the runway. You turned the best way to avoid conflict, but according to "Hoyle", not the "legal" way. I must conclude the FAA believes "breaks" have no place at an uncontrolled field.
dtuuri
Last edited:
I don't know what the FAA believes. My conclusion is that they're not a great idea when the pattern is as busy as it was at that time. Ten minutes later, the pattern was empty, and it wouldn't have been a problem.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
Really? 10 minutes later there could easily be 3 more planes in the pattern.
Why does "could have been" matter?
TylerSC
Pre-takeoff checklist
I usually call 'on extended left/right CROSSwind for runway XX,' then 'over the numbers on the departure end of runway XX on L/R crosswind for runway XX.'
I think when we are entering on a downwind, we are primed to listen when we hear 'crosswind.'
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
Ill use either one. My preference is based on airspace/weather/time limitations and the number of knuckleheads I anticipate being in the pattern. Look at KBVS, the class C around KNUW, and know that the San Juan islands are a big draw on a sunny day. You can see why I don't like doing the tear drop to the 45. Its like turning your back on a charging bear.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
If they don't make space, a plane flying 2x their airspeed passes them of a wider and higher pattern to end up on final in front of them where they are required by reg to yield the right of way.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
There's a lot of confusion here. I've flown in and out of Carswell many o times. It's a heavily NAVY-oriented base, despite Lockmart, USAFR, and ANG sharing the field.
To be clear, as a matter of PROCEDURE, the overhead break in the USAF is flown as a level turn break at the local traffic pattern altitude for turbine aircraft. You only descend out of that altitude at the perch point, not on closed downwind. In the USAF the standard pattern altitude is 1500AGL (or higher as directed by MAJCOM or local guidance) for fighter type aircraft.
ETA: I've never flown the overhead break in the manner described by @Velocity173 on a civilian or joint use field, and I do them by the dozen a week all over kingdom come. Never once has ATC queried about it, instructed or requested it be flown in that matter, in the 11 years I've been in the service. It is not the recognized procedure by the USAF and ATC has never given a single impression that it so for them either. Sounds like something a NAVY dude would come up with, with their fingerless gloves and weird nomenclature for formation positions...
Well, the definition in the AIM specifies an altitude 500 ft above TPA. Outside of the carrier break (800/600) all the Navy / Marine facilities I know of use 500 ft above TPA. From Cherry Point:
Traffic Patterns • Pattern alt is 1000’, standard left traffic - 32L is right traffic • Overhead - Arrive at the initial at 2100’ - Descend to 1500’ prior to the numbers for the break called by tower - Descend to 1000’ prior to base.
Frankly, if you all aren't offsetting, I don't see how your facility can work heavy traffic traffic with a break at TPA altitude. That'll work fine at some sleepy GA uncontrolled field but with heavy tower traffic, that's a midair waiting to happen. Plenty of times I've seen fighters doing closed traffic and at TPA over the runway and extending for traffic on downwind. If you have a flight coming in for the break at TPA and 350-400 kts, they'll run right up the butt of the aircraft on the go with nowhere to go. With a break at 500 ft above TPA, you can throw them right over the top of the traffic and "Blade11, follow the flight of three passing overhead for the break, downwind approved."
LongRoadBob
Cleared for Takeoff
I had no idea there was such a controversy over this point. Of my training flights (with four different instructors) almost all have been straight in our uncontrolled field.
I'll have to ask why it is okay.
Just guessing here, but our airport is surrounded by houses, and we aren't allowed to do TNG here. It is also at the northern end of a long lake, which we usually are using practice areas to the south and prevailing winds such that we tend to use runway 32 and it may be that straight in approaches disturb the neighbors less?
Even when taxiing to take off, I am being taught to watch for straight in approaches.
In fact other than air shows, I have never seen someone do a pattern at this airport.
When I am to learn touch and go, we fly to a different airfield.
I'll have to ask why it is okay.
Just guessing here, but our airport is surrounded by houses, and we aren't allowed to do TNG here. It is also at the northern end of a long lake, which we usually are using practice areas to the south and prevailing winds such that we tend to use runway 32 and it may be that straight in approaches disturb the neighbors less?
Even when taxiing to take off, I am being taught to watch for straight in approaches.
In fact other than air shows, I have never seen someone do a pattern at this airport.
When I am to learn touch and go, we fly to a different airfield.
Last edited:
Thanks for that quote. I didn't realize that the midfield crosswind was discussed as an alternative in an FAA publication. I see that the handbook goes on to say "Always remember to give way to aircraft on the preferred 45° entry and to aircraft already established on downwind."