Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits. Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.


gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.


There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:21:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make tâ„¢e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins. Others
may tend to disagree (like me for instance). That's just the way the
world works sometimes.... 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done
at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as
safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an overhead
break or an overhead approach. My best guess is that a couple of local "hot
doggers" are simply calling their activity an overhead aproach in an attempt
to give it a legitimate sounding name. Clearly, trading speed for altitude
and popping up into the pattern around mid-field is not an approved
maneuver, and is only slightly less insane than spinning down into the
pattern.

OTOH, an overhead approach (as normally described) has a lot of utility as
has been pointed out eslewhere in this thread.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an
overhead
break or an overhead approach.

It may well be that the term I used is more commonly reserved for something
else. The moment someone else made an indication that the maneuver I
referenced was different from what most people consider the maneuver of the
same name, I acknowledged that they were different and made clear which I
was talking about. I have tried in each and every post to continue to make
that distinction.

AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight
directly over the runway, as well as a form of a "breaking" turn (or even
"braking turn" if you like ), I don't have a better term than the
confusing one, and simply follow what I have heard used on the radio, when
I've had the opportunity to hear the radio calls of these folks.

I have at every step of the way tried to make as clear as possible what
maneuver I'm talking about and how it differs from the maneuver other people
appear to be talking about. I cannot help it if people insist on continuing
to be confused.

Pete

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:29:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


Whatever....

Bela P. Havasreti