Overhead Approaches

[Velocity173]

Out of curiousity, for those advocating starting an O/B by flying upwind 500' above TPA and then starting the break, how do you reconcile this:



If you start the break over the runway 500' above TPA, you are descending into the downwind leg.

For deconfliction, you want that 500 ft vertical separation. Really not that important for uncontrolled field with typical GA but military, very important.

Example, at NBC the overhead used to be 2,500 at the 5 mile initial, descending to 1,500 for the left break. Pattern altitude was 1,000 ft. Now if they were to descend to 1,000 ft from the initial, you've got two problems. One, not taken into consideration for design of the OH but still important is IAP traffic. GCA traffic isn't out of 1,000 ft until just over 3 miles out. The OH would run them over if they descended rapidly. Two, traffic in left closed easily reaches pattern altitude while over the runway. You'd have F-18s doing 350-400 kts running up the butt of another F-18 doing say 150 kts. With 500 vertical sep, you run them right over the top of them with no worries.

Only way to do a break at TPA and not conflict would to offset right. Even then that would create other problems like cutting in front of the aircraft at TPA. Most efficient is to take them over the top.

 

[35 AoA]

I quoted from the Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-h-8083-3a

But you aren't the one I'm worried about. I don't see you guys trying to mix it up in the pattern at uncontrolled fields.

Gotcha. Interesting, I have never heard that before, and that is certainly not how we do it on the military side. I've also never been told to break at pattern altitude at any towered civilian airfield. But if the book says it, it says it. Just not how we do business, and the deconfliction piece is the reason.

As for descending to pattern altitude, part of your job during the break is to ensure nobody is on downwind below you. That isn't hard for our sort of airplanes, though maybe more difficult in a low wing GA plane with limited visibility over the nose. So I get that maybe there is a distinction there. Either way, there should not be anyone beneath you on downwind unless you have both seriously screwed away the whole see and avoid/visual lookout part of flying (not that folks have not failed to see each other before, but I digress). The whole time you are approaching the initial, at the initial, inbound to the numbers, prior to the actual break, your job in life is to scan for other traffic and get SA as to where people are in the pattern. A tower helps, but this is no different than any other pattern entry, and how aware you must be. Just my .02, ya'll can take it or leave it.

 

[AcroGimp]

At towered fields, the controller gives you an altitude somewhere between your request for the overhead and about when you report initial. My experience so far has been usually pattern altitude with the occasional 'altitude pilot's discretion', which for me is still pattern altitude. Have had a few 'maintain X until established at initial' but can't recall the overhead itself being above TPA at towered fields - probably because the overhead is usually combined with 'short approach approved' and an extra 500' would create issues on the dogleg to landing.

At uncontrolled fields it depends on what is happening but usually TPA. If there is other reported traffic we will be explicit with our intentions on CTAF - separation and comms for the flight are on Lead up to the kiss-off (Lead is first plane at the break turn), then each pilot is responsible for their short approach and landing - so we are eyes out individually from the kiss-off. The Lead has a lot of responsibility and the guys I have been fortunate to fly with all take it very seriously and are extremely professional in their approach to flying.

'Gimp

 

[Everskyward]

Flying to the center of the airport above pattern altitude, checking the sock, and then entering to appropriate down wind, is the preferred method in Canada for non towered airports.

There is only a uncontrolled airport when the pilots refuse to take control
Or

Didn't you realize you were the control?

NON Towered is the proper term.

You're in control of yourself, but not of anyone else. So as much as people want to control the way others enter the pattern, they can't.

FWIW, I have no problem with the "Canadian" method.

 

[Auburn2002]

As far as entering the pattern by crossing over at midfield at TPA, I don't have a problem with that.....as long as you follow the FAA's recommendation of

When entering the traffic pattern at an airport without
an operating control tower, inbound pilots are expected
to observe other aircraft already in the pattern and to
conform to the traffic pattern in use.

IOW, you don't cut off folks who are already in the pattern.

I agree you don't cut off folks in the pattern, but I don't really see how that paragraph applies in any way to midfield entries above anything else. Doing a straight in while someone is on downwind, is that cutting them off? Probably not. Is it cutting them off if you join base while they're on downwind? Maybe, maybe not depending where on downwind they are. Point being nothing about that quote seems to be any different for a midfield entry than for any other entry.

I actually do have one problem with that excerpt though. Taken literally, this could also mean if everyone is landing with a 20 knot tailwind, you should conform to that as well. No thanks!

 

[dtuuri]

FWIW, I have no problem with the "Canadian" method.

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

Entering from "either side" as you put it is allowed in the US too.

 

[dtuuri]

Entering from "either side" as you put it is allowed in the US too.

In all the government publications advising pilots on airport procedures since the 1930s, I bet you can't find a single reference to back you up before AOPA's ASF/ASI penned a little article in the 1980s advocating it. It was their self-appointed declaration and carries no weight. You've been duped.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

In all the government publications advising pilots on airport procedures since the 1930s, I bet you can't find a single reference to back you up before AOPA's ASF/ASI penned a little article in the 1980s advocating it. It was their self-appointed declaration and carries no weight. You've been duped.

dtuuri

I'll bet you can't find a single reference showing that crossing overhead is prohibited. You may not approve of that technique but it is certainly a valid pattern entry.

 

[Velocity173]

I'll bet you can't find a single reference showing that crossing overhead is prohibited. You may not approve of that technique but it is certainly a valid pattern entry.

He won't because it explicitly mentions doing the overhead at non towered fields in the AIM. It isn't prohibited.

 

[petrolero]

In all the government publications advising pilots on airport procedures since the 1930s, I bet you can't find a single reference to back you up before AOPA's ASF/ASI penned a little article in the 1980s advocating it. It was their self-appointed declaration and carries no weight. You've been duped.

dtuuri

No. See you have to show us someplace where it says you can't do it. That's how it works in America - it's legal unless proscribed.

In any case, they do it at towered airports all the time as I mentioned. So obviously it isn't against any rules.

 

[Everskyward]

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

Your statement about radio use in Canada is incorrect.

From Transport Canada...

It is essential that pilots be aware of other traffic and exchange information when approaching or departing an uncontrolled aerodrome, since
some aircraft may be receiver only (RONLY) or no radio (NORDO).

At non-MF aerodromes, or when MF procedures are not invoked, keep a sharp lookout. NORDO traffic may also be established in, or be entering, the circuit without other traffic or the ground station being aware.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp11541/pdf/hr/tp11541e.pdf

 

[flyingron]

Initial and break are both terms in the AIM (5-4-27).

Yes, but only in the context of ATC approved procedure.

There's no provision for this at uncontrolled fields. But I was referring to comments like "high key" and other nonsensical in the civilian world.
High means squat to me. What altitude are you at?

 

[Velocity173]

Yes, but only in the context of ATC approved procedure.

There's no provision for this at uncontrolled fields. But I was referring to comments like "high key" and other nonsensical in the civilian world.
High means squat to me. What altitude are you at?

Well now you're talking SFO and I agree, "high key / low key" isn't going to mean much to a typical GA pilot.

I just don't see any confusion with the overhead phraseology if one has already read about it in the AIM. Should hear a distance out for initial (3-5) and then a call for break.

 

[35 AoA]

Dunno what the USAF says, but for us, you don't just do SFO's at random airfields. That I fully agree would create a high probability of midair since absolutely nobody is going to know where to look for you.......heck, our "high key" is outside the vertical confines of a typical class C or D airspace, "low key" also just above class D. If we are talking jet warbird dudes at Stead or something, I'd hope they have the courtesy of talking in plan english to anyone else sharing the pattern.

 

[Tom-D]

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

Show me that in Canada's rules.

 

[Velocity173]

Navy Ft Worth overhead procedure. 2,200 ft break and 1,700 TPA. 500 ft deconfliction buffer. That's how we did it at every facility I worked at in the Marines.

Having the same break altitude as the pattern altitude at any facility that works any decent amount of traffic, would be very inefficient and in some cases dangerous.

 

[dtuuri]

Show me that in Canada's rules.

See RAC 4.6.2(d)(iv):

(vi) Aerodromes within an MF area when airport advisory
information is available: Aircraft may join the circuit
pattern straight-in or at 45˚ to the downwind leg or
straight-in to the base or final legs (Figure 4.1). Pilots
should be alert for other VFR traffic entering the
circuit at these positions and for IFR straight-in or
circling approaches.​

The US recommended entry leg is on a 45°, but only at MF (mandatory frequency) airports in Canada do they allow that. Their way and our way are not compatible without MF.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

See RAC 4.6.2(d)(iv):

(vi) Aerodromes within an MF area when airport advisory

information is available: Aircraft may join the circuit

pattern straight-in or at 45 to the downwind leg or

straight-in to the base or final legs (Figure 4.1). Pilots

should be alert for other VFR traffic entering the

circuit at these positions and for IFR straight-in or

circling approaches.​

The US recommended entry leg is on a 45°, but only at MF (mandatory frequency) airports in Canada do they allow that. Their way and our way are not compatible without MF.



dtuuri

See the link from Transport Canada in my previous post. Not all uncontrolled airports in Canada have a MF.

 

[dtuuri]

No. See you have to show us someplace where it says you can't do it. That's how it works in America - it's legal unless proscribed.

I think the reg says you have to make all turns left while approaching the whole airport not just half of it. That means go around it to the left so you don't smack into somebody else doing the same as you from the opposite direction.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

See the link from Transport Canada in my previous post. Not all uncontrolled airports in Canada have a MF.

That's just a poster, not every bit of info fits.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

It's a poster from Transport Canada which is the FAA equivalent in Canada as far as regulatory matters are concerned.

 

[dtuuri]

It's a poster from Transport Canada which is the FAA equivalent in Canada as far as regulatory matters are concerned.

Still incomplete. See RAC 4.6.2(d)(iv).

dtuuri

 

[Tom-D]

Still incomplete. See RAC 4.6.2(d)(iv).

dtuuri

The proper reference is 605.14 (a)
[605.11 to 605.13 reserved]

Division II — Aircraft Equipment Requirements

Power-driven Aircraft — Day VFR

605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with

(a) where the aircraft is operated in uncontrolled airspace, an altimeter;


In Canada you only need radios in controlled air space.

 

[Everskyward]

Still incomplete. See RAC 4.6.2(d)(iv).

dtuuri

That link is to the Transport Canada AIM in it's entirety. If you are trying to make a point you need to at least quote a passage from it.

 

[dtuuri]

That link is to the Transport Canada AIM in it's entirety. If you are trying to make a point you need to at least quote a passage from it.

And when I quote a passage, you need to at least read it: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1861095&postcount=98

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

The proper reference is 605.14 (a)
[605.11 to 605.13 reserved]

Division II — Aircraft Equipment Requirements

Power-driven Aircraft — Day VFR

605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with

(a) where the aircraft is operated in uncontrolled airspace, an altimeter;


In Canada you only need radios in controlled air space.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

And when I quote a passage, you need to at least read it: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1861095&postcount=98

dtuuri

I read it and have already told you that not all uncontrolled airports in Canada have a MF. Now you look at the poster produced by Transport Canada.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp11541/pdf/hr/tp11541e.pdf

 

[Tom-D]

I read it and have already told you that not all uncontrolled airports in Canada have a MF. Now you look at the poster produced by Transport Canada.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp11541/pdf/hr/tp11541e.pdf

thank you.

 

[dtuuri]

I read it and have already told you that not all uncontrolled airports in Canada have a MF. Now you look at the poster produced by Transport Canada.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp11541/pdf/hr/tp11541e.pdf

thank you.

You two aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The 45° entry is only allowed at airports that DO have MF. The US-style entry leg is not allowed at uncontrolled airports that don't have it. Therefore, the poster is not complete because it fails to mention that MF is a prerequisite in order to fly the depicted 45° entry leg. Capiche?
EDIT: Compare Fig 4.1 to Fig 4.6.

dtuuri

 

[RotorDude]

You two aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The 45° entry is only allowed at airports that DO have MF. The US-style entry leg is not allowed at uncontrolled airports that don't have it. Therefore, the poster is not complete because it fails to mention that MF is a prerequisite in order to fly the depicted 45° entry leg. Capiche?
EDIT: Compare Fig 4.1 to Fig 4.6.

dtuuri

The poster says (bottom note): "At aerodromes where MF procedures are in effect, aircraft may also join the circuit from the flight paths indicated in blue."
Those blue paths include the 45 degree entries.

 

[Everskyward]

You two aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The 45° entry is only allowed at airports that DO have MF. The US-style entry leg is not allowed at uncontrolled airports that don't have it. Therefore, the poster is not complete because it fails to mention that MF is a prerequisite in order to fly the depicted 45° entry leg. Capiche?
EDIT: Compare Fig 4.1 to Fig 4.6.

dtuuri

But your dreaded overhead crossover is allowed at airports without a MF. Besides you are changing the subject again. You were claiming that all airplanes in Canada were required to be radio-equipped.

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

In any case, the whole Canada argument is irrelevant since we are talking about the US where crossing overhead midfield is not prohibited. Or did you find a reference?

 

[dtuuri]

But your dreaded overhead crossover is allowed at airports without a MF. Besides you are changing the subject again. You were claiming that all airplanes in Canada were required to be radio-equipped.



In any case, the whole Canada argument is irrelevant since we are talking about the US where crossing overhead midfield is not prohibited. Or did you find a reference?

You're somthin' else. I never said all planes in Canada need to have radios. Where the uncontrolled airports are comparable to US airports, i.e., radios not required, the 45° entry is not allowed.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

You're somthin' else. I never said all planes in Canada need to have radios. Where the uncontrolled airports are comparable to US airports, i.e., radios not required, the 45° entry is not allowed.

dtuuri

You didn't? What does this mean? You even underlined it.

It's not worth a thing outside of Canada. Up there, where entering from either side is allowed--everybody is required to have and use a radio.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Nope, that blue line in the perspective view is descending into the downwind, not making a 45. But you got me looking a bit closer at the plan view. There, the note refers to airports with MF and the 45 is drawn as I quoted from their AIM. So, looks like Everskyward has been hoisted by her own petard.

dtuuri

Uh no. I never claimed anything about a 45 degree entry. You are making things up again.

 

[dtuuri]

You didn't? What does this mean? You even underlined it.

"Where entering from either side is allowed..." means at MF fields.

dtuuri

 

[RotorDude]

Nope, that blue line in the perspective view is descending into the downwind, not making a 45. But you got me looking a bit closer at the plan view. There, the note refers to airports with MF and the 45 is drawn as I quoted from their AIM. So, looks like Everskyward has been hoisted by her own petard.

dtuuri

I was referring (as I believe the poster does also) to the "overhead view", which you call "plan view", which does show the 45 degree entries, which are allowed only in the MF airports. So as far as I can tell, the poster is not "incomplete", at least not in respect to 45 degree entries.

 

[Everskyward]

"Where entering from either side is allowed..." means at MF fields.

dtuuri

Look at the green arrows. You can enter from either side at airports without an MF; the downwind on the pattern side or that "dangerous" crossover. I thought that was your point to begin with, that the crossover was allowed in Canada because everyone was required to have radios and report their position.

 

[dtuuri]

I was referring (as I believe the poster does also) to the "overhead view", which you call "plan view", which does show the 45 degree entries, which are allowed only in the MF airports. So as far as I can tell, the poster is not "incomplete", at least not in respect to 45 degree entries.

Ok, gotcha. I'll delete my post.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Look at the green arrows. You can enter from either side at airports without an MF; the downwind on the pattern side or that "dangerous" crossover. I thought that was your point to begin with, that the crossover was allowed in Canada because everyone was required to have radios and report their position.

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