Pattern Madness

EdFred said:
Database is updated every 28 days. Sits right next to my 430.
Click to expand...

What is the make of your synthetic vision device? I'd be really interested in one at under $2k..
 
BellyUpFish said:
I wasn't dragging anyone into anything. I made a statement about people getting their panties in a bunch over the overhead break and several commented about how dangerous they were. I made no statements about the abilities, etc of the airshow circuit performers. They are great folk. I have taken several "courses" given by Greg Koontz - awesome fellow. I in no shape for form was attempt to take anything from these professionals. I *think* my reply was to someone saying people only come to see the crashes at airshows.

I made a statement about the death ratio of professional, highly trained pilots dying during closed airshow performances - Jim LeRoy, Younkin, Franklin, Amanda Younkin-Franklin, etc, etc, etc, etc versus the number of people who have died from "non-professional" pilots doing the overhead break.

This thread started out a rant about the OB when the OP wasn't even "accosted" during an overhead break, then it turned into a thread about the OB being safe if done at the correct altitude and it's been all over the board ever since.

If you'll go back and read what I said, without TRYING to find fault in my comments, it might read differently.
Click to expand...

such is the wonderful world of free internet forum
 
Panew said:
such is the wonderful world of free internet forum
Click to expand...

Great, isn't it?

Does anyone have a link to the Sonex video everyone is talking about? I'd love to see it.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Just curious, can you point to a poster who has stated it is a MUST do?
Click to expand...

Read it again, see if it wasn't posted as a question..why try to make it some thing it isn't?

But answer this, If it is such a great method of pattern entry, why doesn't the FAA advise us to do them?

The FAA advises us to do the 45 into the down wind, but does not make any other method of entry illegal, can you tell me why?
 
Tom-D said:
Read it again, see if it wasn't posted as a question..why try to make it some thing it isn't?
Click to expand...

It's not a must do, Tom. I don't think anyone is trying to make it a must do. Why act like people are trying to make it a must do?

Tom-D said:
But answer this, If it is such a great method of pattern entry, why doesn't the FAA advise us to do them?
Click to expand...

No one has said it's a great entry. No one has said it's the best entry. Entering the pattern is much like getting into a hold. The entries are.. wait for it.. wait for it.. recommended, not mandatory.

I can recommend this thread go away.
Does it mean it must?

Tom-D said:
The FAA advises us to do the 45 into the down wind, but does not make any other method of entry illegal, can you tell me why?
Click to expand...

Because most likely, the 45* to the down wind RECOMMENDED entry is probably the safest among all options. The FAA is out there to play the "safest possible" method game.

Do you only partake in FAA recommended activities?
 
Panew said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ3_ZaVJms
Click to expand...

OK, what is the major hub-bub about this video?

Acro in IMC conditions I guess? (while some are acting like only experimental drivers do this, the closest I've ever been to a mid-air was between our Jetstream 32 and a Cessna 172 with a pilot wearing a red shirt - playing in the clouds while not on an IFR flight) while going into Marion, Il.

Does anyone know if they were on an IFR clearance with a block altitude and section to fly in?

I've gotten block X to Y from radial A to B at Q miles off of VOR G and played all over the clouds..

Do we know this didn't happen?
 
Last edited:
BellyUpFish said:
OK, what is the major hub-bub about this video?

Acro in IMC conditions I guess?

Does anyone know if they were on an IFR clearance with a block altitude and section to fly in?

I've gotten block X to Y from radial A to B at Q miles off of VOR G and played all over the clouds..

Do we know this didn't happen?
Click to expand...

Because the kid flying the plane wasn't IR. Also got in trouble with the FSDO when they saw the video.
 
EdFred said:
Wrong answer again.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm very curious about what Synthetic Vision system you have, too. If you don't mind sharing I would appreciate it. There are lots of folks out there that could use this for panel upgrades, or whatever. :)
 
BellyUpFish said:
Cherokee 140's are the only production aircraft out there?

Ron flys a Grumman.
Click to expand...

If you read the post I quoted, he said "That stuff happens in every make and model, production or otherwise."
 
Bob Noel said:
If you read the post I quoted, he said "That stuff happens in every make and model, production or otherwise."
Click to expand...
And I'll stand by that statement -- I can't think of a single make/model of light aircraft in which I haven't seen someone do something stupid.
 
Ron Levy said:
The overhead is supposed to be flown at the appropriate TPA with a level break to the downwind. No descent until passing the abeam position. At least, that's what it says in the Navy, Air Force, FAST and FFI manuals. The idea of flying the upwind leg 500 above TPA and doing a diving turn into the downwind is not to my knowledge part of any of those groups' procedures.
Click to expand...

Unless I am misreading the procedure in the definition, it seems that 500 feet above TPA is how the FAA defines the usual approach for this maneuver; here is the text from the Pilot/Controller glossary:
OVERHEAD MANEUVER- A series of predetermined maneuvers prescribed for aircraft (often in formation) for entry into the visual flight rules (VFR) traffic pattern and to proceed to a landing. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument flight rules (IFR) approach procedure. An aircraft executing an overhead maneuver is considered VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the "initial point" on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. The pattern usually specifies the following:
a. The radio contact required of the pilot.
b. The speed to be maintained.
c. An initial approach 3 to 5 miles in length.
d. An elliptical pattern consisting of two 180 degree turns.
e. A break point at which the first 180 degree turn is started.
f. The direction of turns.
g. Altitude (at least 500 feet above the conventional pattern).
h. A "Roll-out" on final approach not less than 1/4 mile from the landing threshold and not less than 300 feet above the ground.
​
Link:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/O.HTM


Here is the information in the current AIM:
5-4-27. Overhead Approach Maneuver ​
a. 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 5-4-30.) 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:
1. Pattern altitude and direction of traffic. This information may be omitted if either is standard.
PHRASEOLOGY-
PATTERN ALTITUDE (altitude). RIGHT TURNS.
2. Request for a report on initial approach.
PHRASEOLOGY-
REPORT INITIAL.
3. “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.


F0504027.gif


​
Link: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0504.html#Va821cROBE
 
(Maybe I should have waited for 500 messages to be posted before posting one with a definition of the maneuver mentioned by the OP. Sorry for posting it so early in the thread!)
 
zaitcev said:
What was the mod? The current cutout still seems extremely claustrophobic to me even now.
Click to expand...

There really is no mod. The TERPs define the airspace, and it's been 1500 [-8000] AGL Class D (while tower open) then back to 1000 [-7000] AGL Class E when the tower is closed. There was a slight change to the IFR procedure for rwy 26 from the east, raising the approach from 7100 to 7200 while in Class B (2nd ring of Denver) but airspace there is 8000 anyway. It just cleaned up the ILS to 26.

For those not familiar with FTG, we live cutout shaped like the lower-right 1/4 of a pie within the SFC-120 inner circle of Denver's Class B. Rarely bothers any of us, but commercial airlines coming in on Denver's 26 runways often have TCAS blaring at them if we're flying NE. We're in our airspace, can't help it if you get TCAS warnings.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Unless I am misreading the procedure in the definition, it seems that 500 feet above TPA is how the FAA defines the usual approach for this maneuver;
Click to expand...
These are usually done by high performance tactical jets whose recommended TPA is 500 above the "standard" TPA regardless of the entry, although they're still done with a level turn to downwind. If done in a light plane, entry at the regular light plane TPA is appropriate, and recommended by FAA-recognized civilian formation certification groups like FFI, although this should be coordinated with the tower at a towered airport.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver.
Click to expand...

Jim Logajan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think those two sentences are quite telling in the overall discussion.

If an accident occurs at an uncontrolled airport, you suppose folks could prove an "operational need" for an RV or any other light/slow aircraft doing an OB into a busy pattern?

You'd either have to do it in front of an ALJ to keep your ticket if you survived, or the lawyers would bring it up in the Civil case brought by the family of the dead spam-can driver against your Estate and your surviving family.

FAA has set the stage. All that's needed now is a fatal accident to pull the trigger in court that would give 'em a leg to stand on to ban it.

It's not too hard to see when you're being set up by government lawyers, is all I'm sayin'.
 
denverpilot said:
You'd either have to do it in front of an ALJ to keep your ticket if you survived, or the lawyers would bring it up in the Civil case brought by the family of the dead spam-can driver against your Estate and your surviving family.
Click to expand...

It'd be a shame as well if the crash involved another experimental driver.

The same could be said if you lose your engine during climbout in a spam-can. The house you land on could very well sue just as easily as the family of one who was involved in a mid-air.
 
Ron Levy said:
These are usually done by high performance tactical jets whose recommended TPA is 500 above the "standard" TPA regardless of the entry, although they're still done with a level turn to downwind. If done in a light plane, entry at the regular light plane TPA is appropriate, and recommended by FAA-recognized civilian formation certification groups like FFI, although this should be coordinated with the tower at a towered airport.
Click to expand...

The definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary is vague on those sorts of details, so I could see civilian pilots filling in the gaps using their own judgements and still stay true to the glossary definition.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary is vague on those sorts of details, so I could see civilian pilots filling in the gaps using their own judgements and still stay true to the glossary definition.
Click to expand...

... which is where most likely the guys I fly with got the idea. I can still see the logic of both sides of the equation.

If you enter at 500' above the rest of the pattern, that reduces the risk of a face to face collision, you are above the rest of the pattern. Which is why I always assumed we flew the pattern 500' in the 121 environment, but perhaps not.

It seems, to me, entering the pattern in a 6 ship at TPA is asking for even more issues.

I'm not sure why the 500' high makes it such bad ju-ju in some minds. If I solo and am coming from the cross wind to the downwind, I won't blast across the crosswind to the downwind at pattern altitude to stay above those in the pattern, but maybe this is me being dangerous.
 
Ron Levy said:
These are usually done by high performance tactical jets whose recommended TPA is 500 above the "standard" TPA regardless of the entry, although they're still done with a level turn to downwind. If done in a light plane, entry at the regular light plane TPA is appropriate, and recommended by FAA-recognized civilian formation certification groups like FFI, although this should be coordinated with the tower at a towered airport.
Click to expand...


If you do them at TPA, how do you keep the airspace between the guy on final and the TPA free?
 
The system I have is found at http://www.aviationsafety.com/

In full disclosure It does NOT have a flight director, or a speed tape, and I got mine for under $2000 (The FL650) because I was a return customer and got $300 knocked off the price. I have used the HITS portion of it and it works good, and while flying back over the Appalachians near AVL the synthetic did match exactly what I was seeing out the big screen. I have not hooked up the external gyro to the unit so I do not know if the terrain will tilt and show an EXACT view of what's outside. When I used it, the unit displayed the terrain as if I was flying straight and level, and any turns made while using the SV kept the horizon level. Of course with the unit you get every plate, and chart in the US.
 
BellyUpFish said:
The same could be said if you lose your engine during climbout in a spam-can. The house you land on could very well sue just as easily as the family of one who was involved in a mid-air.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the insurance company lawyers would be defending that one. They might not in the other case.
 
Henning said:
If you do them at TPA, how do you keep the airspace between the guy on final and the TPA free?
Click to expand...

Well when I teach patterns to my students we lose about 200' on downwind after we are abeam the numbers, lose another 400' on base, and lose the rest on final. (800' pattern at my field, lose 300',400',300' on 1000' fields). So someone on final should be at about 600' below someone coming in at a TPA OH maneuver.
 
EdFred said:
The system I have is found at http://www.aviationsafety.com/

In full disclosure It does NOT have a flight director, or a speed tape, and I got mine for under $2000 (The FL650) because I was a return customer and got $300 knocked off the price. I have used the HITS portion of it and it works good, and while flying back over the Appalachians near AVL the synthetic did match exactly what I was seeing out the big screen. I have not hooked up the external gyro to the unit so I do not know if the terrain will tilt and show an EXACT view of what's outside. When I used it, the unit displayed the terrain as if I was flying straight and level, and any turns made while using the SV kept the horizon level. Of course with the unit you get every plate, and chart in the US.
Click to expand...

Pretty cool.. We bounced back and forth between the Dynon SkyView and just getting the FlightDek and wound up with the FlightDek.
 
BellyUpFish said:
If you enter at 500' above the rest of the pattern, that reduces the risk of a face to face collision, you are above the rest of the pattern. Which is why I always assumed we flew the pattern 500' in the 121 environment, but perhaps not.
Click to expand...
The FAA recommends that large/fast aircraft fly the pattern 500 above the light planes so they don't run them over, or have problems with the light planes flying inside them (typically 3/4 mile abeam, which is a lot tighter than you can do in a Lear or 757).

It seems, to me, entering the pattern in a 6 ship at TPA is asking for even more issues.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't make any difference trying to fit 6 aircraft into the flow, and diving into the downwind would only make things worse. If you've got a 6-ship and a busy pattern at a nontowered airport, you either work it out on CTAF (and keep your eyes peeled for the no-radio joker in the pack) or come up with Plan B, which will be a lot less efficient, but may be necessary. Being able to think on the fly is probably the hardest part of being a good flight lead, and the reason that the flight lead is normally the most capable and experienced formation flyer in the flight. That's why FFI requires (among other things) 40 hours formation time, one year as a wingman, and twenty flights in a 4-ship formation (five as a flight lead under the tutelage of a qualified flight lead in the formation) to be eligible for a flight lead checkride.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
If you do them at TPA, how do you keep the airspace between the guy on final and the TPA free?
Click to expand...
Typically, we hit 3 miles out at 1500 AGL (well above even a jet flying a straight-in), descending to TPA at 1 mile, then level off and drive in to the break point at TPA. If someone is at TPA a mile out on final, I'll work that out, but I can't think of what anyone else not flying an upwind entry would be doing there, and if they are, we'll follow them.
 
BellyUpFish said:
You might live through your commute to work. You might not.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to my point that FAA has already been pretty clear that they're not enthusiastic about aircraft that don't need OBs doing OBs.

You going to refute it, or just babble about automotive stuff? All participants on the road to work also signed up for the rules of the road when they were issued a driver's license, and the accidents are caused by those who don't follow them.

We call them, "Bad drivers". Are you saying we shouldn't apply the same logic to those who use the OB indiscriminately?

Just wondering what your point was...
 
denverpilot said:
Which is irrelevant to my point that FAA has already been pretty clear that they're not enthusiastic about aircraft that don't need OBs doing OBs.
Click to expand...

I apologize, I guess I'm cherry picking now. ;)

You can live your life based on might, all you want. If I did or did not do things based solely on what might happen, I might not get out of bed at all.
 
denverpilot said:
Which is irrelevant to my point that FAA has already been pretty clear that they're not enthusiastic about aircraft that don't need OBs doing OBs.
Click to expand...
If you're involved in FAA-sanctioned formation flying, you know that the FAA has made it equally clear that they understand the operational need for overhead break entries by formations, whether they're F-18's or RV-8's or AA-5B's.
 
denverpilot said:
Which is irrelevant to my point that FAA has already been pretty clear that they're not enthusiastic about aircraft that don't need OBs doing OBs.

...
Click to expand...

Just curious. Where has the FAA said "they'renot enthusiastic" about the OB? Don't want to wade through 20 pages of posts to find the reference if there is one.
 
Hey look! Someplace else to express your opinion.

my email today said:
WASHINGTON - More than 5,000 E-AB owners, operators and
builders have responded to an invitation by both the
National Transportation Safety Board and the Experimental
Aircraft Association (EAA) to complete a survey on how E-AB
aircraft are built and operated so safety issues in this
sector of general aviation can be better understood.

On July 14, 2011, the NTSB announced that it had undertaken
a comprehensive safety study of E-AB aircraft with the
support of the EAA, which is hosting the web-based survey,
the results of which are being shared with the NTSB.

"We are very encouraged by the impressive number of
responses to the EAA survey," said Deborah A.P. Hersman.
"The more information that is provided to EAA about how the
more than 33,000 E-AB aircraft in the U.S. are built and
operated, the better we'll be able to understand the safety
issues that are so important to this innovative community."

The EAA has announced that their survey will remain open
through August 31, 2011.

Owners, operators and builders of E-AB aircraft who have not
yet completed the survey are encouraged to do so at
www.EAA.org/AB-Survey.


RELATED MATERIAL

Press release announcing E-AB study: http://go.usa.gov/k2P

###

NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
(202) 314-6100
peter.knudson@ntsb.gov
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
The system I have is found at http://www.aviationsafety.com/

In full disclosure It does NOT have a flight director, or a speed tape, and I got mine for under $2000 (The FL650) because I was a return customer and got $300 knocked off the price. I have used the HITS portion of it and it works good, and while flying back over the Appalachians near AVL the synthetic did match exactly what I was seeing out the big screen. I have not hooked up the external gyro to the unit so I do not know if the terrain will tilt and show an EXACT view of what's outside. When I used it, the unit displayed the terrain as if I was flying straight and level, and any turns made while using the SV kept the horizon level. Of course with the unit you get every plate, and chart in the US.
Click to expand...

this is neither a PFD, nor certified.

you are like that kid holding up an Aera and says: look, I have a glass panel.


I apologize, I guess I'm nitpicking now.

Go on, you can live your life based on your convoluted twisted mind, all you want. Hold on to your crotch when you see a Rotax crotch rocket overhead. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Are those Bonanza's to Oshkosh photos? Nice B2O shots, if they are.

They don't do an overhead break at Whittman, AFAIK. ;) (Now that I think about it, I've never seen them actually arrive, nor read their FAA waiver... but I know C2O doesn't do a break.)

Looks like fun. No doubt about it. C2O was fun too.

Nothing against formation flying (done right, with training), nothing against the OB itself per se.

Just against a gaggle of aircraft showing up of *any* type in formation to a busy pattern and doing them when the option is there to just enter the pattern like anyone else would.

I know, I know, no one wants to hear, "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full." ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top