Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"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

Peter Duniho wrote:
AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight

Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden
underneath a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE

In keeping with the international nature of these newsgroups, yes, this
applies to operations in the U.S., but the generic maneuver is universal.

Of course, when making variations on the maneuver (like low/fast
followed by a popup), courtesy and good airmanship towards other
aircraft, already established in a conventional traffic pattern, would
be considered. Common sense, I know.

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve
flight

Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath
a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE

Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're
likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at
airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been
designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also
needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances
described in that section.

I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or
"overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures.

Pete

There is one point in this discussion that is being missed (for the US
pilots). The Overhead Approach (OA) maneuver, normally approved by ATC
(at controlled facilities), is a non-standard pattern entry. If there
was an incident as a result of the OA maneuver, there could be grounds
for action against the pilot(s) involved in that maneuver based on the
much larger and more prominent sections of the AIM (like the one below)
that specifically cover proper pattern entry procedures.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-3

4-3-3. Traffic Patterns
At most airports and military air bases, traffic pattern altitudes for
propeller-driven aircraft generally extend from 600 feet to as high as
1,500 feet above the ground. Also, traffic pattern altitudes for
military turbojet aircraft sometimes extend up to 2,500 feet above the
ground. Therefore, pilots of en route aircraft should be constantly on
the alert for other aircraft in traffic patterns and avoid these areas
whenever possible. Traffic pattern altitudes should be maintained unless
otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14
CFR Section 91.155). (See FIG 4-3-2 and FIG 4-3-3.)

EXAMPLE-
Key to traffic pattern operations
1. Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at
pattern altitude. (1,000' AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless
established otherwise. . .)
2. Maintain pattern altitude until abeam approach end of the landing
runway on downwind leg.
3. Complete turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the runway.
4. Continue straight ahead until beyond departure end of runway.
5. If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg
beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.
6. If departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with
a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left-hand traffic pattern; to
the right when in a right-hand traffic pattern) beyond the departure end
of the runway, after reaching pattern altitude.



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve
flight
Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath
a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE

Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're
likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at
airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been
designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also
needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances
described in that section.

I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or
"overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures.

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