"Overhead to the initial", say what?

Lndwarrior

Lndwarrior

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
1,282
Display Name
Display name:
Gary
xxxx"
 
Last edited:
what altitude is he doing the pass at?
 
The whole "overhead break" thing is actually discussed in AC 90-66b as one type of non-standard entry that pilots might expect to see at a non-towered airport. They are neither endorsed nor prohibited by the FAA. This case sounds like just another legend-in-his-own-mind showing off. I try to interact as little as possible with them. Just another hazard to look out for. And, not worth the effort to try and educate them. They learn when they find it necessary to change their skivvies, or they don't.
 
Two things: first, this clown needs to get the fact that we aren't in the military. Second, if someone is doing high speed low passes at a busy uncontrolled field, I would tell him once to cut it the hell out, and then I would report him to the FSDO. From what you are describing he is going to kill someone.
 
I doubt he doing low passes at 300 KIAS, but you might explain to this guy he never did overheads in to uncontrolled airports in the military.
 
Yeah, basically an ex mil guy reliving the glory days on his experimental hot rod. Lord I hope "ex"-military. Probably an airline pilot too. BL, he's a goober for doing that stuff in his civilian flying, and I say that as a current mil guy and private owner alike. The USAF pattern (those are AF calls btw, the Navy has a different nomenclature for their carrier ops, that's how I know this clown is ex USAF) is not something I would expect civilian players to understand.

We use those terms at the request of the tower where we go into joint/P fields, and ATC is familiar with those. Tower then ensures they communicate to their civil traffic our presence and position in civilian speak, and generally do a great job at it. Using this nomenclature in a non-towered field while in mixed company is just being purposely obtuse. Again, clownshoes. I bet wearing a painted helmet and nomex gloves while doing it too, which would probably be the cherry on top. LOL

You're 100% right on getting confused and frustrated about the loss of traffic position awareness such a language barrier and dissimilar ops creates.

For the gallery, think of the initial and overhead break as pulling "closed pattern" in the first 3000 feet of the runway, while already established at pattern altitude (aka level turn), configuring in said turn, and continuing the turn into an aggressive descending base to intercept a 3 degree final, in what can be described as a horsetrack shaped ground track with a radius of less than a mile from the point of the overhead break (for fighter aircraft). So yes, largely incompatible with civil aircraft doing the normal square bomber pattern at 1k AGL, especially when they don't know what the heck you're talking about. This stuff should be reserved to towered fields where ATC can translate for everybody.

This is why I socialize off base. :D
 
Lndwarrior said:
So this guy had just zoom-climbed (is that a thing?) between us probably doing 250 to 300 kts or better.
Click to expand...
Lndwarrior said:
and watched him do another high speed pass at 300 kts or better.
Click to expand...

Are you exaggerating for effect? I think I read somewhere about maximum speeds. Probably in a FAR.
 
Ravioli said:
Are you exaggerating for effect? I think I read somewhere about maximum speeds. Probably in a FAR.
Click to expand...

To your point, civilians are notorious for overestimating closure and range in their close call anecdotes (everything looks like an imminent collision to those who don't frequently fly 3-7 feet from another wing, sometimes with momentary wingtip lateral overlap mind you :eek:). But if the offending clown was playing Iron Eagle in his turbine legend or whatever, chances are he wasn't sticking with 200knots up initial in all his passes. But we will never know. Like you said, to a canary a cat is a monster, so there could be a perception error to varying degrees.
 
wilkersk said:
The whole "overhead break" thing is actually discussed in AC 90-66b as one type of non-standard entry that pilots might expect to see at a non-towered airport. They are neither endorsed nor prohibited by the FAA. This case sounds like just another legend-in-his-own-mind showing off. I try to interact as little as possible with them. Just another hazard to look out for. And, not worth the effort to try and educate them. They learn when they find it necessary to change their skivvies, or they don't.
Click to expand...
Silence implies consent. "Neither endorsed nor prohibited" is a straw man statement, as if neither would be required. The AIM plainly states that overhead break patterns are "established" ones. They aren't impromptu, spur of the moment declarations by any random PIC.
 
Here's an illustration of the overhead by a couple B-15s (I keed I keed :D)


And here's a supposed "ex mil" goober CFI in a Cirrus completely boning one up. Also feel free to disregard his sophistry about "energy management in an emergency". That is categorically NOT why we do overhead breaks in the military. By that alone I already question his past affiliation with military aviation.
 
Lndwarrior said:
He explained that in the military it is standard practice is to do an overhead break to an "initial point". The initial point is apparently a point that is two miles out on final and on runway center line. The call "initial" is to communicate he is on "final for landing".
Click to expand...

hindsight2020 said:
The USAF pattern (those are AF calls btw, the Navy has a different nomenclature for their carrier ops, that's how I know this clown is ex USAF)...
Click to expand...
The AF really uses *initial* to refer to a point on final? The Navy uses initial as a point a few miles downwind *before* the overhead and break. I think something either got lost in translation or the subject was "doin' it wrong."

Nauga,
deep 180 with the gear
 
The op makes a good point here, calls like those are as useless as calling out that you are crossing the final approach fix on the RNAV 29.
 
Maybe next time the approach can be conducted without radio calls. That should eliminate any confusion about what is happening. :D
 
Complete pointless call. Altitude and position, please. Even in the military that's not a valid call. While the INITIAL might have a defined altitude, coming over the field heading for the initial doesn't imply that you're at that altitude.
 
wilkersk said:
This case sounds like just another legend-in-his-own-mind showing off. I try to interact as little as possible with them. Just another hazard to look out for. And, not worth the effort to try and educate them. They learn when they find it necessary to change their skivvies, or they don't.
Click to expand...

mryan75 said:
Two things: first, this clown needs to get the fact that we aren't in the military. Second, if someone is doing high speed low passes at a busy uncontrolled field, I would tell him once to cut it the hell out, and then I would report him to the FSDO. From what you are describing he is going to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Rgbeard said:
Condolences in advance to the family of the yet-to-be deceased.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The overhead break is now even in the AIM (doesn't mean that your average pattern smasher knows about it though). However, it's relegated there only for fields that have a tower to authorize it. Further, this "report" is meaningless with regard to even that procedure. The Initial is 3-5NM away from the runway and hopefully, if he is over the field heading for the initial, he's not blasting through a pattern at the pattern altitude. Absent an altitude the call has little value, and if he's above the pattern, it's largely spurious anyhow (though it gives others doing similar maneuvers a heads up I guess).

What 's really problematic with the military wannabe crowd around CJR when is they don't bother to freaking listen either or chose not to respond when asked for a precise altitude or position.

And if I hear one more TALLY HO or NO JOY in regard to an ATC traffic callout I'm going to puke.
 
Dean V said:
I doubt he doing low passes at 300 KIAS, but you might explain to this guy he never did overheads in to uncontrolled airports in the military.
Click to expand...
He may have, it happens.
 
We did overheads in the glider club I learned to fly in. Slightly different use case though as it tightens the pattern and gives the glider goober a good view of the runway before coming in, and all the currently on the ground glider goobers a heads up that someone is coming in if they don't have a radio.
 
The "overhead break" is conducive to BAD trouble with student pilots flying a rectangular "normal" pattern.
 
Did you reply that you are too close for missiles and switching to guns? :D
 
Arrow76R said:
The "overhead break" is conducive to BAD trouble with student pilots flying a rectangular "normal" pattern.
Click to expand...

Not as long as the aircraft in the break coordinates his timing with those already established in the pattern.

I'm not saying some goofball can't screw it all up or bastardize the term for guts and glory, but it isn't some dangerous wild maneuver to be afraid of either. I've seen people turn even regular patterns into something stupid and dangerous. Then again there are people that can't cross the road without getting hit either.
 
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...

It is way convenient. I agree. Especially with a slick airplane that's hard to slow down. But, it should not interfere with those established in the pattern.

dtuuri said:
Silence implies consent. "Neither endorsed nor prohibited" is a straw man statement, as if neither would be required. The AIM plainly states that overhead break patterns are "established" ones. They aren't impromptu, spur of the moment declarations by any random PIC.
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about AIM 5-4-27, where an arriving IFR aircraft requets to terminate in an overhead break. I don't believe that would preclude anyone from doing one at will at a non-towered airport.
 
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).
 
hindsight2020 said:
Here's an illustration of the overhead by a couple B-15s (I keed I keed :D)


And here's a supposed "ex mil" goober CFI in a Cirrus completely boning one up. Also feel free to disregard his sophistry about "energy management in an emergency". That is categorically NOT why we do overhead breaks in the military. By that alone I already question his past affiliation with military aviation.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Him describing to the student that the overhead was about 'in case the engine fails' is bovine poo poo. That's PPA's and SFO's. High Key and Low Key are the pertinant reporting points

3−10−13. SIMULATED FLAMEOUT (SFO)
APPROACHES/EMERGENCY LANDING
PATTERN (ELP) OPERATIONS/PRACTICE
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES
a. Authorize military aircraft to make SFO/ELP/
practice precautionary approaches if the following
conditions are met:
1. A letter of agreement or local operating
procedure is in effect between the military flying
organization and affected ATC facility.
(a) Include specific coordination, execution,
and approval procedures for the operation.
(b) The exchange or issuance of traffic
information as agreed to in any interfacility letter of
agreement is accomplished.
(c) Include a statement in the procedure that
clarifies at which points SFOs/ELPs may/may not be
terminated. (See FIG 3−10−14 and FIG 3−10−16.)
2. Traffic information regarding aircraft in radio
communication with or visible to tower controllers
which are operating within or adjacent to the
flameout maneuvering area is provided to the
SFO/ELP aircraft and other concerned aircraft.
3. The high-key altitude or practice precautionary
approach maneuvering altitudes of the aircraft
concerned are obtained prior to approving the
approach. (See FIG 3−10−14 and FIG 3−10−16.)
NOTE−
1. Practice precautionary/SFO/ELP approaches are
authorized only for specific aircraft. Any aircraft, however,
might make precautionary approaches, when engine
failure is considered possible. The practice precautionary
approach maneuvering area/altitudes may not conform to
the standard SFO/ELP maneuvering area/altitudes.
2. SFO/ELP approaches generally require high descent
rates. Visibility ahead and beneath the aircraft is greatly
restricted.
3. Pattern adjustments for aircraft conducting SFOs and
ELPs may impact the effectiveness of SFO and ELP
training.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 4−8−12, Low Approach and
Touch-and-Go.
FAA Order JO 7610.4, Para 9−3−7, Simulated Flameout
(SFO)/Emergency Landing Pattern (ELP) Operations.
b. For overhead SFO/ELP approaches:
1. Request a report at the entry point.
PHRASEOLOGY−
REPORT (high or low) KEY (as appropriate).
2. Request a report at low key.
PHRASEOLOGY−
REPORT LOW KEY.
3. At low key, issue low approach clearance or
alternate instructions.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−8−1, Sequence/Spacing Application.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 10−1−7, Inflight Emergencies Involving
Military Fighter-type Aircraft.
FAA Order JO 7610.4, Para 9−3−7, Simulated Flameout
(SFO)/Emergency Landing Pattern (ELP) Operations.
c. For straight−in simulation flameout
approaches:
1. Request a position report from aircraft
conducting straight−in SFO approaches.
PHRASEOLOGY−
REPORT (distance) MILE SIMULATED FLAMEOUT
FINAL.
2. At the appropriate position on final (normally
no closer than 3 miles), issue low approach clearance
or alternate instruction. (See FIG 3−10−15.)
 
nauga said:
The AF really uses *initial* to refer to a point on final? The Navy uses initial as a point a few miles downwind *before* the overhead and break. I think something either got lost in translation or the subject was "doin' it wrong."

Nauga,
deep 180 with the gear
Click to expand...

Navy/Marines typically have the Initial way out there, like 10 miles give or take. After reporting the Initial the Tower says "Report the Numbers." It's then that 'Break' is approved. Sometimes just that, sometimes with restrictions like 'west field boundary left break approved, etc. I've done it hundreds, probably thousands of times at 4 different Navy/Marine fields. Don't know for sure about Air Force but it seems from what I've heard the Initial is in close and at the Initial is when the approval for the Break is given. Someone I talked to once said they call it the 'pitch out' sometimes.
 
wilkersk said:
It is way convenient. I agree. Especially with a slick airplane that's hard to slow down.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about uncontrolled airports where no ATC requirements to keep speed up before they slam dunk you exist, then it's all on pilot competence. No need for wild and crazy flying.



wilkersk said:
I think you're talking about AIM 5-4-27, where an arriving IFR aircraft requets to terminate in an overhead break. I don't believe that would preclude anyone from doing one at will at a non-towered airport.
Click to expand...
Look at all the constraints above even when ATC is in charge. No way it makes sense to fly like that where such protections don't exist. Here are the parts of the paragraph in the AIM that describe what overhead patterns are while they discuss how to enter them from an IFR flight plan:

"Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver... 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."​

No "standard overhead maneuver pattern" in existence means "no dice" is what I believe.
 
As someone who approves the overhead pattern several times in a shift, I can tell you that are certain things in this thread that apparently aren't exactly understood. One, "initial" flown is at pattern altitude usually 3-5 miles from the approach end. Two, the break point at a towered airport is determined by the controller, not the pilot and sometimes it may be departure end, mid field etc in order to sequence traffic into other traffic on the downwind or entering the downwind. It also could be "break at your discretion" meaning there isn't anyone else to sequence you with, therefore, break whenever you like. As you see in the Cirrus video, it can be a very efficient means to enter the pattern to land. More efficient than say flying over the airfield at 500' above pattern altitude and dropping down to pattern altitude. Having said that, I wouldn't do it in my airplane at a non-towered airport because I don't know who else is out there without a radio. But would I do it at a towered airport? No because I would be considered a goober because initial is usually reserved for faster, high performance aircraft which I do not have but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It is actually less dangerous that say a simulated engine out short approach we all did in training, which isn't really dangerous at all.
 
Wow, all the haters need to calm down. I use the overhead regularly at civilian fields, mainly because the airplanes I’m flying won’t make the field during an engine failure if I follow the idiot flying a 747-sized pattern in his [insert light GA aircraft here]. The benefit to the overhead, in my mind, is being able to make the field in the event of an engine failure at any point. Check out the glide ratio in Pitts, RV-8 with the prop in fine, or SF-260 gear down with the flaps out and see why you want to be high and tight for the entire pattern.

I’m not saying to ignore all traffic, or that I haven’t brought those airplanes in for the straight in or joined the downwind when required by traffic volume, but my preference is the overhead.

But then again, I’m the dude who has told the guy on a 5-mile base in his Cherokee that I’m going to cut in front of him on a short approach....and be back to my parking spot before he’s on short final. Maybe I’m the problem. I just don’t enjoy being low, slow and without options in the event of the motor giving up the ghost.
 
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...

Nope, I don't spend time around warbirds.
I'm not current military.
I'm not ex-military.
I don't really know much military jargon.
I'm not a military wannabe that pretends to have had a glorious military career.
I don't spend time reading WarBirds Monthly.


I'm a civilian pilot, and when the military and I converge at a civilian airport, and we often do, I expect them to fly responsibly and communicate at a level where we can each understand each other. The real military pilots seem to do well at it.

I certainly celebrate our military pilots. I appreciate their service, and giving of themselves and their talents to our country. Their exhaust is the smell of US Democracy!

I've got little use for a wannabe tearing up a traffic pattern at 250kt shouting "I've got the ball" or whatever they'll say.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
But then again, I’m the dude who has told the guy on a 5-mile base in his Cherokee that I’m going to cut in front of him on a short approach....and be back to my parking spot before he’s on short final. Maybe I’m the problem. I just don’t enjoy being low, slow and without options in the event of the motor giving up the ghost.
Click to expand...

"Settle down Captain Happy....." :D

Jest aside, I think you overstate the merits of flying intial break patterns in these prop jobs, crappy glide ratio samples included, when juxtaposed against the opportunity cost of most civilians in a CTAF freq not having a clue where you are at. Again, just my opinion.

Don't misunderstand, I don't have a problem with the practice per se, I just find the mil humblebrag behind using USAF/USN comm in civilian exchange, beyond insufferable. I'm not saying you resemble the remark, but I've met my fair share of the type on the civilian side, and it just makes us look like complete douchenozzles as a collective. Part of the GA ambassadorship is being relatable. These self-important peacocking exchanges don't help the cause imo.

I'll still mock someone in public for wearing military gear in a civilian cabin, as a matter of principle. If we're going to go down the True Scotman fallacy of "real" mil pilots, having a thick skin seems a pretty universal litmus test for it right out the gate imo.
 
hindsight2020 said:
"Settle down Captain Happy....." :D

Jest aside, I think you overstate the merits of flying intial break patterns in these prop jobs, crappy glide ratio samples included, when juxtaposed against the opportunity cost of most civilians in a CTAF freq not having a clue where you are at. Again, just my opinion.

Don't misunderstand, I don't have a problem with the practice per se, I just find the mil humblebrag behind using USAF/USN comm in civilian exchange, beyond insufferable. I'm not saying you resemble the remark, but I've met my fair share of the type on the civilian side, and it just makes us look like complete douchenozzles as a collective. Part of the GA ambassadorship is being relatable. These self-important peacocking exchanges don't help the cause imo.

I'll still mock someone in public for wearing military gear in a civilian cabin, as a matter of principle. If we're going to go down the True Scotman fallacy of "real" mil pilots, having a thick skin seems a pretty universal litmus test for it right out the gate imo.
Click to expand...

I think we agree here. The IP's at Skywarrior wearing flight suits in Cessna 172's - douchey. Using .mil comm on CTAF for no reason, agreed - douchey. But calling the "initial for the overhead" is standard aviation comm (in as far as it is in the FAR/AIM. I've often requested the overhead from tower (and occasionally been offered it), and when I accept I'm told to report a 3 mile initial. Is the tower controller being a douche for using this "military" term? 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 on to my location...but that's not my going in gameplan.

I'm 100% about being relatable to GA. I grew up flying GA as a kid, and will continue to; but we all need to realize that there are nonstandard situations out there. A Pitts doing an overhead shouldn't be villainized anymore than a Piper Cub without a radio.

I was taught in my PPL training that you should always be able to make the field in an emergency, and having had a few engines quit in GA, I value being able to make the field. There are exceptions of course; and like anything good headwork should prevail, but to be honest I get a little hitch in my giddy-up when the guys flying 747 patterns call overhead traffic out for being [insert disparaging remark here]. There are valid reasons for using that approach. In a C-172 or Mooney with their awesome glide ratios, probably not so much.

Coming into civil fields in the work jet on the other hand, I'll generally opt for the straight in, because there is no practicality in the overhead in a twin-engine jet where I'm not concerned about engine failure.
 
Come in how ever you like, just explain your position in language a student pilot can understand and relate. "Initial point" and "break" are meaningless to many pilots including myself.
 
I think this thread is a learning opportunity for everyone saying they have no idea what an initial or overhead break call on the radio is. It is a common term, defined in the AIM, and is allowed terminology. Those saying they have no idea where or what it is, need to expand their aviation knowledge a little bit.

The maneuver is nothing special, nothing dangerous, is not considered hot dogging or showboating. Relax people...:dunno:
 
RhinoDrvr said:
<snip rant>
Coming into civil fields in the work jet on the other hand, I'll generally opt for the straight in, because there is no practicality in the overhead in a twin-engine jet where I'm not concerned about engine failure.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
I think this thread is a learning opportunity for everyone saying they have no idea what an initial or overhead break call on the radio is. It is a common term, defined in the AIM, and is allowed terminology. Those saying they have no idea where or what it is, need to expand their aviation knowledge a little bit.

The maneuver is nothing special, nothing dangerous, is not considered hot dogging or showboating. Relax people...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're an AIM wiz, I found it in the AIM, under IFR procedures, says it's not an IFR procedure but can be used. But I challenge you to explain how when I'm in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport I'm supposed to be able to figure out where you are from that announcement.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top