Hey! MY CFI had over 20K hours, and taught that method of pattern entry, too.
I'm looking for evidence that the technique existed in FAA publications before being "invented" by AOPA/ASF. It makes no sense and nobody here has countered my arguments, preferring to simply continue to argue that it is allowed.
Anyway, it was some guy who used to fly P-51s as a civilian and was telling a story how he got chewed out over the radio by other pilots for doing the overhead. He said it was a standard thing in the warbird community. When he described what he did, I thought no wonder they chewed him out. They were probably looking for him up high and over the runway. In reality, it was a high speed pitch up break at 50 ft off the deck. Don't call it an overhead. Don't even call it a pitch up break, which is a loose version of the overhead. Call it was it is; a low pass. A pitch up break was commonly used in WWII but not something the typical GA guy is going to relate to. 
You simply quoted my post that you never answered.
You're saying you CAN operate your aircraft nose to nose with somebody else doing the same thing from the other side? Ok, I'll mark you down for choosing the bottom diagram I posted. Now explain to me why the authors of the rule thought that would be a good thing.
I hope you aren't as good at finding loopholes in your designs.
I quoted your response to my question, the one you ignored. If you don't want me to ignore yours, answer mine first. But, anyway, I have answered yours in my other posts I'm pretty sure.
The question I quoted was not TO me. You were asking that question of Jay. I am not going to answer that question - I am not here trying to argue in favor of Jay's position, just trying to understand where you are coming up with yours.
Nice ad-hom attack. Can't argue the facts, attack the messenger.
).....no faster than 300 knots, as that was their limit as well. Meanwhile, visiting USMC squadron, also flying Hornets, decides they will be different, as usual......tac initial, combat spread break......except they were doing it at 500'/500 knots....not that I have a problem with that, but when in Rome. But of course as the new arrivals, also flying the same airplane, we are the ones who get in trouble from the locals, thence get a yelling at from the USAF bird. Never mind the fact that the Marines had apparently been doing this for weeks. Of course it was us Also not to mention the fact that the folks allegedly complaining, were from the host nation, who just so happened to do their breaks at 50' AGL and basically supersonic. Never did figure out how that came about, but after they shut down the overhead for all US folks, eventually it got straightened out that it had been the Marines not us doing it.
Coming from a master of the technique (let's not forget your accusation I'm anti-formation flying), I suppose I should regard that as a complement of sorts.
Let's see your data supporting the frequency this stunt is done safely compared to the recommended entry and other alternatives like the upwind entry.
CAUTION! HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE ALERT!
I most certainly can imagine it. Much better than meeting spinner to spinner in the middle at near cruising speed, don't you think?
In other words--no rules, just random chance. Is that what you think the "rule" (91.126) was meant to achieve?
Nice try. You clearly have a major issue with language comprehension and are showing classical signs of basically all of the hazardous pilot attitudes - antiauthority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho and resignation.
Hell, we already do that all the time!
Reminds me of a similar experience, at another foreign location. We were there for a few weeks for an international exercise. Show up, get the brief from the USAF liaison folks with local ATC, and proceed to start flying. Rather than use the standard USN 800' AGL overhead/ 600' AGL pattern, we of course abide by what the local USAF guys are doing (like 26k ft MSL overhead or something like that
Yeah. Not playing your game.
I do not play games. I do not want you to argue somebody else's position. Saying it's so don't make it so. You quoted my question directed to another without answering, so I didn't feel the need to respond since I had already posted my position over and over. Here's a summary in this thread to date:
