Request for an overhead question

[DouglasBader]

Your right at least one word has to accompany "overhead" to clearly explain your intentions.

Not necessarily. "Request left overhead to XX" is usually good enough.

 

[MachFly]

Not necessarily. "Request left overhead to XX" is usually good enough.

Yeah the runway number could also be an accompanying word.
However as Capt. Ron explained on the first page it's not always a good idea to request a specific runway number.

 

[DouglasBader]

Why is it not a good idea to request a specific runway? You're not planning on landing on more than one, are you?

 

[MachFly]

Why is it not a good idea to request a specific runway? You're not planning on landing on more than one, are you?

Unless you have a specific need to land on that runway perhaps it's better to let ATC choose?


But then again you do ask for a specific runway when taking off

 

[Tracey]

I would rather he was doing this at a controlled field where there is a prayer of separation.

FWIW, I completely agree with this. I always feel "safer" (still "on guard" though) at a controlled field. I'm learning at an uncontrolled field and some of the things that I've seen there.... ho boy.

 

[DouglasBader]

One has more than a prayer of separation at an uncontrolled airport. One is fully responsible for separation, and if one can't assure that, one has no business being there in the first place.

The overhead approach is an excellent means of putting one's self in the ideal spot to observe all traffic operations to the runway, and to be seen. It's an excellent way to blend with traffic and set up the landing.

Unless you have a specific need to land on that runway perhaps it's better to let ATC choose?

If you've monitored ATIS, you already know which runway is in use. Likewise, if you're monitoring the traffic you already know this. If you have a different runway in mind, of course, you'll cite the specific runway.

Specifying the runway, even if it's the runway in use, makes your intent and request clear.

If one requests an approach and is cleared and approach without citing the runway, one is cleared to any runway. If one requests an approach to a specific runway and is subsequently cleared as requested, one has a clearance to that runway.

If I approach an airport where landing traffic has a slight tailwind, I may determine I want a different runway. I'll tell ATC what I want. I had a problem several years ago involving a hydraulic failure in a conventional gear airplane. When I arrived at the fields, winds weren't favoring the runway in use. The one I needed was closed, with men and equipment on the runway. I requested the closed runway specifically because it better suited my needs, and the barricades were moved, and the workers and equipment removed.

You could wait to see what's given you, but why not be assertive and specific in your request. After all, you're requesting a specific type of arrival that not everyone will necessarily be using. Why not specify the runway, as well?

But then again you do ask for a specific runway when taking off

Sure. Why not? If I want something other than what's in use, yes. If I want or need that runway. If I'm going to do a normal departure like everyone else that day and plan to use the same runway, then there's no reason to specify. However, the overhead arrival and pattern isn't often what everyone else is using, and if I'm going to do an unusual departure then I'll specify it along with the runway I need.

It's not uncommon to have an unfavorable runway in use; perhaps the weather or winds have changed since they began flying approaches to that runway or since they began filling that pattern; that doesn't mean I want to use that runway for takeoff or landing. At some busy places, my request won't make much difference; JFK isn't going to change the New York area procedures because I say so. l the local airport, on the other hand, often will. Furthermore, everyone may be content flying off with a strong crosswind in their tricycle airplanes, but I might want something more aligned with the wind if I'm in a conventional gear airplane. Ask for what you need, or state it up front. Plain English still works just fine.

 

[MachFly]

If you've monitored ATIS, you already know which runway is in use. Likewise, if you're monitoring the traffic you already know this. If you have a different runway in mind, of course, you'll cite the specific runway.

Specifying the runway, even if it's the runway in use, makes your intent and request clear.

If one requests an approach and is cleared and approach without citing the runway, one is cleared to any runway. If one requests an approach to a specific runway and is subsequently cleared as requested, one has a clearance to that runway.

If I approach an airport where landing traffic has a slight tailwind, I may determine I want a different runway. I'll tell ATC what I want. I had a problem several years ago involving a hydraulic failure in a conventional gear airplane. When I arrived at the fields, winds weren't favoring the runway in use. The one I needed was closed, with men and equipment on the runway. I requested the closed runway specifically because it better suited my needs, and the barricades were moved, and the workers and equipment removed.

You could wait to see what's given you, but why not be assertive and specific in your request. After all, you're requesting a specific type of arrival that not everyone will necessarily be using. Why not specify the runway, as well?



Sure. Why not? If I want something other than what's in use, yes. If I want or need that runway. If I'm going to do a normal departure like everyone else that day and plan to use the same runway, then there's no reason to specify. However, the overhead arrival and pattern isn't often what everyone else is using, and if I'm going to do an unusual departure then I'll specify it along with the runway I need.

It's not uncommon to have an unfavorable runway in use; perhaps the weather or winds have changed since they began flying approaches to that runway or since they began filling that pattern; that doesn't mean I want to use that runway for takeoff or landing. At some busy places, my request won't make much difference; JFK isn't going to change the New York area procedures because I say so. l the local airport, on the other hand, often will. Furthermore, everyone may be content flying off with a strong crosswind in their tricycle airplanes, but I might want something more aligned with the wind if I'm in a conventional gear airplane. Ask for what you need, or state it up front. Plain English still works just fine.

I see your point and I honestly don't know which option is best.
As you described your asking for an unusual approach so might as well specify the runway to make it more clear, this makes perfect sense. On the other hand you don't want to be telling your whole life story on the radio so the request needs to be as short and clear as possible so the runway number is not necessarily needed, and this also makes perfect sense.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Chuck Norris doesn't request overhead breaks. Chuck Norris IS an overhead break.

 

[MachFly]

The overhead approach is an excellent means of putting one's self in the ideal spot to observe all traffic operations to the runway, and to be seen. It's an excellent way to blend with traffic and set up the landing.

I think that an overhead approach is a great idea but I'm not sure if I agree with you on this.
When your typical civilian pilot is flying a downwind of an untowered airport he is looking at the traffic that's in the downwind right in front of him and at the traffic entering the downwind on the 45, he isn't looking at the traffic over the runway because it's not supposed to be there. So based on this I don't understand why it's a great way to be seen because no one is looking there.

 

[MachFly]

Chuck Norris doesn't request overhead breaks. Chuck Norris IS an overhead break.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I'm in a combat zone, and I don't normally fly an overhead; most of my arrivals are straight in, as are nearly all arrivals. A few fast moving tactical aircraft fly overheads, but most aircraft don't.

One of the safest patterns you can fly, especially in a light airplane, is an overhead. I frequently use overhead patterns in light aircraft. It puts you eight hundred or a thousand feet over the threshold, where most traffic is not. You get to see a good picture of the left and right downwinds, and it's easier to merge with traffic in either case. Just adjust the point at which the turn begins.

With an overhead, there's no question that you can make the runway if a power loss occurs at any point during the maneuver, because you can manage that,and are always in a position to land.

There's nothing dramatic about flying an overhead. It's an appropriate pattern, and an acceptable one. It needn't be flown every time, but I prefer it and often use it where able.

As for phraseology, a simple request such as "Request left overhead for 18" does the trick. You either can, or can't. If you can't get approval, then do something else. Not a big deal. If it's uncontrolled, then use your best judgement. I do overheads at uncontrolled fields all the time. I find it puts me in the best position to be searching for traffic and reduces pattern time.

Using good JUDGMENT! That's the key.

Last year we had a couple of aircraft come into our little field doing an overhead break while a cropduster was on final. They obviously DID NOT use good judgment. It could have been ugly.

The opposite of that is Jeanie's description of her intentions. She is going to make sure no one is around her lightly used airport and give it a try. That appears to be GOOD judgment.

BTW, I'm not going to mention the type of experimental aircraft that buzzed our crop duster for fear of starting a fire storm.

 

[DouglasBader]

Certainly good judgement is always essential and the key to safe operation.

As a long-time ago operator, I know that I never rely on radio calls to find traffic for me; I look for traffic as though my life depends upon it, because it does. An aircraft descending in an overhead while I'm on final is something I can see, because it's above and I'm always looking for traffic (especially low, landing, near an airport where traffic tends to congregate).

The overhead still allows the best opportunity to see other traffic, both for the aircraft on final, and the aircraft in the overhead.

 

[SRQWingnut]

"Negative Ghostrider...the pattern is full."

Excellent! ROFLMAO!

 

[kimberlyanne546]

As a student, I would vote for the first phrase, only I would add "break" after "overhead."

(And if I heard that while flying, I would be very grateful for this board-- as I already am-- since it's here that I learned what "overhead break" even means!).

Me too I never knew what it meant until POA and it sounds horrible with the word "break" if you do not know the meaning.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless you have a specific need to land on that runway perhaps it's better to let ATC choose?

Exactly.

But then again you do ask for a specific runway when taking off

Only if you have a specific need. Otherwise, ground will tell you where they want you.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's interesting to hear all the yammer complaining about the dangers of an overhead break, but I'll bet most of the complainers wouldn't have a problem with someone flying an upwind entry to the "textbook" pattern. Fact is, there isn't a lot of difference between the two.

 

[kkoran]

A flight of two RV-4s saying they "need" the overhead is insane I think everyone can agree. But it doesn't mean it can't be requested, or declared, and performed smoothly.

Think about when GA aircraft operate at an airport where military operations take place daily. You are operating in their airspace, and they aren't going to discontinue procedure because a Cherokee 140 doesn't want them to do it. There never seems to be a problem or complaint out of any of these airports, it is the GA airports where people feel the need to complain.

I never, ever perform an overhead break with the intent on acting like there is nobody else in the pattern, and take over the airspace. Even at an uncontrolled airport if we do an overhead, and there is an aircraft where I want to start the break, I will wait, as should everyone who is doing a non-standard pattern maneuver.

I have been more inconvenienced by pilots on a 5 mile final who throw the gear down and 40 degrees of flaps than I have by overhead breaks.

Unless it's a military airfield, it's not their airspace.

 

[MachFly]

Only if you have a specific need. Otherwise, ground will tell you where they want you.

I don't have a specific need but I can't think of a good way to work the request to taxi without specifying the runway #. Some people say "...taxi to the active...", but what is the active? The "active" is whatever runway someone happens to be using at the moment and unless you know what that runway it is it's not a good idea to say that. The only thing this leaves me with is saying "...taxi [runway #]...".

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't have a specific need but I can't think of a good way to work the request to taxi without specifying the runway #. Some people say "...taxi to the active...", but what is the active? The "active" is whatever runway someone happens to be using at the moment and unless you know what that runway it is it's not a good idea to say that. The only thing this leaves me with is saying "...taxi [runway #]...".

"Salisbury Ground, Tiger 22RL at T-hangar 44, taxi, VFR, southwestbound." (No ATIS at SBY)

 

[denverpilot]

It's interesting to hear all the yammer complaining about the dangers of an overhead break, but I'll bet most of the complainers wouldn't have a problem with someone flying an upwind entry to the "textbook" pattern. Fact is, there isn't a lot of difference between the two.

The original "yammer" was about overhead breaks into busy uncontrolled patterns by single-ship RVs, but has now been extended to Tower controlled Ops, PoA-style.

 

[BillTIZ]

I don't have a specific need but I can't think of a good way to work the request to taxi without specifying the runway #. Some people say "...taxi to the active...", but what is the active? The "active" is whatever runway someone happens to be using at the moment and unless you know what that runway it is it's not a good idea to say that. The only thing this leaves me with is saying "...taxi [runway #]...".

Our ATIS will normally say "departing runway 7, 12left and 12right".
So our call up would be "North Las Vegas ground, Nxxxxx, north shades, VFR departure SW, negative Class b, with Zulu"

Tower will pick the runway, normally taxi to Rwy 7 at Golf, hold short. Once in position, call tower, Nxxxxx, ready Rwy 7 at Golf. We will either get a clearance for Rwy 7 cleared for takeoff, right turnout, or we'll get cross Rwy 7, taxi Rwy 12R, hold short. And later get cleared for takeoff on 12R, tight turnout.

 

[MachFly]

Our ATIS will normally say "departing runway 7, 12left and 12right".
So our call up would be "North Las Vegas ground, Nxxxxx, north shades, VFR departure SW, negative Class b, with Zulu"

Tower will pick the runway, normally taxi to Rwy 7 at Golf, hold short. Once in position, call tower, Nxxxxx, ready Rwy 7 at Golf. We will either get a clearance for Rwy 7 cleared for takeoff, right turnout, or we'll get cross Rwy 7, taxi Rwy 12R, hold short. And later get cleared for takeoff on 12R, tight turnout.

"Salisbury Ground, Tiger 22RL at T-hangar 44, taxi, VFR, southwestbound." (No ATIS at SBY)

Interesting, I have not heard that before.
It certainly makes sense. Because if your taxing somewhere else on the airport you'd say "reposition" and since your giving them the direction in which your departing there is only one place you can want to taxi to.
But I don't think I'll use it, I'm just way too used to giving them the runway number.

 

[MachFly]

The original "yammer" was about overhead breaks into busy uncontrolled patterns by single-ship RVs, but has now been extended to Tower controlled Ops, PoA-style.

lol
..

 

[boilert]

As someone who has done countless overheads in the T-6, T-1, and even now in the KC-135 (as well as in the DA-20 during the Air Force's intro flight screening program) at both military and civilian airfields, the correct request should be "Request to report a 3 mile initial for the overhead, rwy XX".

The initial point is your entry into the VFR pattern (see diagram below from the AIM), you fly to it just like you would if you were shooting a visual approach. From there you will fly rwy hdg up the runway, at the specified altitude - usually TPA but some fields have a different altitude for the overhead pattern - until the breakpoint (anywhere between the approach end and the first 3,000' of the runway, or as tower directed). Many civilian fields will have you report the break, just to assist them in sequencing traffic. The break is more often than not a LEVEL TURN.

Once on downwind, you slow and configure, and it's all normal normal from there. It's not cosmic, although it can be pretty nonstandard for many people who don't regularly practice it. One of the benefits (yes yes other than formation) is that it allows you to keep a clean configuration and cruising speed all the way until you break. I don't just roll up to a busy civilian field and start demanding the overhead just because I know how to. But if there isn't any traffic, why the heck not?

AIM Figure 5-4-30: