"Overhead to the initial", say what?

PaulS said:
It's still a useless announcement in a non towered field. If I hear someone use it and I'm in the pattern my reply will be "That means nothing to me, please give your position relative to the field" along with my position.
Click to expand...

So instead of taking your new found knowledge and applying it, you are going to stick to being the pattern police. Point taken.
 
midwestpa24 said:
So instead of taking your new found knowledge and applying it, you are going to stick to being the pattern police. Point taken.
Click to expand...

Just trying to stay alive, you are good at the snark, how about answering my question?
 
PaulS said:
Just trying to stay alive, you are good at the snark, how about answering my question?
Click to expand...

From participating in this thread, you now possess knowledge of what the initial (3 miles from end of runway, basically an entry to upwind) and overhead approach are. A new nugget of knowledge to add to your collection. We all learn new information all the time. This was just a piece of information you had not heard yet. While not a pattern I normally fly myself, it is one with which I am familiar, and such a radio call would tell me exactly where the other aircraft would be.
 
My snarkness is mainly due to the number of people that have a misconception that an overhead break is in some way inherently dangerous, illegal, or wreckless. It isn't. I was really shocked to open this thread to see the initial reactions.

Now I'm sure some Top Gun types can make it dangerous, but those same guys could make anything dangerous.
 
AC 90-66B -Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations

9.9
Other Approaches to Land. Pilots should be aware of the other types of approaches to land that may be used at an airport when a pilot indicates they are doing so, which may or may not be initiated from the traffic pattern. The more common types of these include a short approach, low approach, or overhead approach.

9.9.1
A short approach is executed when the pilot makes an abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs turning inside of the standard 45-degree base turn. This can be requested at a towered airport for aircraft spacing, but is more commonly used at a non-towered airport 5 3/13/18 AC 90-66B or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, when landing with a simulated engine out or completing a power-off 180-degree accuracy approach commercial-rating maneuver.

9.9.2
A low approach is executed when an aircraft intends to overfly the runway, maintaining runway heading but not landing. This is commonly used by aircraft flying practice instrument approaches.

9.9.3
An overhead approach is normally performed by aerobatic or high-performance aircraft and involves a quick 180-degree turn and descent at the approach end of the runway before turning to land (described in the AIM, paragraph 5-4-27, Overhead Approach Maneuvers).
 
Ugh. The annual overhead thread debacle. Has nothing to do with military jargon. The terms and description for it are in the AIM. If there isn’t a published initial, and the RVer :Ddidn’t call a distance, then be looking for them about 3-5 miles out and above pattern altitude. The break shouldn’t be a conflict if done 500 ft above the conventional pattern. Constant 180 turns vs boxing the pattern. Shouldn’t be hard to understand.

At a fighter base, it’s by far the easiest on both the controller and pilots to recover multiple IFR aircraft. VFR at the initial makes all the difference.

4FF7C5E7-A92B-482B-AE5D-780E1DFA5109.jpeg
 
midwestpa24 said:
From participating in this thread, you now possess knowledge of what the initial (3 miles from end of runway, basically an entry to upwind) and overhead approach are. A new nugget of knowledge to add to your collection. We all learn new information all the time. This was just a piece of information you had not heard yet. While not a pattern I normally fly myself, it is one with which I am familiar, and such a radio call would tell me exactly where the other aircraft would be.
Click to expand...

But how do I know which runway the guy is using? Quick answer, you don't. Add intersecting runways and now you really don't know. You can assume, but you don't know. No way to tell which runway from the OP (now deleted) or the AIM standard phraseology, which is my point. For every announcement a vfr rated pilot or student should be able to figure out where you are, either distance and direction or location in the pattern ( "On the 45, left downwind, runway 29 or 5 miles SE of the field for 45 left downwind rwy xx).
 
midwestpa24 said:
My snarkness is mainly due to the number of people that have a misconception that an overhead break is in some way inherently dangerous, illegal, or wreckless. It isn't. I was really shocked to open this thread to see the initial reactions.

Now I'm sure some Top Gun types can make it dangerous, but those same guys could make anything dangerous.
Click to expand...

Ok, I really don't care what someone does, just make it clear what you are doing and where you are when in the pattern. The guy discussed in the op sounded a little unsafe as he zipped between two aircraft in the pattern.
 
midwestpa24 said:
My snarkness is mainly due to the number of people that have a misconception that an overhead break is in some way inherently dangerous, illegal, or wreckless.
Click to expand...

Well...we hope it's wreckless... even if you don't think it's reckless!

Paul, no wonder the OHB guys have trouble communicating! :)
 
dtuuri said:
What's an overhead maneuver have to do with "making the field" if your corn popper quits? The "overhead" is an intentionally inefficient, high drag operation to lose speed quickly. If that's your norm, every other plane in the pattern is flying a B-747 approach by comparison. In order to be assured of "making the field" every other SEL airplane would have to be power-off entirely while on final, else it couldn't "make the field" if the power quit because, power on, it's on a shallower glide slope. No wonder you have so much rage toward other pilots, which is ironic because they make power-on approaches in the interest of preventing the engine failure you invite. If you're behind a plane that's also making a power-off approach and with a shallower glide ratio than yours, you'll have to make a powered approach, like it or not. So, only one plane at a time gets to invite engine failure your way. If everybody made power-on approaches, though, there would be less chance of engine failure for everybody.
Click to expand...

Yes, it takes the airplane from overhead the field at 140kts, to abeam the numbers at gear speed, then a quick 180 to land power off. Inside the window to glide to the field the entire time.

In an airplane with a better glide ratio, you should be able to make the field from any point in your pattern by withholding drag...ie your powered approach in a 172 with 30 degrees flaps should get you to the runway unpowered (with an immediate turn to the runway of course) if you just hold the flaps. If you’re 4 miles away from the field (as I saw this weekend from a Cherokee 140) I’d argue you’re doing it wrong.

No rage here; just find it a bit ironic that if I do an overhead in the interest of safety I’m the “hot dog” or “top gun wannabe” in the RV...

I’m curious how landing with the power near idle invites engine failure though; do engines quit less at higher rpm’s? Because the two I saw happened at high rpm...

Anyway, I’m off to go shoot more hot doggin’ overheads...
 
pburger said:
We have a few ex-fighter pilots at our field (uncontrolled). Only one chooses to do overhead approaches. When I first heard him call "initial" I had no idea where to look. I'm not military, so I had no idea what that phraseology meant. It reminded me of someone practicing an instrument approach reporting something like "Cessna 123 over XYZZY inbound". I asked him what it meant, and he explained it. I pointed out that most non-military folks wouldn't be familiar with the phraseology, or even of the procedure. It's not a big deal. He still does it, and when he calls "initial", I know where to look (pattern altitude, about a mile out from the numbers), and what to expect (a break to the downwind either at the numbers or at midfield).
Click to expand...

Ha? Yea. Couple years back I was ready to depart a local uncontrolled airport when some fighter jock wanna be in an old T-6 announces "Initial". OK, I'm ready to go. He's a mile or so out, and I can see him. There's plenty of time for me to depart. I keep watching him as he gets closer as I creep forward and announce my departure. This dipwad wanna be was coming straight in, and after I announced my intention he started freaking out on the radio telling me to stay off the runway. He slammed it on the ground 3 or 4 times before he got it stopped. Another clueless and dangerous dumbass with too much ego, and airplane, that we need to watch out for.
 
Having been a military pilot who has flown many formation approaches into small airports, we would never attempt to land with an overhead procedure while there was any other aircraft operating there.

Everyone watches too much television....
 
I’ve done it many times. I have no problem with military coming into the overhead at an uncontrolled field. I consider it the safest way to get a formation in and on the ground.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
I’m curious how landing with the power near idle invites engine failure though;
Click to expand...
If I remember the FAA's big push for partial power approaches about 50 years ago, it was statistics.
 
Cooter said:
I’ve done it many times. I have no problem with military coming into the overhead at an uncontrolled field. I consider it the safest way to get a formation in and on the ground.
Click to expand...
Where have you flown military formations many times into uncontrolled civilian airports without prior arrangements? I can see a military satellite training base, but I think even most of them have mobile towers don't they?
 
dtuuri said:
Where have you flown military formations many times into uncontrolled civilian airports without prior arrangements? I can see a military satellite training base, but I think even most of them have mobile towers don't they?
Click to expand...
KLRU, static display requests at various places. Most outlying fields do have towers.
 
Cooter said:
KLRU, static display requests at various places. Most outlying fields do have towers.
Click to expand...
If they made RV hotdogs stand in the sun all day letting people sit in their airplanes, I bet the practice would cease and desist.
 
The technique used by the military in this discussion is the fastest way to recover multiple aircraft at one time and frankly has no place in a busy non towered civilian airport...carry on...
 
From a safety standpoint the overhead is no different than a 360 power off approach. If the later is advocated by the FAA for training, then I have no problems with the RV gang doing the break.

And “operational need” is a joke. I’ve approved the overhead for many military helos in the tower and done them myself in helos. They and I had no operational necessity to conduct them. Just because it doesn’t need to be done doesn’t mean it can’t or even shouldn’t be done.
 
Last edited:
Everyone has their opinion, and on POA many people want their opinion to be taken as authority. Getting up in arms over something doesn’t make the opinion carry any more weight. If someone is causing trouble by hotdogging around an uncontrolled field, then report it through the proper channels or go have words with them.
For military aircraft that operate at twice the speed of most GA traffic, IMO, the safest way to bring a flight in is through the overhead. It gives the best look at the pattern, allows a quick survey of the runway/airport environment, allows the flight to stay together, and provides the most efficient way of resetting if the pattern won’t accommodate entry. That’s my experience and it served me well.
I’m out of the military and rarely get to fly GA anymore so it doesn’t really matter much to me, just my .02.
 
I’m not familiar with this, other than reading the thread, but a couple of thoughts:

1) if I’m base turning final and someone is coming in to perform this maneuver I’m not entirely comfortable with a plane passing just a few hundred feet over me, especially if they are low wing, and there’s no visual separation.

2) what’s the actual reason for the “overhead” if the concern is an engine out? Why not maintain PA on a straight in and slip it in? I mean, if you are at pattern altitude near the airport and lose an engine you ought to be able to make the runway regardless, correct?
 
I raise the BS flag when I hear "possibility of engine failure" as the rationale for an overhead pattern. I suppose when earlier ejection seats had limited envelopes, an overhead kept a pilot in a safe ejection envelope longer, closer to the field, as the descending turn off the perch minimized the time he couldn't safely eject. Maybe a Cirrus with its parachute considers this as a reason to fly an overhead pattern ??? I fly out of an uncontrolled field and see formations of civilian aircraft return to land using the overhead pattern. I have no problem with formations and overhead patterns at civilian fields as long as everyone understands what's happening. I can see the problems when civilan pilots don't receive training on what essentially is a military pattern and that is not a good thing. I consider civil single ships coming in to do overheads, however, pure showboating.

I'm retired Air Force and didn't see any difference between the how the services did their overhead patterns. What was really cool was when we did a "tactical overhead" and came up tactical initial, 200 ft agl in tac spread at 450 knots, simultaneous climbing break turn abeam the numbers to inside downwind, configure and land--not really common when there's no one around shooting at you and not something I even saw practiced stateside.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Wow, I wager a lot of you don't spend much time around warbirds, as they often do overhead breaks entering the pattern. And I'm not sure what danger everyone is so worried about, it is essentially an upwind, with an almost continuous turn downwind and base. Its also a convenient way for a formation to enter a pattern and set spacing.
Click to expand...
Is 200 knot zoom climbs between two aircraft in the pattern ("Don't worry, pardner, I saw ya!") and high speed low passes making callouts nobody understands "convenient" and safe?
 
Witmo said:
I raise the BS flag when I hear "possibility of engine failure" as the rationale for an overhead pattern. I suppose when earlier ejection seats had limited envelopes, an overhead kept a pilot in a safe ejection envelope longer, closer to the field, as the descending turn off the perch minimized the time he couldn't safely eject. Maybe a Cirrus with its parachute considers this as a reason to fly an overhead pattern ??? I fly out of an uncontrolled field and see formations of civilian aircraft return to land using the overhead pattern. I have no problem with formations and overhead patterns at civilian fields as long as everyone understands what's happening. I can see the problems when civilan pilots don't receive training on what essentially is a military pattern and that is not a good thing. I consider civil single ships coming in to do overheads, however, pure showboating.

I'm retired Air Force and didn't see any difference between the how the services did their overhead patterns. What was really cool was when we did a "tactical overhead" and came up tactical initial, 200 ft agl in tac spread at 450 knots, simultaneous climbing break turn abeam the numbers to inside downwind, configure and land--not really common when there's no one around shooting at you and not something I even saw practiced stateside.
Click to expand...

Did you, or ever hear of, calling that kind of break a ‘pitch out’ or something like that?
 
woodchucker said:
I’m not familiar with this, other than reading the thread, but a couple of thoughts:

1) if I’m base turning final and someone is coming in to perform this maneuver I’m not entirely comfortable with a plane passing just a few hundred feet over me, especially if they are low wing, and there’s no visual separation.

2) what’s the actual reason for the “overhead” if the concern is an engine out? Why not maintain PA on a straight in and slip it in? I mean, if you are at pattern altitude near the airport and lose an engine you ought to be able to make the runway regardless, correct?
Click to expand...

They won’t be a few hundred feet above you if you’re turning final. Be more like 1,000 ft.

The actual reason isn’t for engine out purposes. That’s more along the lines of a 360 power off or military SFO. It’s purpose, is to recover multiple formations of high speed aircraft. The overhead allows the formation to take individual spacing and the break turn decels the aircraft. If done properly it is the best way to get multiple flights into the pattern. Just from a ATC separation issue, to split multiple IFR flights outside of the surface area, requires a huge chunk of airspace and is a high controller workload. Not to mention uses a whole lot more gas. The overhead uses just a small area and besides TRSA, C and B, the controller is done separating them at the initial.

Does a typical SE GA plane need it? Nope, but it does have its merits in some cases. Example, I was going into Cecil Field field one year for an air show in my Glasair. Tower had sequenced me behind a J3 Cub for a straight in. I had no problems doing S turns and no intentions of doing the overhead but tower asked if I could accept it. I did, passed over the Cub about 1-2 miles out, did the break and turned final as the Cub was clearing the runway. Worked out fine.

The maneuver can be done safely if it’s done properly (by the book) and a little common sense is used. I can’t think of a single mid air that has occurred by using the overhead pattern. Majority of midairs happen on final anyway. To me it’s no worse than a 360 power off. Or, an AOPA recommended (alternate) midfield crossing entry to the downwind. Everyone just needs to keep their eyes out and do what’s necessary to deconflict with others in the pattern. Part of being a PIC.
 
Last edited:
Gotta always be able to make the field huh? Guess you never fly any cross countries then.

And, if someone wants to fly an overhead because it's fun, that's fine. But don't try and sell it as a "need" when recreational flying.
 
Velocity173 said:
The maneuver can be done safely if it’s done properly (by the book) and a little common sense is used. I can’t think of a single mid air that has occurred by using the overhead pattern. Majority of midairs happen on final anyway. To me it’s no worse than a 360 power off. Or, an AOPA recommended (alternate) midfield crossing entry to the downwind. Everyone just needs to keep their eyes out and do what’s necessary to deconflict with others in the pattern. Part of being a PIC.
Click to expand...

You cannot inject reason into an outrage thread. Reminding people that their opinion of what is right and wrong is just an opinion WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
 
Did you read
midwestpa24 said:
So instead of taking your new found knowledge and applying it, you are going to stick to being the pattern police. Point taken.
Click to expand...
And tell me what "new found knowledge" makes that idiotic call useful? Even if you know what an overhead break is and how to fly them, the call is non-standard and useless without a precise position/altitude.

It's like getting on the radio and saying "I'm getting ready to enter the pattern."
 
flyingron said:
Did you read

And tell me what "new found knowledge" makes that idiotic call useful? Even if you know what an overhead break is and how to fly them, the call is non-standard and useless without a precise position/altitude.

It's like getting on the radio and saying "I'm getting ready to enter the pattern."
Click to expand...

Or down south ... "Hey, y'all... we're fixin' ta fly from the fix to the pattern"
 
We're still talking about this? If someone calls "initial" I would hope that they also announce which runway that they're flying initial into. If they don't, that's on them and they are a douchenozzle. For anyone in the pattern, look for them to be at or above pattern altitude flying straight over the runway. If they do it right, they will break (which is simply a 180 degree turn into the downwind) and follow anyone on the downwind. It isn't an engine out procedure, it isn't unsafe and in fact, at pattern altitude over the approach end of the runway is about the safest place in the pattern to be. I would hope that anyone flying an initial approach would listen to the CTAF and determine who is in the downwind and sequence themselves behind them.

I can understand those who don't know what initial is but after this thread, at least a small percentage of you now know. It really isn't a big deal.
 
EdFred said:
Gotta always be able to make the field huh? Guess you never fly any cross countries then.

And, if someone wants to fly an overhead because it's fun, that's fine. But don't try and sell it as a "need" when recreational flying.
Click to expand...

I’m always able to make the field. Some are little rockier than others
 
luvflyin said:
Did you, or ever hear of, calling that kind of break a ‘pitch out’ or something like that?
Click to expand...

In layman's terms, in the USAF, the act of "peeling" way from an established close formation position (most common from 'fingertip', though it can be done from the 'route' position) is in fact called a pitchout. Reference the prior F-15 video. That's a pitchout. It's not a maneuver solely associated with the overhead break; it can be called upon in the area to create separation. It is seldom used by the combat coded jets with a mission to employ outside the pattern, whereas these "motherhood indignities" (from the eyes of a steely eyed CAF warrior) are in fact the mission for trainer aircraft like mine and thus we do them in the MOA ad nauseam as well.

The interchange of terms 'break turn' and 'pitchout' is understandable, but a break turn has different connotations in the USAF. The former has to do with [often High Aspect] BFM, and a pitchout is merely a less aggressive separation and heading change maneuver.

Generally members pitchout on the overhead break with a 5 second interval, and it provides enough separation for landing (meet our runway separation guidelines, which are lower than the FAA since we use alternate sides of the runway).

Curious factoid. For all the finger wagging on here about landing on centerline being the ultimate mark of a consummate professional pilot, it is actually rare I touch down on centerline as a matter of course. In my line of business it is actually considered poor wingmanship to do so. Go figure. Taxing on centerline is also a rarity for me. I am guilty of offset taxing in my Arrow at times for no other reason at all than primacy LOL. I can be a rebel without a cause that way :D
 
An overhead break almost sounds like a circling approach used for IFR. Thoughts about that?
 
hindsight2020 said:
In layman's terms, in the USAF, the act of "peeling" way from an established close formation position (most common from 'fingertip', though it can be done from the 'route' position) is in fact called a pitchout. Reference the prior F-15 video. That's a pitchout. It's not a maneuver solely associated with the overhead break; it can be called upon in the area to create separation. It is seldom used by the combat coded jets with a mission to employ outside the pattern, whereas these "motherhood indignities" (from the eyes of a steely eyed CAF warrior) are in fact the mission for trainer aircraft like mine and thus we do them in the MOA ad nauseam as well.

The interchange of terms 'break turn' and 'pitchout' is understandable, but a break turn has different connotations in the USAF. The former has to do with [often High Aspect] BFM, and a pitchout is merely a less aggressive separation and heading change maneuver.

Generally members pitchout on the overhead break with a 5 second interval, and it provides enough separation for landing (meet our runway separation guidelines, which are lower than the FAA since we use alternate sides of the runway).

Curious factoid. For all the finger wagging on here about landing on centerline being the ultimate mark of a consummate professional pilot, it is actually rare I touch down on centerline as a matter of course. In my line of business it is actually considered poor wingmanship to do so. Go figure. Taxing on centerline is also a rarity for me. I am guilty of offset taxing in my Arrow at times for no other reason at all than primacy LOL. I can be a rebel without a cause that way :D
Click to expand...

Then I'm an Ace in your line of business!!:biggrin:
 
hindsight2020 said:
In layman's terms, in the USAF, the act of "peeling" way from an established close formation position (most common from 'fingertip', though it can be done from the 'route' position) is in fact called a pitchout. Reference the prior F-15 video. That's a pitchout. It's not a maneuver solely associated with the overhead break; it can be called upon in the area to create separation. It is seldom used by the combat coded jets with a mission to employ outside the pattern, whereas these "motherhood indignities" (from the eyes of a steely eyed CAF warrior) are in fact the mission for trainer aircraft like mine and thus we do them in the MOA ad nauseam as well.

The interchange of terms 'break turn' and 'pitchout' is understandable, but a break turn has different connotations in the USAF. The former has to do with [often High Aspect] BFM, and a pitchout is merely a less aggressive separation and heading change maneuver.

Generally members pitchout on the overhead break with a 5 second interval, and it provides enough separation for landing (meet our runway separation guidelines, which are lower than the FAA since we use alternate sides of the runway).

Curious factoid. For all the finger wagging on here about landing on centerline being the ultimate mark of a consummate professional pilot, it is actually rare I touch down on centerline as a matter of course. In my line of business it is actually considered poor wingmanship to do so. Go figure. Taxing on centerline is also a rarity for me. I am guilty of offset taxing in my Arrow at times for no other reason at all than primacy LOL. I can be a rebel without a cause that way :D
Click to expand...

Yeah. We cleared airplanes to land left side/right side. I always thought it just took up a lot of air time and it would be easier to just clear the flight to land and let em do their thing. But that wasn’t the way it was done. What is ‘fingertip’ you mentioned above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top