Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building

Harry Shin wrote:

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"?

Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less than safe
due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the descending
aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less
than safe
due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the
descending
aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.
It's also a lot of fun.

On the other hand, it's always the one you *don't* see that kills you, and
ground clutter can make spotting traffic difficult, so descending into the
pattern can be dangerous. To reduce this risk, I've tried entering the
pattern for this kind of an "overhead break" just 100 or so feet above
"normal" pattern altitude. This seemed to be a good compromise, minimized
the amount of time spent descending into a possible conflict, while still
allowing for a good scan of the whole pattern.

Is it still dangerous? I would rate it as mildly more risky than the more
standard "entering on a 45," and slightly less risky than a long
straight-in. Therefore, I don't use this approach when I know there is
other traffic in the pattern.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.

I didn't know that there was any other entry for the first
18 months of my flying life. :-)

Bob Moore

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:11_Mb.46583$na.36172@attbi_s04...
Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less
than safe
due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the
descending
aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.
It's also a lot of fun.

In the UK, the standard entry at an uncontrolled field is an overhead
join. You arrive above circuit height and then descend on the "dead
side", i.e. the opposide side to the downwind. You then fly crosswind
to downwind. As Jay said, it's a good way of seeing any traffic that is
currently in the circuit. It's also the way to see the windsock.

What you don't do is descend into the circuit.

Paul

"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...
Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building


The Overhead Entry is a "standard" procedure, although you don't see 'em
much except from the warbird and/or experimental crowd. I followed a long,
bitter discussion on this topic on the RV-list (a mail list for RV
builders/flyers), and the opinions on using the overhead approach were all
over the board, ranging from "We do it all the time and it is very safe" to
"It is a very dangerous procedure and should never be used.". In the end,
it comes down to common sense. If an overhead entry causes traffic problems
with other aircraft in the pattern, it shouldn't be used. Othewise, it is
fine (assuming you're keeping your eyes out, using common sense, and all the
other caveats that go with flying).

KB

In article ,
"Harry Shin" wrote:

Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building



It sounds as if the formation leader screwed up. He should have been
looking for other traffic and let you go ahead -- even to the point of
taking his formation around for another approach. Nor should he have
done a "diving break," which impairs his view of other traffic.

I regularly fly formation, with overhead breaks to downwind. Rule #1 is
that traffic already in the pattern has the right-of-way. Another thing
we do is announce our intentions: "White Flight one mile initial, left
overhead break," to let others know we are operating.

Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

Orval,

First sentence (!), "My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69),
called in on the 45 to downwind..." (and all other legs as well, FWIW)

You formation guys need to pay more attention...

Harry

In article ,
"Harry Shin" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

Orval,

First sentence (!), "My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69),
called in on the 45 to downwind..." (and all other legs as well, FWIW)

You formation guys need to pay more attention...

Harry


Harry:

If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!

If you called the 45, you were NOT in the traffic pattern! Did you pay
attention to the frequency? Did the formation call "initial"?

I have seen so-called "pattern operations" flying extra wide downwinds
and two mile finals -- enough to land several flights of four.
Generally, our formation flights keep it in tight and have about ten
seconds spacing on landing.

BTW, your reference to "spoiling a formation landing" shows you know
nothing about formation flying. They came overhead in the break and, as
such, would have been landing individually, with one rolling out as the
next touched down.

If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!

If you called the 45, you were NOT in the traffic pattern! Did you pay
attention to the frequency? Did the formation call "initial"?

As I warned in my post, when you (that is, the original poster) start
to question the holy right of libertarian pilots to do what they
damned well please in the pattern, you are going to get some heated
replies.

My own policy is this: when there are idiots in the pattern, either
take your best shot to get on the ground safely, or go away and land
somewhere else. These people have closed minds, and they are flying
airplanes that can kill you.

My favorite example of this sort of booby was the *instructor* who had
his student fly *straight in* to a field where neither had landed
before, that was marked "heavy flight training," and that did its
training in NORDO aircraft -- and then bawled out the Cub driver on
base for not listening to the radio calls!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com