Request for an overhead question

[MachFly]

I'm trying to come with the best phraseology to request an overhead break approach from a civilian controller (at a class D airport). I want it to be as short as possible but I also want to be clearly understood.
I posted 4 options in the poll that I have tried using and they all worked, however I tried them all at my home airport and the controller recognizes me and knows what I'm going to ask (been doing it for a while now). Please select your favorite out of the four or "other" if you think there is a better way to phrase the request.

Thanks


P.S. Lets try not to turn this into a "whether an overhead is a good idea or not" discussion as we already have quite a few threads about it.

 

[Tracey]

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!).

 

[poadeleted20]

"Tower, Tahoe 11 flight of four, request the overhead." Unless you have a specific need for a particular runway or pattern direction, leave that out -- they'll tell you. No need to add "break to the downwind" or anything like that -- they are supposed to know what an overhead pattern is. If they want you on 21L with a left break, the response should be something like, "Tahoe 11, report 3-mile initial for runway 21 left, left break, [winds/altimeter]."

 

[MachFly]

"Tower, Tahoe 11 flight of four, request the overhead." Unless you have a specific need for a particular runway or pattern direction, leave that out -- they'll tell you. No need to add "break to the downwind" or anything like that -- they are supposed to know what an overhead pattern is.

That's a good point.
The guy that tough me to do originally didn't expect civilian controllers to be familiar with it so he told me to use "…request overhead runway 21L left break circle to land runway 21L". I used it a few times but then I removed everything after the first "21L", perhaps I should remove the runway number as well.

 

[MBDiagMan]

How about saving the overhead break for the next time you're in a combat zone?

 

[dennyleeb]

How about saving the overhead break for the next time you're in a combat zone?

this,

no need....

 

[steingar]

this,

no need....

Yeah, no need to hear from someone who might disagree with you. No need to hear from pilots who really don't want to share airspace with such antics.

 

[alfadog]

What is an "overhead break"?

Sounds like something you might find in a locomotive cab or my old apartment.

edit: nevermind - saw it in the other thread. Obviously, I have no opinion in this poll.

 

[gismo]

"Tower, Tahoe 11 flight of four, request the overhead." Unless you have a specific need for a particular runway or pattern direction, leave that out -- they'll tell you. No need to add "break to the downwind" or anything like that -- they are supposed to know what an overhead pattern is. If they want you on 21L with a left break, the response should be something like, "Tahoe 11, report 3-mile initial for runway 21 left, left break, [winds/altimeter]."

+1. Any tower controller should know what you're requesting with the word "overhead" although it might not hurt to add the word "approach" to that in case the last pilot they talked to asked to "fly overhead" when he meant transition. As to the left/right break, if you're already configured in echelon (IME common for newbie practice) when you call I'd add a direction to the request and hope they can grant your wish, otherwise make the request before going to echelon and let them choose the direction.

 

[dennyleeb]

Yeah, no need to hear from someone who might disagree with you. No need to hear from pilots who really don't want to share airspace with such antics.

?

Just saying what is the need? Is their a need for a overhead break in this instance? I don't think many pilots would know what he was doing if they were in the pattern or by the sound of this thread maybe not even the controller. Confussion among pilots and controllers is not a good thing. Now maybe he has to do so many a month at a civilian airport, I don't know.

 

[Gubbins]

How about:

"Tower, it's your lucky day. A highly skilled and Very Important Pilot is requesting an overhead approach for no real reason other than I want to impress everyone with my abilities. Everyone else on frequency, get your crap out of the way".



Just kidding. Why not save the antics at an uncontrolled field with nobody else around? Then you can have your fun.

 

[alfadog]

How about:

"Tower, it's your lucky day. A highly skilled and Very Important Pilot is requesting an overhead approach for no real reason other than I want to impress everyone with my abilities. Everyone else on frequency, get your crap out of the way".



Just kidding. Why not save the antics at an uncontrolled field with nobody else around? Then you can have your fun.

I would rather he was doing this at a controlled field where there is a prayer of separation. Prolly needs the longer runway, also.

 

[dennyleeb]

How about:

"Tower, it's your lucky day. A highly skilled and Very Important Pilot is requesting an overhead approach for no real reason other than I want to impress everyone with my abilities. Everyone else on frequency, get your crap out of the way".



Just kidding. Why not save the antics at an uncontrolled field with nobody else around? Then you can have your fun.

be careful steingar may get ya for saying things like this

 

[alfadog]

How about:

"Tower, it's your lucky day. A highly skilled and Very Important Pilot is requesting an overhead approach for no real reason other than I want to impress everyone with my abilities. Everyone else on frequency, get your crap out of the way".

"VIP 123 Tango, slow to 160 and make straight in. You are number three behind two Cessnas in the pattern. And give me a right 360 for spacing." :wink2:

 

[gismo]

For those of you who see no point in overhead approaches and are annoyed when other pilot perform them, consider the following:

An overhead approach is the only efficient and safe method for landing a group of airplanes flying in formation. This is a widely accepted fact among those who partake in formation flight and really shouldn't be disputed by anyone who hasn't trained for that. Even non formation pilots should be able to recognize that dumping a series of four or more airplanes onto a downwind leg with other airplanes in the pattern would be problematic for all involved. So that brings us to the question of why practice formation flight at all (or the more limited NIMBY question of why do it at MY airport). Clearly, outside the military there's no NEED to fly formation, those who engage in this activity do so because it's fun and challenging for the most part and I agree it's true they could live without it. But the same exact thing can be said for most personal flying, there's no real NEED for it and there are plenty of non-pilots (and more than one non-recreational pilot) who would be happy to regulate the recreational pilots out of the sky. My personal opinion is that all pilots should focus their ire on those who would deny us the privilege of flying for the enjoyment of it and quit b---ing about certain flying activities they don't happen to appreciate.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

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

 

[CJones]

For those of you who see no point in overhead approaches and are annoyed when other pilot perform them, consider the following:

An overhead approach is the only efficient and safe method for landing a group of airplanes flying in formation. This is a widely accepted fact among those who partake in formation flight and really shouldn't be disputed by anyone who hasn't trained for that. Even non formation pilots should be able to recognize that dumping a series of four or more airplanes onto a downwind leg with other airplanes in the pattern would be problematic for all involved. So that brings us to the question of why practice formation flight at all (or the more limited NIMBY question of why do it at MY airport). Clearly, outside the military there's no NEED to fly formation, those who engage in this activity do so because it's fun and challenging for the most part and I agree it's true they could live without it. But the same exact thing can be said for most personal flying, there's no real NEED for it and there are plenty of non-pilots (and more than one non-recreational pilot) who would be happy to regulate the recreational pilots out of the sky. My personal opinion is that all pilots should focus their ire on those who would deny us the privilege of flying for the enjoyment of it and quit b---ing about certain flying activities they don't happen to appreciate.

^^^ This.

 

[steingar]

For those of you who see no point in overhead approaches and are annoyed when other pilot perform them, consider the following:

An overhead approach is the only efficient and safe method for landing a group of airplanes flying in formation. This is a widely accepted fact among those who partake in formation flight and really shouldn't be disputed by anyone who hasn't trained for that. Even non formation pilots should be able to recognize that dumping a series of four or more airplanes onto a downwind leg with other airplanes in the pattern would be problematic for all involved. So that brings us to the question of why practice formation flight at all (or the more limited NIMBY question of why do it at MY airport). Clearly, outside the military there's no NEED to fly formation, those who engage in this activity do so because it's fun and challenging for the most part and I agree it's true they could live without it. But the same exact thing can be said for most personal flying, there's no real NEED for it and there are plenty of non-pilots (and more than one non-recreational pilot) who would be happy to regulate the recreational pilots out of the sky. My personal opinion is that all pilots should focus their ire on those who would deny us the privilege of flying for the enjoyment of it and quit b---ing about certain flying activities they don't happen to appreciate.

Which is all well and good performed well away from aviators who may not have a clue what's going on. When it gets mixed up with such, there is a potential compromise to safety.

And sorry, I've flown in formation and landed safely without an overhead break. It may be the best, but isn't the only. I've done things that are different from accepted practices. I am just very, very vigilant about not doing them in the presence of other aviators. Not because I'm worried about getting caught, but because I don't want my antics to imperil anyone else.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

For those of you who see no point in overhead approaches and are annoyed when other pilot perform them, consider the following:

An overhead approach is the only efficient and safe method for landing a group of airplanes flying in formation. This is a widely accepted fact among those who partake in formation flight and really shouldn't be disputed by anyone who hasn't trained for that. Even non formation pilots should be able to recognize that dumping a series of four or more airplanes onto a downwind leg with other airplanes in the pattern would be problematic for all involved. So that brings us to the question of why practice formation flight at all (or the more limited NIMBY question of why do it at MY airport). Clearly, outside the military there's no NEED to fly formation, those who engage in this activity do so because it's fun and challenging for the most part and I agree it's true they could live without it. But the same exact thing can be said for most personal flying, there's no real NEED for it and there are plenty of non-pilots (and more than one non-recreational pilot) who would be happy to regulate the recreational pilots out of the sky. My personal opinion is that all pilots should focus their ire on those who would deny us the privilege of flying for the enjoyment of it and quit b---ing about certain flying activities they don't happen to appreciate.

What's wrong with a level echelon left or right with each plane extending their downwind a little based on ground speed before turning base? I know from personal experience it works for C-130s.

 

[dell30rb]

Which is all well and good performed well away from aviators who may not have a clue what's going on. When it gets mixed up with such, there is a potential compromise to safety.

He is talking about doing one at a towered airport. Nothing wrong with that. I have seen a learjet do an overhead break at KILM, I was in the pattern. Tower coordinates and everything is fine.

 

[Inverted]

Its so funny how this debate always comes up. Its funny how lame and uptight pilots can be to things that are a little outside of the box. Does it hurt you if the guy requests an overhead? Having a little fun while flying won't kill you, hell you might even like it...

 

[steingar]

He is talking about doing one at a towered airport. Nothing wrong with that. I have seen a learjet do an overhead break at KILM, I was in the pattern. Tower coordinates and everything is fine.

Good point. The tower can say that such a maneuver is unavailable due to landing traffic.

I guess I was reacting to the "we don't want to hear it" and "they're absolutely necessary" comments.

 

[Inverted]

What's wrong with a level echelon left or right with each plane extending their downwind a little based on ground speed before turning base? I know from personal experience it works for C-130s.

I don't know how C-130s are operated in the Coast Guard, but ANG will fly overhead breaks all day everyday. It is SOP in every branch of military service. It is the best way to slow down, and not use up more real-estate.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I don't know how C-130s are operated in the Coast Guard, but ANG will fly overhead breaks all day everyday. It is SOP in every branch of military service. It is the best way to slow down, and not use up more real-estate.

I agree, and have flown many overheads....I was pointing out that they are not the "ONLY" way for a formation to enter a pattern, I added bold to the quote to make my intent clear. I got a kick out of standing the big old bird up on a wing and wrapping around.....everybody should try it at least once. But it is not the only way to integrate a formation into a pattern.

 

[Inverted]

Good point. The tower can say that such a maneuver is unavailable due to landing traffic.

I guess I was reacting to the "we don't want to hear it" and "they're absolutely necessary" comments.

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.

 

[dell30rb]

Good point. The tower can say that such a maneuver is unavailable due to landing traffic.

I guess I was reacting to the "we don't want to hear it" and "they're absolutely necessary" comments.

I think the consensus is that they don't have any place at busy uncontrolled airports. Main reason being that many pilots don't know what an overhead break is, where to look for traffic if someone announces an overhead break, and also the 45 degree entry or midfield crosswind entry are more efficient and acceptable ways to enter a busy uncontrolled pattern.

Outside of the busy uncontrolled airport, its an acceptable practice. The maneuver is listed in the AIM and controllers know how to coordinate an overhead break safely.

 

[Inverted]

I think the consensus is that they don't have any place at busy uncontrolled airports. Main reason being that many pilots don't know what an overhead break is, where to look for traffic if someone announces an overhead break, and also the 45 degree entry or midfield crosswind entry are more efficient and acceptable ways to enter a busy uncontrolled pattern.

Outside of the busy uncontrolled airport, its an acceptable practice. The maneuver is listed in the AIM and controllers know how to coordinate an overhead break safely.

As a private pilot I didn't know what an instrument approach really was. So when somebody says they are doing the RNAV 19L, do you automatically know exactly what they're doing? If not, what would you do? When in doubt, ASK! Whats wrong with a pilot asking over CTAF what an overhead break is?

Although I don't know how a pilot can't really figure it out, usually the phrase overhead break is followed by what traffic for what runway they are making...

 

[dennyleeb]

Which is all well and good performed well away from aviators who may not have a clue what's going on. When it gets mixed up with such, there is a potential compromise to safety.

And sorry, I've flown in formation and landed safely without an overhead break. It may be the best, but isn't the only. I've done things that are different from accepted practices. I am just very, very vigilant about not doing them in the presence of other aviators. Not because I'm worried about getting caught, but because I don't want my antics to imperil anyone else.

so you agree with me? because your first post sure did not seem like it

 

[steingar]

so you agree with me? because your first post sure did not seem like it

I don't think overhead breaks are "necessary" for much of anything. On the other hand I imagine they're a lot of fun. But since anyone not in the military might not know what to look out for, performing them in the midst of other landing traffic could easily compromise safety.

On the other hand, the OP is asking how to ask such a maneuver of a controller. That, in my opinion, it completely reasonable. The controller will know what other traffic is in the vicinity, and will (hopefully) only allow the maneuver if separation can be safely maintained. Under such conditions I do withdraw any of my negative comments, since the OP is acting responsibly. I would answer his original question except I am as clueless as he (probably even mores) as to what to say.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Given that the AIM uses the term "Overhead Approach Maneuver" or just "overhead maneuver" in the body of the text of 5-4-26 (but never just "overhead approach") - and unless there is some reason you want to request a specific runway rather than leaving that up to the controller - I would think either of the following would be concise and sufficient:

"... requesting overhead approach maneuver."

or

"... requesting overhead maneuver."

 

[Gubbins]

My personal opinion is that all pilots should focus their ire on those who would deny us the privilege of flying for the enjoyment of it and quit b---ing about certain flying activities they don't happen to appreciate.

Relax. There is no ire. We appreciate it and are terribly impressed.

 

[Jeanie]

Ok, that's it.. In the next few days when there isn't a soul around except the buzzards catching thermals I'm going to try an overhead break with a slipping turn base to final in the decathlon and just see what all the Hoo-hah is about. But, upright... I'll save the inverted stuff for my practice area

 

[Inverted]

Wait Jeanie... Slipping turns to final is very dangerous, non-standard and if somebody on downwind witnesses you doing this, their airplane explodes.

 

[Jeanie]

That's ok, I plan to be verrry stealth about it, no one but the cows and buzzards will witness my folly
And, if by chance someone does explode I hope they are wearing parachutes

 

[DavidWhite]

Another overhead break thread?

 

[MachFly]

Given that the AIM uses the term "Overhead Approach Maneuver" or just "overhead maneuver" in the body of the text of 5-4-26 (but never just "overhead approach") - and unless there is some reason you want to request a specific runway rather than leaving that up to the controller - I would think either of the following would be concise and sufficient:

"... requesting overhead approach maneuver."

or

"... requesting overhead maneuver."

I actually thought about that one and it just wounds weird. If the controlled is indeed familiar with the overhead would it be possible that he wont understand it because the word "maneuver" is missing? But if he's not familiar with the overhead, the word "maneuver" wont help him much.
What do you think?

 

[Jim Logajan]

I actually thought about that one and it just wounds weird. If the controlled is indeed familiar with the overhead would it be possible that he wont understand it because the word "maneuver" is missing? But if he's not familiar with the overhead, the word "maneuver" wont help him much.
What do you think?

I suspect the word "approach" is actually redundant, since context has presumably established that you intend to approach for landing. If we then toss out "maneuver" then all that is left is "... requesting overhead." The controller would then assume you were requesting an overhead projector so as to display PowerPoint slides.

Seriously I don't know what controllers are taught - nothing on the web seems to provide clarity on pilot phraesology. I would assume they should be able to handle the request in any of the forms you provided. Worse case is you have to rephrase using one of the alternates.

 

[DouglasBader]

How about saving the overhead break for the next time you're in a combat zone?

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.

 

[MachFly]

I suspect the word "approach" is actually redundant, since context has presumably established that you intend to approach for landing. If we then toss out "maneuver" then all that is left is "... requesting overhead." The controller would then assume you were requesting an overhead projector so as to display PowerPoint slides.

Your right at least one word has to accompany "overhead" to clearly explain your intentions.
Why do you say the word "approach" is redundant? As Gismo said on the previous page the word "overhead" alone can be misunderstood as you want to transition overhead instead of fly that type of approach.

 

[MachFly]

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.

That is a very good point.
You just gave me another good reason why I should use it as my SOP.