Left Break?

Ron Levy said:
As an FFI-certified flight lead, I do agree with those who say it's not a good idea to announce an "overhead maneuver/pattern/entry" at a nontowered airport -- too many people are like the OP and don't know what it means......
Click to expand...
Spot On.
Nevertheless, it's nice when the other traffic understands what we're doing so we can make an expeditious entry, pattern, and landing.
Click to expand...
As in, NO NEED to do this at a public notowered airport. Nice when you can, and none of this "SPAM drivers out of the way" attitude.

Flight Suit for Roscoe.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Spot On. As in, NO NEED to do this at a public notowered airport. Nice when you can, and none of this "SPAM drivers out of the way" attitude.

Flight Suit for Roscoe.
Click to expand...

Dudeman, if that was for me, then you're being disingenuous...I said I make an effort to get out of the way for THEM. They're paying money to learn - I'm just having fun. And if you want to get so uppity about OB's, then you may as well do the same for folks who fly an upwind, mid-field crosswind-to-downwind square pattern. Not much difference really...especially if you keep your pattern tight and well inside the 2-mile bomber pattern guys. And I don't care if you ever flew a 132,000 lb. airplane. Who's trying to pull the "flight suit" card now? I'm not. I don't have anything to prove. I'll outfly the hell out of you in my airplane, and you'll do the same in yours. I make an effort to be considerate, keep my eyes open, and communicate to others in clear terms. We'd be doing pretty ******n good if everybody else did the same. So if you think I'm just above all those "scrub" spam drivers and have no regard, and need to play awesome pilot man for some reason, you are severely mistaken. I've never busted into a crowded pattern with the OB. A little common sense is in order. Common sense is more valuable than one person's world view on how the rules should be. And BTW, I see very little common sense among student pilots who are a product of the modern flight school environment...and this translates into licensed pilots who can follow the hell out of a checklist and the flight school's SOP's, but not much else....at least for several years until they develop their own sensibilities...if that actually happens. I think this thread has shown how monolithic folks can be in their beliefs. Yes, I may be referring to you.
 
Last edited:
In Canada's remote airports the overhead entry is pretty much the standard practice.

When approaching the airport from the south, go to the center of the airport, check the sock, see the winds are from the west, you turn left 270 and enter the down wind for runway 27.
 
It sounds in the OPs case that the 150 hotshot did this at a towered field with ATC consent. Just like you can fly a practice circling approach in good weather or ask for a right pattern instead of a left, it is just something you can do if the traffic situation and ATC allow. This is different frome dive-bombing into a busy pattern at a fly-in or scaring the students at an uncontrolled field with wannabe fighter pilot antics.
 
RoscoeT said:
I think this thread has shown how monolithic folks can be in their beliefs. Yes, I may be referring to you.
Click to expand...
To be considerate, play from the common playbook in common space. Go ask a PVT ASEL student what OH break means to him. Dude (?!).

Do what you want, in your own space.

Your response was like, totally expected. It was, indeed for you.

This is not about you outflying anyone else. What irrelevant cr_p.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
In Canada's remote airports the overhead entry is pretty much the standard practice.

When approaching the airport from the south, go to the center of the airport, check the sock, see the winds are from the west, you turn left 270 and enter the down wind for runway 27.
Click to expand...
What you describe is not an overhead entry as defined in the AIM and P/CG.
 
Ron Levy said:
As an FFI-certified flight lead, I do agree with those who say it's not a good idea to announce an "overhead maneuver/pattern/entry" at a nontowered airport -- too many people are like the OP and don't know what it means.

No Ron I didn't know what it meant that's why I asked the question.

I am a "new" PP (checkride last October) at no time during my training had I heard this reference used and nor was it ever mentioned by my CFI, but thanks to your reply and other sensible replies I now do have an understanding of the call, and if I hear it on the radio in future when in the air I now know to be extra cautious of someone above entering the pattern in this manner.

There is a whole bunch of stuff I don't yet know and if asking makes me a safer pilot out there, then I'll continue to ask, even if some consider it a waste of a thread...;)
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
Go ask a PVT ASEL student what OH break means to him. Dude (?!).
Click to expand...

We have a reading and comprehension problem. I never said I would mention "overhead break" on the radio, or even the word "initial", which is in the AIM. This is what I said:

RoscoeT said:
BTW, I do overheads from time-to-time, but I don't say "initial". Nobody in 152's and Warriors doing laps around the pattern knows what that means. I don't need to sound "cool" on the radio. I just say "overhead upwind entry runway XX for 360 to land". I feel like everybody can figure out what that means.
Click to expand...

So if there's a student turning x-wind in a 152, and I'm starting my 360, how is this going to cause any problems? I also say "have you in sight, no factor" a lot too. Once again, plain-spoken English, understanding, and eyeballs are what's important. There's no such thing as the "standard playbook" at an uncontrolled field. People make all kinds of pattern entries, and terrible radio calls. I don't know where the hell many of these "standard playbook" guys are half the time. I do better than that. If we disagree, we disagree. That's fine. But there are ACTUAL problems out there. This ain't one. Those of us using common sense, eyeballs, courtesty, and good communication are not the problem...even if we fly the (GASP) overhead pattern. Continue on if you like.
 
Last edited:
Oshkosh Tower asked if I wanted to do the break when I arrived by myself one time. I told them I'd just put it on the ground, but in restrospect, I probably should have done it just so I could say I did it once.
 
Is this patch OK for breaks or just fly-by's?
 

Attachments

  • Maverick.jpg
    Maverick.jpg
    116.5 KB · Views: 33
Shepherd said:
OK, fess up.
Who among us has never wanted to fly some really cool military maneuvers?
Anyone who dreams of flying and does it have more than a little Pappy Boyington or Don Gentile DNA in us.
I'm dying for a chance to do a victory roll down the middle of the runway.

:drool:

Glenn
Click to expand...

They were great fun when I got a T-37 ride with a General and a T-38 ride with a Colonel and I could use it to come smoking in and pulling 6gs in the turn to scrub speed which is what the maneuver is meant for. Outside of that, not really something for jollies. More fun is to come smoking in on downwind at 25' clean and tight to the runway then chopping power, hauling back, dropping the gear and dumping flaps through a steep Ag turn to final so as soon as you're lined up you're at speed.;)
 
Henning said:
They were great fun when I got a T-37 ride with a General...
Click to expand...
Since general officers are prohibited by USAF regulation from flying other than with a USAF instructor pilot in the other seat, the BS flag flies high on this one.
 
Henning said:
They were great fun when I got a T-37 ride with a General and a T-38 ride with a Colonel and I could use it to come smoking in and pulling 6gs in the turn to scrub speed which is what the maneuver is meant for.
Click to expand...



Ron Levy said:
Since general officers are prohibited by USAF regulation from flying other than with a USAF instructor pilot in the other seat, the BS flag flies high on this one.
Click to expand...

Gee, I'm shocked! Just shocked I tell ya.

Henning needs to take Tom Clancy's advice : "The difference between fact and fiction is you have to try to make fiction believable".
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Since general officers are prohibited by USAF regulation from flying other than with a USAF instructor pilot in the other seat, the BS flag flies high on this one.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there are others like me who don't mind bending a reg, one of his T-38s almost killed me on my pipeline run off the ends of his runways because his training runway pillbox controllers weren't communicating with the municiple runway tower. On my way back over heading home to the Valley I was asked to land and come to the tower, the General wanted to speak with me. So I did expecting some load of crap, instead he apologized and asked how we could prevent future conflict. We discussed the various ways we could cover the comms failure after which he asked me if I played golf which ended up in a game that evening. We had a great fun game with a buch of good conversation, turns out he made Ace in a Phantom in Vietnam. He also gave me a job on the golf course when I was home which gave me free golf at the best course in the area. That led us to being golf buddies and me getting a ride in the T-37 and opening the door to me being golf buddies with the German Colonel who had the T-38 program and earning a ride by shooting an Eagle on a par 5 at Sheppard AFB. I had hit him up for the T-38 ride and he said 'When you shoot an Eagle, you'll get the T-38 ride" On day a couple months later when looking for my ball that I sizzled off the toe he putted out and announced "I found your ball" "Where?" "in the cup". It took a moment for me to realize then "HEY!" "In the morning, 0700 you get your ride."

Not everyone in the military is a rules *****, that's what being in command is about, understanding discretion in rules.
 
Henning said:
Sorry, there are others like me who don't mind bending a reg, one of his T-38s almost killed me on my pipeline run off the ends of his runways because his training runway pillbox controllers weren't communicating with the municiple runway tower. On my way back over heading home to the Valley I was asked to land and come to the tower, the General wanted to speak with me. So I did expecting some load of crap, instead he apologized and asked how we could prevent future conflict. We discussed the various ways we could cover the comms failure after which he asked me if I played golf which ended up in a game that evening. We had a great fun game with a buch of good conversation, turns out he made Ace in a Phantom in Vietnam. He also gave me a job on the golf course when I was home which gave me free golf at the best course in the area. That led us to being golf buddies and me getting a ride in the T-37 and opening the door to me being golf buddies with the German Colonel who had the T-38 program and earning a ride by shooting an Eagle on a par 5 at Sheppard AFB. I had hit him up for the T-38 ride and he said 'When you shoot an Eagle, you'll get the T-38 ride" On day a couple months later when looking for my ball that I sizzled off the toe he putted out and announced "I found your ball" "Where?" "in the cup". It took a moment for me to realize then "HEY!" "In the morning, 0700 you get your ride."

Not everyone in the military is a rules *****, that's what being in command is about, understanding discretion in rules.
Click to expand...

See post #56.
 
I can only think of one ace from Vietnam that became a general officer, Steve Richie. However, he was in the reserves and worked in recruiting as a Brigadier. :dunno:
 
Alexb2000 said:
I can only think of one ace from Vietnam that became a general officer, Steve Richie. However, he was in the reserves and worked in recruiting as a Brigadier. :dunno:
Click to expand...
BGen Ritchie did fly some air shows in T-38's later on, but was not based at Sheppard and had nothing to do with pilot training (other than helping to recruit the them).
 
Ron Levy said:
Since general officers are prohibited by USAF regulation from flying other than with a USAF instructor pilot in the other seat, the BS flag flies high on this one.
Click to expand...

What do I get as a taxpayer having 2 qualified pilots flying training when the General wont do it for real?
 
Jaybird180 said:
What do I get as a taxpayer having 2 qualified pilots flying training when the General wont do it for real?
Click to expand...
The savings from not having to train a new general to replace the dead one and buy a new fighter to replace the crashed one. The rule was instituted back in the 80's after a series of accidents, some fatal, involving generals flying solo. The Air Force concluded that generals were a) older and getting slower on the draw, and b) not maintaining the same level of flying proficiency, compared to younger line pilots. They responded by prohibiting generals from flying without an IP to monitor them. The accidents stopped.

Only exception I remember to this rule was when our wing commander made BG and was told to stop flying with a WSO in the right seat, only with an IP. General Nelson's usual WSO was the Wing Chief of Standardization/Evaluation (the general believing that by flying with the chief Stanley, he was making his own check on the quality of the wing stan/eval program), and he obtained permission from HHQ to continue flying with that one WSO (much to Dave's chagrin).
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
We have a reading and comprehension problem. I never said I would mention "overhead break" on the radio, or even the word "initial", which is in the AIM. This is what I said:



So if there's a student turning x-wind in a 152, and I'm starting my 360, how is this going to cause any problems? I also say "have you in sight, no factor" a lot too. Once again, plain-spoken English, understanding, and eyeballs are what's important. There's no such thing as the "standard playbook" at an uncontrolled field. People make all kinds of pattern entries, and terrible radio calls. I don't know where the hell many of these "standard playbook" guys are half the time. I do better than that. If we disagree, we disagree. That's fine. But there are ACTUAL problems out there. This ain't one. Those of us using common sense, eyeballs, courtesty, and good communication are not the problem...even if we fly the (GASP) overhead pattern. Continue on if you like.
Click to expand...
Allright then, let me rephrase. The Student is going to have NO idea what "left over head pattern" means. And that goes back to you holding him reponsible for the AIM as a pvt student.

And as for your ability to protect him, I call BS. The "Dagger flight six" fly-in accident proves that. Maybe I have the reading problem but you have the comprehension problem. You might just be one of those guys who cannot pay by a common playbook.

"And that is all".
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Allright then, let me rephrase. The Student is going to have NO idea what "left over head pattern" means.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about saying THAT over the radio either. Strike two for you. Go back and re-read.
 
Ron Levy said:
The savings from not having to train a new general to replace the dead one and buy a new fighter to replace the crashed one. The rule was instituted back in the 80's after a series of accidents, some fatal, involving generals flying solo. The Air Force concluded that generals were a) older and getting slower on the draw, and b) not maintaining the same level of flying proficiency, compared to younger line pilots. They responded by prohibiting generals from flying without an IP to monitor them. The accidents stopped.

Only exception I remember to this rule was when our wing commander made BG and was told to stop flying with a WSO in the right seat, only with an IP. General Nelson's usual WSO was the Wing Chief of Standardization/Evaluation (the general believing that by flying with the chief Stanley, he was making his own check on the quality of the wing stan/eval program), and he obtained permission from HHQ to continue flying with that one WSO (much to Dave's chagrin).
Click to expand...

How about instead said General gives up flight status in exchange for the star. He's not going to fly real missions anymore, why continue to train him - camaraderie?
 
Jaybird180 said:
What do I get as a taxpayer having 2 qualified pilots flying training when the General wont do it for real?
Click to expand...
you get a general who is able to maintain his flight pay premium. IOW you get to pay for his joy rides so that you can pay him a higher salary.
 
Glad I read through to the end of the threads.
Back in that unpleasantness in SEA, I flew with a bunch of generals. I hadn't heard they grounded them in the '80s.
It's a shame they did that.
The generals that were good pilots were generally good officers.
The generals that were bad pilots were generally bad officers.
The bad pilots would solve the problem of being a bad officer all by themselves.
All it cost was an airplane.
There was never a lack of really good officers to promote up.

Glenn
 
Not sure where Ron gets his information, but as recently as two months ago our previous wing CC was flying single seat fighters as a BG and did not require an IP. Although most wings now have have a colonel and not a BG as CC, the wing CC is required to be proficient in the main airframe.
 
Jaybird180 said:
How about instead said General gives up flight status in exchange for the star. He's not going to fly real missions anymore, why continue to train him - camaraderie?
Click to expand...
Generals commanding or staffing flying organizations really do need to keep flying to maintain familiarity with the mission as well as to maintain credibility. Generals not commanding or staffing flying organizations aren't permitted to fly at all -- in fact, nobody not in a flying billet is permitted to fly, not even company/field grade officers. The requirement to fly four hours a month to keep what was then called "flight pay" (now called Aviation Career Incentive Pay) was eliminated about 40 years ago when I had but one bar on my collar.
 
JHW said:
you get a general who is able to maintain his flight pay premium. IOW you get to pay for his joy rides so that you can pay him a higher salary.
Click to expand...
That has not been true for about 40 years. First, you no longer have to fly to keep ACIP once you've made your 6 and 12 year gates. Second, ACIP now starts to taper off at the 18 year mark (and not many generals have less than 18 years rated) and ends, IIRC, at the 24 year mark, so most generals don't even collect "flight pay." The only generals still flying are those with flying commands, and they really do need to keep their had in since they are making decisions directly affecting those flying the current aircraft.
 
AcroBoy said:
Not sure where Ron gets his information, but as recently as two months ago our previous wing CC was flying single seat fighters as a BG and did not require an IP.
Click to expand...
True, I believe, for single-seat units, but not for 2-seaters either operationally or in the training command, and definitely not for giving joy rides like Henning claims to have received.

Although most wings now have have a colonel and not a BG as CC, the wing CC is required to be proficient in the main airframe.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Ron Levy said:
Generals commanding or staffing flying organizations really do need to keep flying to maintain familiarity with the mission as well as to maintain credibility. Generals not commanding or staffing flying organizations aren't permitted to fly at all -- in fact, nobody not in a flying billet is permitted to fly, not even company/field grade officers. The requirement to fly four hours a month to keep what was then called "flight pay" (now called Aviation Career Incentive Pay) was eliminated about 40 years ago when I had but one bar on my collar.
Click to expand...

I had a photo of the then CSAF McPeak, who was current in the Eagle. So I dunno
 
Jaybird180 said:
I had a photo of the then CSAF McPeak, who was current in the Eagle. So I dunno
Click to expand...
The Chief of Staff of the USAF is considered a flying billet, since s/he effectively owns all the planes the Air Force has. But I'm pretty sure he was no longer collecting "flight pay" at that point.
 
Ron Levy said:
BGen Ritchie did fly some air shows in T-38's later on, but was not based at Sheppard and had nothing to do with pilot training (other than helping to recruit the them).
Click to expand...
Two IPs would deliver the jet to the air show and then video tape BGen Ritchie's flight. The tape reviewed by the Ops Group commander to make sure the general was flying the specified routine (normal take off and landing, etc.) and not hot dogging.
 
Our unit gives fam rides to civilians all the time, but they generally have to have some connection, like Tiger Woods, Brett Farve, the governor of the state, etc. The profile is different from a true mission.

Back to my original point, a GO can be rated and fly a single seat aircraft and obviously not have an IP onboard. Even as an O-6, a wing CC, OG, MX commander would likely not be flying an operational mission, even if completely current.

The wing CC has to be qualified to fly the main airframe of a wing, although likely would not be current in all of the operational procedures (in a multiplace plane), and this is probably more of a reason to have an IP onboard rather than a prohibition due to rank.
 
kkoran said:
Two IPs would deliver the jet to the air show and then video tape BGen Ritchie's flight. The tape reviewed by the Ops Group commander to make sure the general was flying the specified routine (normal take off and landing, etc.) and not hot dogging.
Click to expand...
:rofl: I love it. Can't trust those generals, can you?
 
AcroBoy said:
Our unit gives fam rides to civilians all the time, but they generally have to have some connection, like Tiger Woods, Brett Farve, the governor of the state, etc. The profile is different from a true mission.
Click to expand...
I'm sure no generals or even the Wing King do that. I'm guessing oak leaf (maybe senior captain) IP's only. In any event, Hennings tales bear no relationship to the reality of the USAF any time past the 60's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top