Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I suspect that the dangers from a MAC in a crowded airport envoronment
are greater than the dangers from an engine out.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:06:50 -0400, Cub Driver usenet AT danford DOT
net wrote:

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I'm not sure it's all that much better. Is there a standard for where
you let down to pick up the 45 entry? Which way you turn? And I
swear, the last time I flew into South County, when I made my turn to
get on the 45, about a mile out, there was a plane on downwind out
there. I'd heard him on the radio, but I didn't expect him that far
out.

Don

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

Newps wrote:
It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

As an aside I know of at least one pilot that failed his private pilot
checkride because he did the a midfield crosswind entry instead of
overflying the airport for 2 miles and re-entering on the 45. The DE
didn't like the fact that that airport's flight school taught the
midfield crosswind entry (mostly due to overlying class Bravo
airspace).

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
ASK
me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)

All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
sequitur.
(that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
plug
fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
separate
pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side seems
to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right into
somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
sure,
knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it HAS
happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
pilot with an once of brains.
So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what the
poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
routinely
flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule;
not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a while,
as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
typing
War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe me
gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
warbirds
:-))
Dudley


I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Peter

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

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport

I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
specific IFR situation.

I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would not
be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the term
"overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part of
an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.

Pete

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Indeed. I find the interpretation, quoted in your reply, of my comments to
be bizarre, considering that this whole subthread started as my response
pointing out that these "stupid pilot tricks" are NOT limited to warbirds,
and that warbirds should NOT be singled out as the sole offenders.

For someone to come along and think that I was saying that this is a
warbird-only problem is entirely backwards, and shows a complete lack of
understanding of any of my comments.

Pete

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,
if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from
Cessna in either category is years away.


Cessna's VLJ, Mustang, comes to mind. We think we'll do this - a few years
later, there it is.

The giggle I had at OSH was Cessna reps stating their good looking new
Cessna LSA would do 120 knots.

Hearing that, I'm calling it ...."The Cessna Killer."


Montblack

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
ASK
me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)

All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
sequitur.
(that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
plug
fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
separate
pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side
seems
to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right
into
somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
sure,
knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it
HAS
happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
pilot with an once of brains.
So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what
the
poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
routinely
flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the
rule;
not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a
while,
as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
typing
War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe
me
gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
warbirds
:-))
Dudley


I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Peter



I think the gist of the negative posters comment was directed to pilots in
general who make unauthorized overheads. Not quite sure how the warbird
community got involved; probably because of the other comment in this thread
being negative about people who fly warbirds.
In all fairness, the thread creep is so bad in this thread that it would
behoove everybody to read it from the beginning before getting upset with
anyone else :-))
Dudley Henriques