"Overhead to the initial", say what?

[Timbeck2]

I'm an excellent multitasker. The initial pattern is so simple and easy, one can control and type effortlessly.

 

[Velocity173]

Let the record show, that with malice and forethought, Timbeck2 was texting whilst working traffic

Lol! I was thinking the same thing. Where my brother works they have to keep them in their box below the cab while on position. Tim is DOD though so those guys are loose cannons!

 

[Timbeck2]

We are supposed to here as well. But I wasn't texting, I was using a computer.

 

[luvflyin]

At uncontrolled fields:
Circling approach = bona fide
Overhead break = joy ride

I've done me some bona fide circling approaches that could best be described as joy ride

 

[Timbeck2]

IMO a circling approach is more of a PITA for everyone than initial.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

It's no different than calling Final Approach Fix inbound. It is a term is defined in aviation. VFR pilots should have the wherewithal to learn. Aviation shouldn't be a lowest common denominator game. If someone on CTAF doesn't seem to understand what I'm communicating, I'll absolutely look to talk them

A Pitts doing an overhead shouldn't be villainized anymore than a Piper Cub without a radio..

Thanks for being eager to teach us lowly VFR pilots about the multitude of IFR reporting points, but....

it IS bad form to call out FAF when in VFR conditions at a pilot controlled field. It is not about lowest denominator, it is about flying VFR or IFR rules. If it is VFR, you can’t expect the other aircraft to have approach charts with them to know what you are talking about. There might not be enough time to explain what you really mean.

And I think it is quite a majority here that agree that if you can afford to fly any airplane, even a broken down Cub, you can afford a handheld radio to at least make semi-intelligible radio calls to others.

 

[PaulS]

At uncontrolled fields:
Circling approach = bona fide
Overhead break = joy ride

Like this guy.... Bona fide!

 

[zaitcev]

The only time I've ever been through an overhead break, it was with Don Simington in his T-6. IIRC, his rationale was to create an approach that we can call a "stable unstabilized approach". At each quarter turn, he directs the airplane through a "gate". Each gate sets a certain airspeed and AGL, as well as the airplane configuration. In particular, gear must be completely extended by the gate 2. If gate conditions are not met, approach is abandoned instead of salvaged. Obviously, the exactly same approach can be flown on final, but the position of gates in a circling approach is easier to judge precisely. I'm not quite sure how wind figures into the overall scheme, e.g. if gates travel to account for crosswind.

 

[Velocity173]

IMO a circling approach is more of a PITA for everyone than initial.

Yep, especially some of these C-130 tactical circles. Hi-TACANs that pass over the field, descending thru your enroute traffic and then circle in the surface area traffic pattern to a low approach...double suck.

 

[hindsight2020]

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?

Fingertip is the old finger-4 of wwii. Close formation with a specific wingtip separation (aircraft specific) with a four ship looking like the tips of the four non-thumb fingers on a right hand, lead on the middle finger.

 

[flyingron]

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.

This person didn't even call the initial. They called "overhead for the initial" which I guess puts them over the field at some unspecified attitude, but it's really a meaningless call.

 

[Timbeck2]

This person didn't even call the initial. They called "overhead for the initial" which I guess puts them over the field at some unspecified attitude, but it's really a meaningless call.

Was that in the OP which was deleted? I must have missed that. More correct would have been "initial for the overhead" and even then, a distance from the field would have been helpful.

 

[Velocity173]

Impossible to tell what was said. Like most threads started that revolve around something transmitted over the radio, there’s no recording and the source is unreliable. Especially if they have no idea what the operation is that they’re referring to.

 

[PaulS]

Was that in the OP which was deleted? I must have missed that. More correct would have been "initial for the overhead" and even then, a distance from the field would have been helpful.

And runway.....

 

[Timbeck2]

And runway.....

I'll rephrase: All the things normally given in an announcement call enroute to an airport.

 

[Witmo]

"Overhead for the initial" is nonsensical--you come up initial to execute the overhead. Alternatively, you can carry through initial and make a normal turn to crosswind, downwind, base and final and never do the overhead. An "Overhead" is not an IFR circling type approach. When you are executing an overhead approach, all turns are the same direction as your normal box landing pattern--you're just doing two 180 degree turns-one level and a second descending-- instead of a level 90 degree crosswind turn, level 90 degree turn to downwind, descending 90 degree turn to base, and descending 90 degree turn to final.

 

[flyingron]

Was that in the OP which was deleted? I must have missed that. More correct would have been "initial for the overhead" and even then, a distance from the field would have been helpful.

It's in the SUBJECT LINE of the forum. Yes, it would make more sense the other way around but it still presumes you know where the INITIAL point is which is not specified in the AIM, etc... other than being 5-7 NM from the field. I'd still like a more precise altitude and position. It's like saying "I'm getting ready to enter the pattern."

 

[PaulS]

I'm thinking Gary, the OP, got some pushback from his friends at his home field and pulled the post. Need to remember to hit reply to preserve the post we are responding to.

 

[iamtheari]

I wish that "overhead to the initial" was the dumbest thing ever said on CTAF. As far as the overhead break pattern, it is a useful tool for efficiently landing formations of aircraft and probably has other merits as well. It at least avoids drawing fire for making a straight-in VFR landing (and there are more threads here complaining about those than about the overhead), and it's definitely more fun than a 45-degree entry to downwind.

I see nothing wrong with any pilot in any aircraft using the overhead break at any airport, provided it does not cause a conflict with other traffic. The same caveat is true of circling approaches, practice instrument approaches in general, back-taxiing, landing the "wrong" way on the "active," flying a normal pattern, and even just starting the engine on the ramp. And as far as safety goes, it makes sense to practice things solo rather than waiting until you are in formation to try it out.

In the interest of preventing traffic conflicts, it is helpful to give useful information on the radio. For example, saying "five miles northeast, initial runway two-two" would be useful information for others who happen to be listening in. Even if they don't know what the initial is, they will know where you are and generally what runway you're aiming for.

Just like a pilot on an instrument approach should say "ten miles southeast, straight in runway two-niner" (which everyone listening can understand) instead of "over FIZBO on the GPS RNAV runway two-niner approach" (which only people familiar with that specific approach plate might understand), every call anyone makes on the radio should be tailored to the audience, meaning it is calculated to inform everyone (from a student pilot on his first solo to an airliner that just got the switch from center to advisory frequency) where you are and what you are planning to do.

 

[Hacker]

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.

Of more relevance to this discussion -- since we're referencing GA pilots and GA aircraft -- is that the FAA-approved sanctioning bodies for teaching formation flying (FAST/NATA, FFI, RPA, etc) all use the term "break" for the first turn in the overhead pattern, and "pitchout" when that takes place as a multi-ship formation.

The FAST manual also references the Navy-style "fan break", which is the low-initial with pitchup to closed downwind in formation sequence that was referenced earlier in this thread, but

 

[Cooter]

The FAST manual also references the Navy-style "fan break", which is the low-initial with pitchup to closed downwind in formation sequence that was referenced earlier in this thread,

I haven’t seen the FAST manual, but “fan break” in the Navy refers to breaking without a set interval. The separation is gained by each aircraft modulating the pull to downwind. The “carrier” break is a low initial/break altitude (800’)to a 600’ pattern.

 

[Velocity173]

Of more relevance to this discussion -- since we're referencing GA pilots and GA aircraft -- is that the FAA-approved sanctioning bodies for teaching formation flying (FAST/NATA, FFI, RPA, etc) all use the term "break" for the first turn in the overhead pattern, and "pitchout" when that takes place as a multi-ship formation.

The FAST manual also references the Navy-style "fan break", which is the low-initial with pitchup to closed downwind in formation sequence that was referenced earlier in this thread, but

I remember the Strike Eagles used to do a combat spread break every once in awhile. Both abeam, both break simultaneously, Dash 2 rolls out after 90 and then does another break to downwind. Haven’t seen it done in 20 + years so not sure if it’s common anymore.

 

[Hacker]

I remember the Strike Eagles used to do a combat spread break every once in awhile. Both abeam, both break simultaneously, Dash 2 rolls out after 90 and then does another break to downwind. Haven’t seen it done in 20 + years so not sure if it’s common anymore.

Our term for that is "Tac initial".

 

[hindsight2020]

I remember the Strike Eagles used to do a combat spread break every once in awhile. Both abeam, both break simultaneously, Dash 2 rolls out after 90 and then does another break to downwind. Haven’t seen it done in 20 + years so not sure if it’s common anymore.

It's called TAC initial in the USAF, and we do them all the time.

ETA: @Hacker beat me to it.

 

[Hacker]

I haven’t seen the FAST manual, but “fan break” in the Navy refers to breaking without a set interval. The separation is gained by each aircraft modulating the pull to downwind. The “carrier” break is a low initial/break altitude (800’)to a 600’ pattern.

The interesting (and frustrating) thing about nearly all of the civilian formation accords is that they are a strange blend of USAF and USN/USMC formation terminology, visual signals, and comm. Just enough of each to ensure that no pilot of either background can rely exclusively on their service experience...and just enough to **** everyone off as a result of it.

 

[hindsight2020]

I can't take out a taildragger as a mil and ATP and fly it around without some 200 hour CFI giving me his FAA blessing, but I can be a 50 hour PPL with money to burn, go buy a Deca or RV-6 and do impromptu Cubano Ochos after watching a youtube video and that's perfectly legal. I've never understood that. By that metric, if I want to ground loop to my heart's content and self-teach myself TW landings, I should be allowed to.

#justsayin'

 

[luvflyin]

I remember the Strike Eagles used to do a combat spread break every once in awhile. Both abeam, both break simultaneously, Dash 2 rolls out after 90 and then does another break to downwind. Haven’t seen it done in 20 + years so not sure if it’s common anymore.

Both simultaneously? Does one go left and the other right? Does dash 1 do a 180 and dash 2 make the space with the two 90’s?

 

[Velocity173]

Both simultaneously? Does one go left and the other right? Does dash 1 do a 180 and dash 2 make the space with the two 90’s?

If I recall, it was simultaneously in the same direction. Lead does a 180 and dash 2 does two 90s. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it so I could be wrong. I’m sure the AF guys will clarify.

Another thing I always found interesting between services was closed traffic. AF touches down softly with aero braking, or LA and tuck up the gear, build up speed, and do a rapid pitch up to downwind. Drop the gear abeam the numbers, do what appears to be a slip on base to final. VV/VM just slam it down and stay dirty for the entire pattern.

 

[MuseChaser]

This thread has been very educational and I've learned about a pattern I hadn't heard of previously. I guess the question I have is, why would anyone choose a pattern entry and choose to make a call at an untowered field that has a high probability of not being understood by other aircraft in the pattern? Yes, more experienced pilots have earned the skills to do and understand things low-time, fledgeling pilots have not, but if the pattern has other aircraft in it, would it not be more prudent to use more universally recognizable calls and techniques? Just asking..

 

[RhinoDrvr]

This thread has been very educational and I've learned about a pattern I hadn't heard of previously. I guess the question I have is, why would anyone choose a pattern entry and choose to make a call at an untowered field that has a high probability of not being understood by other aircraft in the pattern? Yes, more experienced pilots have earned the skills to do and understand things low-time, fledgeling pilots have not, but if the pattern has other aircraft in it, would it not be more prudent to use more universally recognizable calls and techniques? Just asking..

Just like every other answer in aviation...it depends. Once I switch to CTAF the first task is to listen and figure out what’s going on at the field.

If the pattern is chock full of 4+ airplanes it’s probably easier to just sequence in with the conga line and accept the pattern everyone else is flying. Not worth trying to self-sequence in for the overhead.

If there’s a single airplane beating up the pattern, I can probably work myself into the pattern without him knowing where I am at all. Obviously the proper calls will be made on CTAF, but I should be able to judge when to break, etc in order to minimize the impact on the other pilot’s pattern (i.e. they shouldn’t have to change anything to fit me into the pattern).

If the latter is the case, I prefer the overhead for the reasons I’ve listed in previous posts. If it’s going to be too painful given the situation at the field then I’ll either sequence in for the downwind, or wait for the pattern to clear out.

 

[luvflyin]

This thread has been very educational and I've learned about a pattern I hadn't heard of previously. I guess the question I have is, why would anyone choose a pattern entry and choose to make a call at an untowered field that has a high probability of not being understood by other aircraft in the pattern? Yes, more experienced pilots have earned the skills to do and understand things low-time, fledgeling pilots have not, but if the pattern has other aircraft in it, would it not be more prudent to use more universally recognizable calls and techniques? Just asking..

 

[EvilEagle]

If I recall, it was simultaneously in the same direction. Lead does a 180 and dash 2 does two 90s. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it so I could be wrong. I’m sure the AF guys will clarify.

Another thing I always found interesting between services was closed traffic. AF touches down softly with aero braking, or LA and tuck up the gear, build up speed, and do a rapid pitch up to downwind. Drop the gear abeam the numbers, do what appears to be a slip on base to final. VV/VM just slam it down and stay dirty for the entire pattern.

Yep, lead does a 180 and 2 does 2x90's.

I've never flown a Hornet but they guys I know that have flown them said they tried a few times to do what we do - aerobrake after the landing - but the Hornet's flight controls change with weight on wheels and it's either hard to do or impossible to keep the nose up while decelerating down the runway. One of the USN/USMC dudes can probably say for sure. I never have figured out why they stay dirty for patterns. I guess it's all what you are used to. Our base to final is just one constant 180 degree turn - shouldn't have to slip unless you screwed up your pattern.

 

[dtuuri]

Our base to final is just one constant 180 degree turn -

 

[luvflyin]

Yep, lead does a 180 and 2 does 2x90's.

I've never flown a Hornet but they guys I know that have flown them said they tried a few times to do what we do - aerobrake after the landing - but the Hornet's flight controls change with weight on wheels and it's either hard to do or impossible to keep the nose up while decelerating down the runway. One of the USN/USMC dudes can probably say for sure. I never have figured out why they stay dirty for patterns. I guess it's all what you are used to. Our base to final is just one constant 180 degree turn - shouldn't have to slip unless you screwed up your pattern.

Do they literally break simultaneously? Maintaining formation through the first 90 degrees?

 

[dtuuri]

Once I switch to CTAF the first task is to listen and figure out what’s going on at the field.
...
If there’s a single airplane beating up the pattern, I can probably work myself into the pattern without him knowing where I am at all. Obviously the proper calls will be made on CTAF,

I can see you depend on information received via radio. In the military, you're under positive control — the tower "has your six". At civil fields nobody is cleansing the airspace for you and not everybody has a radio tuned to your reports (if they make any sense to them anyway).

As for the analogy to a circling approach, that one is normally done below traffic pattern altitude and there's an operational need to practice them unlike an overhead break which is done mainly for jollies and intersects normal pattern flight paths at the same altitude and at high closing speeds with poor visibility in the direction of oncoming traffic on the downwind during the break.

Given that the break maneuver is really pretty simple (any student could do it) and that they DO look cool from the ground I predict more contagious and dangerous life in the pattern if they are allowed to fester at uncontrolled airports.

 

[Bill Watson]

One thing is clear to me; terminology like ‘Initial’, ‘IP’, ‘break’, etc, require common knowledge and understanding in order to be useful. There isn’t such knowledge or understanding at just any ol’ GA ‘port so we probably shouldn’t be saying that stuff.

With that said, my exposure to ‘initial point’ is limited to old school glider racing where we had an ‘IP’ for the start gate (5,000’ plus). On some glider training fields ‘IP’ referred to a point on downwind abeam the numbers and an altitude, say 500’. Or sometimes it was 500’ over the ‘old shack on the hill’.

Anyway, we did do a lot of ‘high speed’ ‘overhead’ breaks but the speeds were typically <150kts and ‘overhead’ was sometimes ‘underhead’ because the pilot was below 6’ before a Chandelle break.

G*d D*amn they were fun, especially if you were fast on the task! (Go to 4:00 for a good energy mgmt & coordinated turn demo)

OTOH, one infrequently observed phenomena was a low altitude high speed finish followed by a pull-up and some unexplained non-sensical maneuvering about the airport and surrounding country side!

What was going on there?

Having experienced it myself, I attributed it to ‘loss of adrenaline’. The adrenaline that would keep you flying intensely during a race and through the exhaustion and stress and too often dehydration that one would be experiencing. Passing over the finish line would ‘stop the flow’ so to speak and the pilot would sort of pass out with eyes open. Usually a radio call would get him back on track.

It made me wonder if military pilots ever experienced something like that at the end of stressful flights?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Velocity173]

Do they literally break simultaneously? Maintaining formation through the first 90 degrees?

Yes.

 

[Velocity173]

OVERHEAD. INITIAL. BREAK. All in the AIM definition. Should all aircraft do a canned 45 degree entry because it’s the most common thing? Give me a break...no pun intended.

 

[Cooter]

I can see you depend on information received via radio. In the military, you're under positive control — the tower "has your six".

Navy Carrier Ops and FCLP are done w/o pattern calls and without tower control. You work your way in by looking at the pattern and seeing where everyone else is. The Navy’s been doing this for decades and it works. Case 1 recoveries are done zip lip, in FCLP calls are only made at the initial and at the ball call. There’s no talking when someone is on the ball, which is pretty much always. So, you look, and you break to downwind when you don’t see anyone else. The overhead gives a really good look at the pattern. I’ve known plenty of pattern buffoonery, but never known of an accident from breaking traffic causing a conflict. Student pilots in jets with less than 150 hrs flight time get this right pretty much daily in the Navy.

 

[luvflyin]

Yes.

Ah. The formation is spread well out to begin with. I had the visual of typical close formation and ‘breaking simultaneously’ was making the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.