heard Saturday..."Hey buddie, what the F.....k is an overhead break?"

BiffJ

BiffJ

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
408
Location
indiana USA
Display Name
Display name:
BiffJ
I was on the way to a fly-in saturday and was listening to the chatter at the airport as I got closer. There was a lot of traffic in the pattern and near the airport reporting positions as well as other helpful info. There was also a flight of 3 who I heard report "turning final" and then "going around" at least 5 times. I then heard the flight "leader" report "flight of 3 overhead break for 22". That was followed by someone who asked "Hey Buddy, What the F...k is and overhead break?" I thought this was a valid question. I did hear an "AMEN Brother" but with all the guys talking it got stepped on a bit. I agreed 100%. This was a strictly civvie airport with a huge crowd in the pattern and this guy is doing overhead breaks? After I landed and wandered a bit I discovered that the flight of "warbirds" doing the maneuver consisted of 2 YAK trainers and an RV7A painted in navy colors. I guess some guys feel the need to show off but why is it necessary at such a crowded event? I read the "pattern madness" thread and laughed a bit at the accusations of RV's being the brunt of the trouble makers but maybe its true. Having been around military aircraft most of my life and knowing a lot of the instructors and pilots I understand the purpose of the overhead break for military aircraft. Break up the formation to enter the pattern, create proper spacing and slow the aircraft down for landing. I can see this with a T38 but a fixed tri-gear RV and a couple draggy YAK's?
Put the gear down and they nearly stop in midair. . . especially the tri-gear YAK. I don't suppose its my place to say show-offs don't really fit in a busy traffic pattern with pilots of all experience ranges but I'd sure like to see them play somewhere else. Some of us have been around it long enough to expect idiots but the newer folks have enough to handle just flying. To suddenly have someone pull into the pattern in front of you is a little disconcerting......


Rant off....

Frank
 
I don't see "overhead break" in the FAA advisory circular or AIM for operations at non-towered airports. Now if the airfield was that busy, perhaps the event organizers should have requested a temporary tower, and the controllers may have easily accommodated the flight of three.
 
I had not the foggiest clue what an overhead break was until I started reading POA forum.
 
Do we just have too many weekend warriors on here that fly 152's and Cherokee's to know what an overhead break is or its usefulness?
 
Inverted said:
Do we just have too many weekend warriors on here that fly 152's and Cherokee's to know what an overhead break is or its usefulness?
Click to expand...

Is the overhead break in the AIM? Is the overhead break taught in any part 61 flight school? Is the overhead break taught in a part 141 flight school? Where in the *bleep* is a new pilot supposed to learn this?

It has little to do with weekend warriors and newbies. It has a lot to do about doing the unexpected in a (potentially) high traffic environment.

-Skip
 
There are a lot of things not in the AIM that a pilot should know wouldn't you agree? As well, there are is a multitude of information that a new pilot doesn't know.
 
Part of the reason for the standard traffic pattern is so that everyone knows where to look for traffic. You'll note that in the Airport facility directories the direction of the traffic pattern is noted as well. The regs state that unless otherwise noted all turns should be made to the left while in the pattern. I guess an overhead can be said to be done to the left but its really outside the standards that are taught and are not included in any FAA training or documentation that I've seen. Maybe it should be taught so those with slick high speed cruisers can get their planes slowed down in the pattern instead of wasting all that time doing it on the way. However it just seems to me that dropping in on top of a crowded fly-in with non standard stuff is a bad idea all around. Just my own opinion of course so each to his own. I try to look things over with a wide view as experience has taught me that idiots will do 20 mile straight ins against existing traffic or even pop out from under you on final.

Frank
 
Unless you are a military fixed-wing pilot (and maybe even if you were), you might not know what an overhead break is. I've heard the description but have never seen it so I'm not sure I'm visualizing it right.

Just like how a VFR pilot might not know how to interpret "inbound on ILS 23 at JERES, 2500" from an inbound pilot on an approach, I can see where folks would be confused by the overhead break.

And in my (still damp behind the ears) opinion, the burden is on the transmitter to ensure that his message is understood. So if the pilot doing the overhead break could explain what he was doing in more words, he might still annoy folks but hopefully would reduce the risk of a collision.
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless you are a military fixed-wing pilot (and maybe even if you were), you might not know what an overhead break is. I've heard the description but have never seen it so I'm not sure I'm visualizing it right.

Just like how a VFR pilot might not know how to interpret "inbound on ILS 23 at JERES, 2500" from an inbound pilot on an approach, I can see where folks would be confused by the overhead break.

And in my (still damp behind the ears) opinion, the burden is on the transmitter to ensure that his message is understood. So if the pilot doing the overhead break could explain what he was doing in more words, he might still annoy folks but hopefully would reduce the risk of a collision.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think I only gradually came to understand what the overhead break was, mostly after seeing it at towered airports. I'm certain I was never taught specifically. In fact, not until the previous [cough] thread did I understand what its original purpose was.
 
Skip Miller said:
Is the overhead break in the AIM? Is the overhead break taught in any part 61 flight school? Is the overhead break taught in a part 141 flight school? Where in the *bleep* is a new pilot supposed to learn this?
Click to expand...

I didn't find 'what f###k is an overhead break' in the pilot controller glossary of the AIM either.
 
Inverted said:
There are a lot of things not in the AIM that a pilot should know wouldn't you agree? As well, there are is a multitude of information that a new pilot doesn't know.
Click to expand...

Examples?
 
Bob Noel said:
Examples?
Click to expand...
One is that Bonanzas always have the right away in the traffic pattern. Especially if flown by a doctor.


Well if we are going to keep engaging in unflattering stereotypes for RV pilots we might as well not leave out the other unflattering stereotypical pilots! Right?
\


:D
 
Inverted said:
There are a lot of things not in the AIM that a pilot should know wouldn't you agree? As well, there are is a multitude of information that a new pilot doesn't know.
Click to expand...

I _do_ agree. So you admit you are using a procedure in a high traffic environment where at least some of the participants do not know what you are talking about. Is this what you consider teaching by example?

-Skip
 
Inverted said:
There are a lot of things not in the AIM that a pilot should know wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do -- but this term is in the AIM. In any event, everything that could possibly be said was already said in the "Pattern Madness" thread. The bottom line is that it is a legal, FAA-accepted maneuver, although like any other maneuver, if improperly performed can lead to problems. The real problem is the lack of training required for formation flying, which results in untrained/unqualified people leading formations and causing these disruptions.
 
Personally, if we'd could just break people who fly non-warbirds from deluding themselves into thinking they are Maverick and Iceman for the weekend, things would go a lot smoother and the homebuilt crowd would catch much less crap. One of the quickest ways to determine if a pilot is insecure about the size of his penis is to see if he has invasion stripes painted on his RV or Sonex.
 
SteveinIndy said:
Personally, if we'd could just break people who fly non-warbirds from deluding themselves into thinking they are Maverick and Iceman for the weekend, things would go a lot smoother and the homebuilt crowd would catch much less crap. One of the quickest ways to determine if a pilot is insecure about the size of his ##### is to see if he has invasion stripes painted on his RV or Sonex.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. A lot of times it's related to a love of history. Witness this:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.o...&t=42396&sid=1e7d09b071d3dea115651a9b5f5c9366

I am a member / moderator on that forum and I don't think those guys are silly at all.

Ryan
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless you are a military fixed-wing pilot (and maybe even if you were), you might not know what an overhead break is. I've heard the description but have never seen it so I'm not sure I'm visualizing it right.

Just like how a VFR pilot might not know how to interpret "inbound on ILS 23 at JERES, 2500" from an inbound pilot on an approach, I can see where folks would be confused by the overhead break.

And in my (still damp behind the ears) opinion, the burden is on the transmitter to ensure that his message is understood. So if the pilot doing the overhead break could explain what he was doing in more words, he might still annoy folks but hopefully would reduce the risk of a collision.
Click to expand...

That right there is my biggest pet peeve at an uncontrolled field. I'm instrument rated and carry my IFR and VFR charts wherever I go, but for the VFR only pilot, "Fix inbound" means absolutely nothing. Distance from the runway (anyone with GPS or DME can figure that out) is what I call at uncontrolled fields.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I disagree with that. A lot of times it's related to a love of history. Witness this:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.o...&t=42396&sid=1e7d09b071d3dea115651a9b5f5c9366

I am a member / moderator on that forum and I don't think those guys are silly at all.

Ryan
Click to expand...
As a "retired" WWII reenactor, I know...but I just think it looks silly to paint a plane that looks nothing like a WWII fighter to look like one. If they want to fly a warbird and can't afford the real thing, there are good 80% scale kits for Spits and Mustangs or they could get an L or O bird (real or replica). Nah, they are just hiding behind the "I love history!" excuse to avoid the real fact that they don't have the money to really live out their fantasy as Bud Anderson's wingman. That's the opinion of every real WWII fighter pilot I have ever talked to. I heard a few of the RV guys catch crap from the vets this year at Oshkosh for their paint schemes.

RV-6: $45,000+
Paint job: a few thousand
Being told by a WWII fighter ace that you're a jackass: PRICELESS
 
The whole "love of history" argument rings a bit hollow, IMHO.

I have mixed feelings about re-enacting. While I appreciate the attention to detail, commitment, etc, I've never met someone who has actually been in combat choose to "re-enact" it later in life.

-----------------------------

"Overhead break" is the same as "Inbound on the GPS 28" announcement. As long as you (the breaker or the IFR stud) let the poor VFR saps know what you're really doing, fine.
 
Hmmm. Well, having interviewed a number of veterans, flown with WWII fighter pilots, etc... I don't think you should take that as a universal truth Steve. Some of 'em are flattered, and think they are fun, too.
As far as re-enacting is concerned, I used to be more interested in it than I am now. We did take part in a massive, historical portrayal-intended (ie. not playing war and getting all wound up about taking hits or not) reenactment of the battle for Iwo Jima several years back with the then Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, TX. The vets all seemed quite moved, and it was a very educational experience.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings about re-enacting. While I appreciate the attention to detail, commitment, etc, I've never met someone who has actually been in combat choose to "re-enact" it later in life.
Click to expand...

Roughly half the reenactors I know are prior military (myself included) and about half of those are combat vets. That said, I ran a medical reenacting unit so we weren't the "trigger time" club that tends to give reenacting a bad name. In fact, the overseeing organization I was affiliated with tends to not tolerate that in the slightest.

Hmmm. Well, having interviewed a number of veterans, flown with WWII fighter pilots, etc... I don't think you should take that as a universal truth Steve. Some of 'em are flattered, and think they are fun, too.
Click to expand...

I have interviewed a lot too. Probably 75% of the fighter pilots I know (including some very well known aces) tend to think anything but maintaining the real thing or building new copies of the "real thing" is kind of laughable. If I had been a fighter pilot in WWII, I wouldn't appreciate someone mocking my service to make themselves seem "cooler". In reenacting, that's the quickest way to get booted out of the hobby. I wish it were that way in aviation to a certain degree.
 
Skip Miller said:
I _do_ agree. So you admit you are using a procedure in a high traffic environment where at least some of the participants do not know what you are talking about. Is this what you consider teaching by example?

-Skip
Click to expand...

They aren't doing anything wrong, the overhead break should occur 500 feet above TPA so in reality it shouldn't matter to anyone, uncontrolled airspace is see and avoid if you can't handle heavy traffic you shouldn't be there.

Also, the guys performing the maneuver know people may not know what you guys are doing. They are making sure they aren't going to be crashing into any airplanes. They should be also clearly communicating what they are doing, which I bet they were.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, I do -- but this term is in the AIM. In any event, everything that could possibly be said was already said in the "Pattern Madness" thread. The bottom line is that it is a legal, FAA-accepted maneuver, although like any other maneuver, if improperly performed can lead to problems. The real problem is the lack of training required for formation flying, which results in untrained/unqualified people leading formations and causing these disruptions.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, but I can argue, and will argue all day long, I have seen more improper and downright stupid things happen in the pattern by students, private pilots etc. than formation flying.
 
Also, the guys performing the maneuver know people may not know what you guys are doing. They are making sure they aren't going to be crashing into any airplanes.
Click to expand...

Not the groups I've seen. LOL You can always tell if the person was a prior military pilot or just a wannabe by the way they handle or botch an overhead break.
 
SteveinIndy said:
Personally, if we'd could just break people who fly non-warbirds from deluding themselves into thinking they are Maverick and Iceman for the weekend, things would go a lot smoother and the homebuilt crowd would catch much less crap. One of the quickest ways to determine if a pilot is insecure about the size of his penis is to see if he has invasion stripes painted on his RV or Sonex.
Click to expand...

This is spoken from pure ignorance. People aren't pretending to fly P-51's by doing an overhead break. Overhead breaks and carrier breaks are completely different. Judging by this thread I will not go into details on the 2 as it will be wasted.

I think once you guys realize that at an uncontrolled airport, almost anything goes, then you will be more understanding and just accept it.

Is the guy doing a 20 mile strait in final to the runway opposite the traffic illegal? Guess what its not. Is it stupid? Absolutely.
 
<---- just hit cook on the popcorn..
 
Descending into any leg of the pattern from above TPA is just asking for trouble. I always try to hit TPA at least a mile to entering. I will actually slip a bit below TPA and then climb back up to it because it's easier to pick out other traffic against the sky than it is ground clutter.
 
EdFred said:
Descending into any leg of the pattern from above TPA is just asking for trouble. I always try to hit TPA at least a mile to entering. I will actually slip a bit below TPA and then climb back up to it because it's easier to pick out other traffic against the sky than it is ground clutter.
Click to expand...

Even in a jet? Because, I do it regularly.
 
As a "retired" WWII reenactor, I know...
Click to expand...
Meaning, I used to do it but I don't anymore. I wasn't sure how to word it.

Did you see the irony in his posts too?
Click to expand...
I do as well. However, a bunch of us setting up a display versus some guy with 200 hours trying to more or less to show off are entirely the different. The latter can potentially kill someone.

I think once you guys realize that at an uncontrolled airport, almost anything goes, then you will be more understanding and just accept it.
Click to expand...
I do accept it. However, such behavior tends to reinforce my behavior that I assume no one else is paying attention so I had better do so. It's also one of the primary reasons I try to avoid uncontrolled fields where fly-ins are occurring. That is unless it's within driving distance. Nothing's more appropriate for a safety researcher to do on the weekend than grab a hot dog and lawn chair and waste a few hours watching a bunch of guys who are only probably marginal on currency try to pretend they are the Red Arrows (right up to and including not safely bringing the entire formation down).

Is the guy doing a 20 mile strait in final to the runway opposite the traffic illegal? Guess what its not. Is it stupid? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's absolutely stupid. I never said it wasn't. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That bit of advice does cut both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top