Matthew Rogers
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,325
- Display Name
Display name:
Matt R
Yes, please.
"Overhead to the initial", say what?
- Thread starter Lndwarrior
- Start date
dtuuri
Final Approach
That's good, that's good, Hacker! I approve heartily! How about taking a picture the next time you visit @hindsight2020 showing how you can blend right in without any radio at RSU? What is that you're flying, btw, PT-22?Here's my "credible voice" apple for the "apples to apples comparison".
Wood wings, fabric covered, no electrical system (and thus no radio) taildragger, just about to enter the pattern at a small GA airport. Using just my eyeballs to clear my flight path and not be a conflict for other aircraft in the pattern.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah most military facilities that have tactical aircraft based there publish it but not all. It’s published at one of my old bases (NBC) but not the other (NKX). I’ve said all along, just because the history (military) of the maneuver is developed for aircraft that have an operational need, doesn’t mean that those that don’t, can’t do it. If it were only for military types, then the .65 or the FARs would state “the overhead maneuver will only be conducted at airfields that have an operational need and the pattern is specifically published for the AFD / chart supplement.” But, there’s nothing that states that and no FSDO in the country is going to enforce such nonsense.
focal_plane
Pre-takeoff checklist
There may have been a wee bit of cynisism.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. At the end of the day it’s just an upwind entry into the pattern. GA folk should be as aware of upwind as a leg of the pattern as they are the other legs. If those wanting to enter upwind, either because there is a reason to do so, or because it’s cool, would communicate it as entering upwind instead of all the Initial, Overhead, Break stuff at non-towered Civil airports there would probably be less controversy. There are airports where upwind entries are the usual way to do it. You can find them by googling the airport or looking at the bulletin board at the airport. SZP is one I can think of off hand. If they are landing West and you are arriving from the East, you enter upwind into a crosswind to downwind. Some of them have websites with their pattern policies. It’s like the “rules of the road” mentioned above in the post with the T-6’s. And like “course rules” that someone else mentioned.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
I've done hundreds of them in the KC-135. Single-ship and in formation.
Hook 91 into Vegas the VR-61 C-9 from NUW we went into the break at McCarren
start of a great weekend and 5+ years of harassment. 
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
B-52’s as well. The whole “B-52 pattern” joke is based on a myth.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
https://www.santapaulaairport.com/flying-into-kszp/traffic-pattern
Yeah. If ya did an ‘Overhead’ and broke at the numbers or midfield you would be violating their way of doing things, their ‘course rules’ so to speak. Point I was making is upwind entries are the normal way of doing things at some airports. Much talk here about how is the average GA pilot supposed to know what is going on if someone uses the words Initial, Overhead and Break and if you’re going to do one, drop the cool words and communicate it in the ‘native’ language. I didn’t say that Overhead Approaches were the norm at some airports, I said upwind entries were.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hook 91 into Vegas the VR-61 C-9 from NUW we went into the break at McCarren
Someone violated the ‘what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ rule.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hook 91 into Vegas the VR-61 C-9 from NUW we went into the break at McCarren
You should plan an anniversary reunion. Don't wait to long though
dtuuri
Final Approach
For the controllers and those who've actually terminated an IFR flight with an overhead maneuver: Why is there a difference between where you cancel IFR, i.e., "initial" (@ controlled fields) or "threshold or after landing" (@ uncontrolled fields)? It would seem to me that canceling even farther from an uncontrolled airport would afford more time to change to CTAF and give intentions. Juggling two frequencies while doing an overhead break doesn't seem very safe for all concerned. For reference, see bold:
5-4-27. Overhead Approach Maneuver
Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument approach procedure. Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is considered to be VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-36.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft:
Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument approach procedure. Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is considered to be VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-36.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft:
- Pattern altitude and direction of traffic. This information may be omitted if either is standard.
PHRASEOLOGY-
PATTERN ALTITUDE (altitude). RIGHT TURNS.
- Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL.
- “Break” information and a request for the pilot to report. The “Break Point” will be specified if nonstandard. Pilots may be requested to report “break” if required for traffic or other reasons.
PHRASEOLOGY-
BREAK AT (specified point).
REPORT BREAK.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The last statement contradicts itself 3 different times, unless they consider after the initial not “executing” the approach. 1) Cancel before the start of the maneuver (initial), 2) cancel after crossing landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver, 3) cancel after landing. Problem with canceling that late (threshold / landing) is, what type of approach are they being cleared for? Personally never had an IFR request the overhead at a non towered field. If I did, I’d clear them for the visual after field in sight, put them on the CTAF a good ways out and be done with them.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
To somebody who's actually flown a military IR training route: "Is it safe to say such a flight could culminate at an uncontrolled airbase?"
dtuuri
Final Approach
So then, when my 1989 copy of the AIM states that an Overhead Maneuver is a military operation the maneuver's description was meant to apply to military fields only. Since that time the word "military" has been dropped from the otherwise identical description. I can't think of any civilian operation that ends an IFR flight with an overhead maneuver. I've never done one or heard another doing one throughout the thousands of instrument approaches at uncontrolled airports during my uneventful career as a corporate pilot. Can anybody cite an example where this could be a civilian operation?
dtuuri
Final Approach
You mean an IR route terminating at a military uncontrolled field, right?
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
No, there’s regular routing to and from the IR route. At the completion of the route, you pick up the rest of your clearance and go wherever you’re filed to. It can be any field you have approval to go to.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your question.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah, if the civilian pilot requests it. It now becomes a civilian operation and done IAW the AIM, .65 and the AC.
Fan breakups are fun...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Maybe I'll just invent a new word for the non-standard pattern I see everyone flying and use it to death until people are annoyed....
dtuuri
Final Approach
No, you got it. I never paid much attention to where IR training routes start or end and was wondering if the purpose of that AIM paragraph applied to them.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
"Confusion Country Traffic, Bugsmasher Bravo Delta 007 on penultimate, then go-around due to bad approach, vaguely rectangular pattern at varying altitudes, THEN final, several bounces, taxi to the ramp, jog to nearest beer, Confusion County..."
I'm going to invent a traffic pattern composed entirely of straight lines... No turns at all. Think of how much simpler that will be!
Fiveslide
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 853
- Display Name
Display name:
Fiveslide
Open your own airport.
Pave a big circle, 5,000' radius. Straight-ins for everyone! Land 4, 5, 13 planes at a time. Have to come up with a cool runway number, the current system will not be appropriate.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Certainly where you, a controller, have separation authority you can authorize one, but knowing that, then there is no need for the AIM to state, my emphasis:
"The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate ...blah, blah."
What's the reference to "existence" all about if you can authorize them anyway? How does one determine if the existing overhead is a "standard" one? How, at an uncontrolled airport, does one know of any applicable "non-standard" overhead maneuver?
I still say the AIM description is meant for military operations. There's no way the FAA wants IFR traffic buzzing down the runway at uncontrolled airports talking to ATC right up until they make their break over the runway or until after they land. All those things you attribute to contradiction make perfect sense when applied only to military ops. Remember, no comm required at the boat — a military facility. Civilians rely on CTAF from 10 miles out.
Fiveslide
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 853
- Display Name
Display name:
Fiveslide
Negative, I meant pave the whole thing, don't put taxiways or anything. Land from any direction, touch down pointed toward center. Taking off, point toward the outside edge and go.
Ah, OK. That's how the Navy used to train pilots. Never a crosswind.
Look up OLF Milesquare. A square mile+ of pavement with a wind sock in the middle. Same at Beeville.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Well there are different IAPs that “exist” as well but the controller is the one authorizing the particular one thru their clearance.
I think the .65 is poorly written as it applies to overheads at non towered fields. As I said, if the pilot’s plan is to cancel on the ground, it makes for a confusing situation for the controller. There is no phraseology to clear someone for the overhead. Only clearance is for a VA, and for a non towered field, that clearance doesn’t go to a particular runway like the overhead does. It’s technically just a clearance for the VA and then the pilot maneuvers as necessary. Also, nothing says they have to cancel that late either. They could cancel once the airport is in sight, go to CTAF and proceed inbound for the overhead VFR...without TRACON ensuring separation from anyone.
You keep bringing up the separation aspect as if it’s only a maneuver that a ATC can provide but the .65 and the AC include non towered fields with no mention of the military.
The 1989 reference has no bearing not just because it’s from 1989 but because it’s the AIM and there’s no “shall” anywhere in that definition. And again, you’d have a valid point if 91.126 E stated “The overhead maneuver will only be conducted at military airfields that have an operational need to conduct the maneuver.” But, it doesn’t say that, the AIM doesn’t say that and the AC doesn’t state that.
And as I said, the whole “operational need” is a joke anyway. Operational need for a flight of 4 F-15s makes sense. I’ve brought in a flight of 4 H-60s in for the break before. The later has no operational need (tactically yes) but we did it because 1) it’s a standard pattern maneuver (while less common), 2) it’s safe and 3) it can be fun.
There’s no difference in coming in to the pattern with an RV / Glasair at 170 kts overhead or the midfield crosswind entry or practicing a power off 360. All enter the pattern and COULD have direct conflict with someone operating in the pattern already. If done correctly and everyone is looking out for one another, it shouldn’t be an issue. And, while the overhead is a “less common” entry, as the AC states, pilots at non towered fields, should be aware of them.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'll agree with that much, since they exist, right or wrong, pilots should do their best to watch out for them.
You and I parse that AIM paragraph way differently, though. In my old AIM it states it is definitely for military aircraft only. Somewhere along the way they dropped the word "military" with little or no fanfare or discussion. It is clearly written to describe the handoff/transfer from an IFR operation to an overhead arrival for military aircraft and is used to indicate the FAA's terminology for critical locations during the maneuver which may vary from service to service, but have meaning with regard to the point at which the FAA terminates the IFR flight plan. IMO, if it has anything to do with how to conduct the maneuver there would be a better chapter to publish the procedure.
As for AC-90-66B, again, I agree that since some people, rightly or wrongly, do in fact do them, mention of the possibility has a place in that document. The AC does not imply they are legitimate, as they do say, now, about the midfield crossover.
The midfield crossover, though, still is not depicted in the AIM nor even in the Appendix in the AC. It is only shown in a reprinted diagram from the AOPA, which as far as I know is only one person's opinion that has become adopted as AOPA's recommendation without peer review of any kind or analysis other than most collisions happen on final, ergo, it must be ok. Likewise, the same diagram is reprinted in the PHAK, yet all the current AIM traffic pattern diagrams and leg definitions do not mention a midfield crossover. In other words, the AC and Handbook are not compliant with the current AIM procedures. Since the most recent date of issue of the AC is three days before the AIM you have to wonder if the authors are all on the same page.
Oh, and EDIT: When it comes to authors, I have to wonder if whoever came up with the notion (a Chief Counselor, no doubt) that IFR circling approaches need to be left-handed regardless of where the aircraft acquires the landing runway, i.e., to the left or right, ahead or behind, is even a pilot. Or if so, much of one. It's obscenely ridiculous, IMO.
Last edited:
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
An IR route is just that, it's a route that takes you to an exit fix. If yuo want to continue IFR, you need a clearance beyond the exit fix. If you want to cancel IFR, you continue under VFR. An IR clearance does not include clearance for an approach or a visual pattern, it is just a route to a fix and nothing more. if you want to go to a uncontrolled field via an IR, you'll have to cancel IFR and go VFR or stay IFR and get clearance from ATC beyond the exit fix of the IR to an IAF at the uncontrolled or towered field and subsequent clearance for the approach. If you cancelled IFR, you'd proceed under visual rules and fly an appropriate visual recovery to the chosen field. When I flew tactical aircraft, we could only land at fields that had approriate barriers which generally excluded all civilan fields unless they were joint use.
(Added) Some of our IR routes ended in a restricted area like a range where we proceeded to practice bombing. We still needed to talk to the range controller for clearance to do anything upon exiting the IR.
Last edited:
If we are going to discuss patterns and safety we should be talking about the ridiculous final lengths. Pilots should be turning base when the runway is 45 degrees behind the wingtip. I have found myself at that point and the aircraft ahead has not yet turned base. They are in effect exiting the pattern and flying a straight in. Not flying the expected pattern leads to lots of other issues including conflicts on final.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Same thing on the ATC side. For instance, varying opinions on when a flight is no longer a flight.
https://www.stuckmic.com/faa-rules-regulations/21388-overhead-manuaver.html
Another thing I heard about last year is the FAA is requiring approach to confirm MARSA with flight lead before splitting up an IFR flight. We never did that and I think the FAA is misunderstanding what the intent of MARSA is all about.
Last edited:
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
If that is true, that is indeed a complete misunderstanding of MARSA and its intended use. Fwiw, I split formation flights here in C TX all the time, and neither Houston nor San Antonio incur on the nonsense of "confirming MARSA" before giving my wingman a squawk and sending us our different ways.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
My brother was telling me that they got a letter on it. Not sure if it’s a facility letter or region letter. Basically said, you got a flight of 4 coming inbound for individual IAPs. When they split them they have to confirm with lead, like “Blade11, confirm MARSA with Blade14?” If in the affirmative, then “Blade 14, detach the flight, turn...”
It is a bit gray in that you’ve got an IFR aircraft, that’s no longer in the flight, with less than IFR sep. That’s part of the problem though. There's no phraseology in the .65 in how to split up a flight and none of the MARSA examples pertain to it. We had basic guidelines in our SOP but nothing concrete. My technique:
“Blade11, confirm 11 thru 14 in that order?”
“Affirm Blade11.”
“Roger, Blade 14 detach the flight, turn right heading 360, decend and maintain 3,000.” Once 14 acknowledges and you’ve got him typed into ARTS (the scope), then “Blade14, squawk 4501.” Squawk observed, “Blade14, radar contact on the split, change to my frequency 311.6.” Then Blade 13,12 in order.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
and @hindsight2020
My guess is it's something local, somebody's 'interpretation' about how they think something should be done. The current 7110.65, that's x with change 3, is clear about MARSA and is no different than it has been for many, many moons.
2−1−11. USE OF MARSAA.
a. MARSA may only be applied to military operations specified in a letter of agreement or other appropriate FAA or military document.
NOTE−Application of MARSA is a military command prerogative. It will not be invoked indiscriminately by individual units or pilots. It will be used only for IFR operations requiring its use. Commands authorizing MARSA will ensure that its implementation and terms of use are documented and coordinated with the control agency having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations are conducted. Term sof use will assign responsibility and provide for separation among participating aircraft.
b. ATC facilities do not invoke or deny MARSA. Their sole responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is to provide separation between military aircraft engaged in MARSA operations and othe rnonparticipating IFR aircraft.
c.DOD must ensure that military pilots requesting special use airspace/ATCAAs have coordinated with the scheduling agency, have obtained approval for entry, and are familiar with the appropriate MARSA procedures. ATC is not responsible for determining which military aircraft are authorized to enter special use airspace/ATCAAs.
REFERENCE−FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 9−2−14, Military Aerial Refueling.
It's still a command prerogative and ATC still does not invoke it.
It's clear that separation during the breakup is pilots responsibility.
2−1−13. FORMATION FLIGHTS
Control formation flights as a single aircraft.Separation responsibility between aircraft within the formation rests with the flight leader and the pilots of the other aircraft in the flight. This includes transition periods when aircraft within the formation are maneuvering to attain separation from each other to effect individual control during join−up and break away.
The controllers responsibility is to issue clearances to the individual elements that will result in approved separation. Until that result is achieved, it's on the pilots. Once it is achieved it's now on the controller.
d. When formation break−up is requested, issue control instructions and/or clearances which will result in approved separation through the lead or directly to the requesting aircraft in the formation.
EXAMPLE−“N5871S requesting flight break−up with N731K. N731K is changing destination to PHL.” “N731K squawk 5432, turn right, fly heading zero−seven−zero.
“Center, BAMA21. BAMA23 is requesting to RTB.” “BAMA21 have BAMA23 squawk 5544, descend and maintain flight level one−niner−zero and change to my frequency.”
“Center, BAMA21. BAMA23 is requesting to RTB.” “BAMA23 squawk 5544. BAMA23 Radar contact(position if required). Cleared to SSC via direct. Descendand maintain flight level one−niner−zero.”
I always thought that if it's being done horizontally, a minimum divergence of 30 degrees should be required until standard separation is achieved. That was a local rule of ours at Lemoore, at least 30 degrees when your peeling them off