Overhead joins

[rsuggitt]

This might have been asked before.... or maybe I'm being over-pedantic.... or maybe I've misunderstood what someone else has said...

..... but which part of the procedure is the actual 'join' ?

Let me explain.... I position overhead the airfield at 2000ft, and call 'overhead at 2000ft'...

Then I go to the deadside and descend, calling 'descending deadside'...

Then when at circuit hight I cross the upwind numbers in the circuit direction and call 'joining overhead' since at that point I am joining the circuit.

Right ? Wrong ? Just plane silly ?

[Kirstey]

I think the tradition is call overhead and decending deadside as you've suggested.. next call is downwind.

Technically when you cross the landing numbers and enter liveside you are crosswind if you want to make a call (could be useful if an aircraft is turning crosswind flying circuits as they'll be on a wider crosswind to you.

[Whopity]

You must report entering the ATZ Rule 45(6)(c), this usually accurs as you arrive overhead at 2000 ft and report Overhead. The overhead join commences when you arrive overhead the airfield, you may orbit to familiarise yourself with the aerodrome or commence the descent straight away, either way you are still joining over head. When you descend below 200 feet you call Deadside Descending so that other people know where you are. No further call is required until you report Downwind. CAP 413 Ch 4 Page 38

Then when at circuit hight I cross the upwind numbers in the circuit direction and call 'joining overhead' since at that point I am joining the circuit. WRONG! You report DOWNWIND.

[scooter boy]

Easy and fun in a slow aircraft - different matter altogether in something slipperier where a more stabilised approach is required.

And then we have the safety issues of aircraft converging to join O/H.

Give me downwind, base or straight in any day over an OHJ.

SB

[Rhyspiper]

:Quote:
Then when at circuit hight I cross the upwind numbers in the circuit direction and call 'joining overhead' since at that point I am joining the circuit.

WRONG! You report DOWNWIND.

You wouldn't report DOWNWIND when you was across the upwind numbers either! you world report DOWNWIND when you are DOWNWIND clue is in the name! :}

[jxc]

I have a feeling Whoopity meant to say downwind once you are downwind


Cheers

[shortstripper]

I hate overhead joins. Very logical when not busy .... but on a sunny Sunday in the summer? I think OHJ's are a disaster waiting to happen when busy, so tend to ask for a different join in such circumstances.

SS

[Flash0710]

Here is yr man......

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_oheadjoin_poster.pdf

be careful out there........

luv

xxx

f

[FREDAcheck]

Here is yr man......

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad...oin_poster.pdf

be careful out there........
Lovely colours! It shows a plane approaching from the live (circuit) side. What the diagram doesn't make clear is what you do if you are approaching from the dead side. What you're supposed to do is go to the overhead at 2000 feet (or whatever), than do an extra 180 in the circuit direction to join the blue path in the pretty diagram. Then you do another 450 degrees of turning (following the path in the diagram) to get on final, by which time you've turned a total of 630 degrees and are probably dizzy.

Some people say, if you are approaching from the dead side, that you descend on approach and go straight to the crosswind point at circuit height. That may be OK at many airfields, but it's not an overhead join; it's a crosswind join.

I also don't like overhead joins, but I do whatever the airfield tells me to. The one advantage of OHJ is that it gives you more time to find the field and figure out where the runways are. For instance, finding Fenland at this time of year: one green field surrounded by a thousand other ones, all similar sizes...

[Final 3 Greens]

For instance, finding Fenland at this time of year: one green field surrounded by a thousand other ones, all similar sizes...

Gee Pee Ess

[FREDAcheck]

Gee Pee EssGosh, has Fenland got an RNAV approach? Only joking, yes I've usually got the GPS with me, and Fenland has an NDB (or is that gone? It's not on the new chart). But I like to think I can find places by eye when the electrics fail (has happened to me). I've only been to Fenland a few times, and when the surrounding fields are green I usually don't see it until I'm virtually over it.

[Crash one]

When you descend below 200 feet you call Deadside Descending so that other people know where you are. No further call is required until you report Downwind. CAP 413 Ch 4 Page 38



At that height I would call "going round"!!!:D

WRONG! You report DOWNWIND.

Wouldn't that be "Crosswind" followed by "Downwind" when you actually are?

[Kirstey]

So it's not just me that thought Whopity was a bit keen to shout there..

..what's your problem?

[Human Factor]

Very logical when not busy .... but on a sunny Sunday in the summer? I think OHJ's are a disaster waiting to happen when busy, so tend to ask for a different join in such circumstances.

Pretty logical on a busy day as well in fact (provided you're turning in the correct direction). The idea is that if it's busy at an uncontrolled airfield, you remain orbiting in the overhead at 2000ft until there's a suitable gap in the traffic to allow you to safely descend. Visit White Waltham and you'll see this in practice on most busy days (albeit at 1300ft).

I would counsel that to do a non-standard join at an uncontrolled airfield on such days is asking for trouble. If a particular airfield has a non-standard joining procedure (such as if parachuting is in progress), it will feature in the AIP. If you need to "ask" to do a non-standard join, then by implication you have an air traffic control service and you are required to follow their instructions anyway.

[cirruscrystal]

Overhead join poster - this link should work a bit better

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_oheadjoin_poster.pdf

[Spitoon]

Overhead join poster - this link should work a bit better

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad...oin_poster.pdfAnd if you want to know more about overhead joins you can always ask the New Zealand CAA..... (http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/posters/standard_overhead_join.pdf)

[tangovictor]

I was taught, by an ex RAF instructor, and it will remain in my memory for ever, looks stupid, works great,
Get some chalk, and markout a runway on the ground, fairly big, then, walk it
making the calls as you go, you can even get someone else involved and get him to do same, it works and sticks in your mind

[PompeyPaul]

Lovely colours! It shows a plane approaching from the live (circuit) side. What the diagram doesn't make clear is what you do if you are approaching from the dead side. What you're supposed to do is go to the overhead at 2000 feet (or whatever), than do an extra 180 in the circuit direction to join the blue path in the pretty diagram. Then you do another 450 degrees of turning (following the path in the diagram) to get on final, by which time you've turned a total of 630 degrees and are probably dizzy.

Some people say, if you are approaching from the dead side, that you descend on approach and go straight to the crosswind point at circuit height. That may be OK at many airfields, but it's not an overhead join; it's a crosswind join.

I also don't like overhead joins, but I do whatever the airfield tells me to. The one advantage of OHJ is that it gives you more time to find the field and figure out where the runways are. For instance, finding Fenland at this time of year: one green field surrounded by a thousand other ones, all similar sizes...
I asked this at a CAA flight safety briefing and the CAA man said you go overhead then turn 180 dgrees.

Although, personally, I do a cross wind join....

[Whopity]

Wouldn't that be "Crosswind" followed by "Downwind" when you actually are?
Look at the original question:
Then when at circuit hight I cross the upwind numbers in the circuit direction and call 'joining overhead' since at that point I am joining the circuit. Wrong call, wrong place. You could call Crosswind but it is not necessary so the next call is Downwind obviously when you are Downwind.

[Shunter]

I think OHJ's are a disaster waiting to happen when busyThat rather depends... at Old Warden last year there were over 100 aircraft arrived in a couple of hours. I believe the landing rate topped that of Heathrow. It was overhead joins for all with >10 in the circuit when I arrived. A well known retired ATCO was on duty in a FISO capacity, everything went like clockwork.

[1d2d3d4d]

I was taught when joining from the dead side, descend to circuit height on approach and cross the upwind numbers having requested a dead side join. This not a cross wind join as cross wind is about a mile to your right in a standard circuit or a mile to your left in RH circuit. From over the numbers at circuit height it is easier to see other circuit traffic. I was also taught that cross wind joins are not recommended as it is difficult to spot where traffic climbing to circuit height might be.

I quite enjoy overhead joins, there is probably more handling in an overhead join than the rest of the flight. I find its easier to spot traffic at a similar altitude to me and I have a reasonable idea where everyone is from their RT calls. I have more problems with other pilots calling for a straight in approach to a busy circuit and calling final when they should be calling field in sight! This happened to me on Sunday the poor old atco hadn't got a clue who was who and where they were or should be. At least with overhead joins we are all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Chris

[englishal]

The idea is that if it's busy at an uncontrolled airfield, you remain orbiting in the overhead at 2000ft until there's a suitable gap
Oh god know, please everyone don't hang around orbiting in the overhead at 2000', especially on a busy Sunday... Or if you do, then I'll join on base and be sipping tea by the time you all land, if you survive.

NEVER join on a crosswind, it is a recipie for disaster. Cross the upwind numbers by all means, but no further out.

Deadside - as mentioned above, do half an OHJ, descend to circuit height on way in, wizz over upwind numbers, downwind, base, final, land.

My prefered join is on a Base leg....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I was taught when joining from the dead side, descend to circuit height on approach and cross the upwind numbers having requested a dead side join. This not a cross wind join ...
It's exactly what you are expected to do if told "join cross wind" in some places"

[fireflybob]

I think OHJ's are a disaster waiting to happen when busy

Well yes they potentially are when you see the way certain pilots fly them!

Oh and by the way, it's a good idea to keep a good lookout whichever way you join!

Seriously though I think one essential point is to make sure you are in LEVEL flight (ie at circuit height) BEFORE you enter the LIVE side of the circuit. Also when you descend on the dead side do NOT descend in straight flight (ie parallel to the landing runway) - descents are safer when turning as you are continuously clearing the airspace in which you are intending to descend.

Fly Safe!

[rsuggitt]

"Wrong call, wrong place. You could call Crosswind but it is not necessary so the next call is Downwind obviously when you are Downwind"

But dont you think that over the upwind number is where you're most likely to conflict with someone.... another plane on crosswind or just turned onto downwind. When you're downwind yourself there's a lower chance of a potential conflict , IMHO.

[vee-tail-1]

We have debated the OHJ on this forum so many times. OHJ makes sense if intending to land at some remote non-radio strip, where you need to assess the runway, wind, etc.
But most airfields in UK have radio, and we don't need to fly over a signal square to get our landing info. In my opinion a join at circuit height on the extended downwind [or on base leg] is a lot safer than the OHJ.

[fireflybob]

Ok so what do the statistics tell us?

How many airprox/collisions have occured doing an OHJ as opposed to a direct join base leg/downwind etc.?

[Crash one]

Quote:
Wouldn't that be "Crosswind" followed by "Downwind" when you actually are?
Look at the original question:
Quote:
Then when at circuit hight I cross the upwind numbers in the circuit direction and call 'joining overhead' since at that point I am joining the circuit.
Wrong call, wrong place. You could call Crosswind but it is not necessary so the next call is Downwind obviously when you are Downwind.


I think there is some cross purpose brick wall banging here.
The original question was I believe "where does the overhead join start?"
My reading of it at an uncontrolled A/G field is:- approach from whatever direction at 2000ft (top of the ATZ) having already called whilst outside the zone "Will join overhead from Aunty Mary's place". As you pass overhead the upwind numbers at 2000ft call, G-AB overhead". You have now joined & are now in the "system/circuit" Otherwise there is no such thing as an "OVERhead JOIN" It can only be a "crosswind" or "downwind" or "base leg" Join.
Turn through sufficient degrees in the previously noted circuit direction until you are facing the dead side but still on the live side, cross the active runway numbers at 2000ft & call "decending dead side".
Decend & proceed through 180 degrees to circuit height & then as you cross the upwind numbers at circuit height call "crosswind".
Continue to the downwind turn & abeam the upwind numbers turn & call "Downwind">>>>>
Now, Will that do?

[vee-tail-1]

Hmmn... by the time you arrive on final [assuming no close encounters!] you will have turned through some 630 degrees. Hope the pax don't get dizzy. :ooh:

[Robin400]

It is important as you approach the airfield to be in the correct position in relation to the circuit direction.
Within three or four miles of the airport.
Left hand circuit, keep the field on your left and continue turning left overhead until you cross the threshold of the landing runway.
You are now on the dead side and descend as discussed
Right hand, keep the field on your right.
This is simple and prevents aircraft turning in the incorrect direction overhead.
On too many occasions I have encountered aircraft turning in the wrong direction whilst they attempt so join overhead.
Keep it simple. Kiss

[NorthSouth]

V-tail:But most airfields in UK have radio, and we don't need to fly over a signal square to get our landing info. In my opinion a join at circuit height on the extended downwind [or on base leg] is a lot safer than the OHJYou've hit the nail on the head of where the OHJ falls down. It's where people think they know better and muscle in on the circuit in the way that suits them, while others try to stick by the book and fly an OHJ. I'm heartily fed up of thoughtless and selfish PPLs barrelling into the circuit on base or downwind or god save us "long final" while I've got a student on a circuit detail. You're right most airfields have radio. So when they add at the end of the airfield info "the circuit is active", please spare a thought for those of us who are already in the circuit.

And I don't agree with you about OHJ only being of use at remote non-radio strips. In my view OHJs are pointless there because they won't have a signals square, might not have a windsock, and almost certainly won't have other traffic. OHJs are the best way of ordering joining traffic; their original purpose of enabling you to read the signals square is now redundant.

NS

[englishal]

OHJs are the best way of ordering joining traffic
Really!

So you have 4 aeroplanes, joining a runway 27 left hand, from N, S, E and W, all aiming for the same spot in the sky to do lots of turning and manouvring and altitude changes....Where as the one from the S could join on Base, the one from N from deadside onto Downwind, the one from W could joing direct downwind, and the one from E could make a straight in. Seems pretty sensible to me....

As long as everyone fits in with the others. If I were downwind and one joined straight in, I'd extend DW slightly to come in behind them...or if they were LONG final, I'd cut in and be on the ground before them. If I were joining on base, and someone was already on DW, I'd alter course slightly to come in behind them...likewise if I were joining cross wind from the deadside, and someone was doing circuits and was turning DW...I'd come in behind them if there was any doubt.

Easy really....

[vee-tail-1]

Everytime OHJs are discussed it gets heated. So I am not trying to wind anyone up here. However experiencing two near midairs while correctly carrying out OHJs tends to harden ones opinion. OHJs involve a 'cross wind join' which in my opinion is suicidal at a busy airfield with a mix of low and high performance aircraft. Still at least the wreckage will be confined to the airfield in the vicinity of the upwind numbers. :rolleyes:

[eharding]

However experiencing two near midairs while correctly carrying out OHJs tends to harden ones opinion.


Apart from the obvious one - you - were there any common factors between the two incidents?

[Robin400]

mix of low and high performance aircraft.

Why do people have to fly at 140kts down wind in a busy circuit.
:ugh:

[NorthSouth]

VT1:OHJs involve a 'cross wind join' which in my opinion is suicidal at a busy airfield with a mix of low and high performance aircraftI don't disagree with that - joining procedures should be appropriate to the airfield and its traffic. At an airfield with a long runway and regular high performance traffic, there is a danger of conflicts between aircraft joining crosswind and an HP a/c taking off or going around. So it might well be appropriate to have a different procedure to deal with that. I have to say though that if you're the pilot of a high performance aircraft you will be well aware that your rapid climb might put you into conflict with crosswind joiners so you would surely make special efforts to (a) listen out to get a picture of any joining traffic, (b) look out before rolling and during initial climb to identify any such traffic and then (c) if you know or believe there is conflicting traffic, reduce your climb rate or stop your climb so that you're not co-altitude with the joiner as you pass the upwind end of the runway.

But my frustration is at airfields where there is a published OHJ procedure that is appropriate and works, but some people think it's acceptable to ignore it. It's particularly bad airmanship when qualified pilots do this at airfields where there is regular circuit training and students are following the correct procedures.

All I'm asking is for people to project their thoughts a little further than moi moi in the cockpit getting down by the most rapid method when joining a circuit.

NS

[mary meagher]

North South, excellent post. Climbing out of Wellesborne in a PA18, which climbs rather well compared to spam cans, remembered only just in time to curb the climb rate and avoid a cessna joining overhead. So high powered aircraft like Super Cubs need to adapt to these strange customs of OHJs.

Do they do OHJ in the USA? I don't remember.

[Thud105]

The OHJ (and also using QFE and other Q-related nonsense) are I believe unique to the UK. I will leave you all to decide who is right - the UK, or the rest of the world.

[Cows getting bigger]

I was sat in the caff at EGBJ the other day and noticed a minor disagreement due to non-standard joins. Aircraft from North told to do an OHJ which necessitated it positioning to the South for deadside; aircraft from South given a left base join. Everything appeared OK until the OHJ aircraft had done the full procedure and was then told to continue downwind until advised as there was one joining ahead on a left base (cct direction is RH for RW27). OHJ Man got a bit flustered (how far downwind, can't see other traffic, overflying Cheltenham at 1000ft) and elected to go around. A few sharp words from OHJ Man and deathly silence on the radio.

It seemed to me that the OHJ aircraft followed the published procedure and was penalised because the other chap and ATC were trying to be clever. If I was OHJ Man, I would have said what's 'good for the goose is good for the gander' .............:cool:

[733driver]

Good point Thud 105. That's exactly what I have been asking myself while reading this thread. Aviation is supposed to be a global thing. Imagine every country in Europe (or the world for that matter) had their own way of joining a circuit (or traffic pattern as they call it in the US). Most of us not trained in the UK (or mabe SA, NZ or downunder)have never heard of overhead joins, dead sides and live sides etc. And I also agree with previously voiced opinions regarding the dangers of high performance aircraft departing an airfield while others performe overhead joins. I have been in such situiations departing in a biz jet. Not ideal. And to Robin400: We just can't go much slower than 140 in our jet even with everything hanging out. So that's why.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Perhaps the "rest of the World" may eventually catch up and embrace order, discipline and looking out of the window.

[vee-tail-1]

eharding #1. Spamcan doing unexpected go-aound: Airmiss to left.
#2. Another aircraft on an unannounced OHJ: Airmiss to right.

My conclusion: Not a good idea to join crosswind where I become a target from both sides!! :uhoh:

[733driver]

Your comment was probably tongue in cheek but since I am German and by definition don't have a sense of humour, I assume it wasn't. I have done most of my small aircraft flying in the US and in Germany and usually found it disciplined and orderly enough and certainly was looking out the window most of the time. I also fly a lot throughout Europe and the rest of the worls in a biz jet and of course standards vary but the UK stands out in Europe as the one place with the most "unique" procedures. That doesn't make it easier for the rest of the world to fit in when visitting. And when a UK trained pilot comes to any other European country he better be prepared for quite some differnces. Not just joins but also air traffic services in uncontrolled airspace, terminology etc. All Iam saying is: One standard would be better and as far as overhead joins go: Sure, they work well at small unattended fields. But busy places with lot's of mixed traffic: Not so sure.

[Cows getting bigger]

733driver, there already is one standard (ICAO Annex 2, para 3.2.5)

3.2.5 Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
An aircraft operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall, whether or not within an aerodrome traffic zone:
a) observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
b) conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
c) make all turns to the left, when approaching for a landing and after taking off, unless otherwise instructed;
d) land and take off into the wind unless safety, the runway configuration, or air traffic considerations determine that a different direction is preferable.
I'll let you figure whether this standard is being applied. :bored:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

OHJs involve a 'cross wind join' which in my opinion is suicidal at a busy airfield with a mix of low and high performance aircraft.
Only had that conflict once. ATC held the airliner on the runway whilst I crossed the upwind numbers and didn't let it take off until I was well clear in my 152.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Spamcan doing unexpected go-aound
What is an "unexpected go-around"? - this is not a concept with which I am familiar, I have been taught that every approach is a potential go-around.

[Thud105]

So GBZ, are you saying that the UK is right and the rest of the world wrong? There are probably more GA movements in one week in the USA, than there are in a year in the UK. You probably think Heathrow is a busy airport too. (Trust me, compared to some US airports its positively sleepy!)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Awarded "pass" for perception but "fail" for sense of humour"! :}

[Cows getting bigger]

Thud, there are probably more GA accidents/mid airs/airproxes in one week in the US than there are in the UK in one year.:}

PS. I'm trying to figure how US procedures comply with ICAO Annex 2. :)

[Lone_Ranger]

"probably think Heathrow is a busy airport too. (Trust me, compared to some US airports its positively sleepy!)"


London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale including domestic flights carrying smaller passenger numbers per flight, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago

Positively Sleepy?, yea right

[mm_flynn]

My list (operations rather than Pax) says

Altanta,
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
LAX
Las Vegas
Houston
CDG
Charlotte
Phoenix
Frankfurt
Heathrow !!!

Cows,

The AIM specifies a procedure which appears to tick all of the boxes for ICAO Annex 2 3.2.5. It also has the benefit of being quite similar to what seems to happen in every European country I have flown in - - - except the UK.

[Cows getting bigger]

mm, having studied AIM vs. Annex 2 you appear to be correct. But I would offer that the UK also appears to comply with Annex 2. :confused:

Time for some more Chianti.........

PS. I personally don't have an axe to grind in either direction, as long as everyone behaves in a similar fashion and nobody gets confused.

[englishal]

I know these were all tounge in cheek but.....
London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale including domestic flights carrying smaller passenger numbers per flight, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago
Someone beat me to it, but LAX is FAR busier than LHR, and you can fly right across the top at 2000 talking to LAX tower if you want, or if you can't be bothered to talk to anyone, go across at 3500/4500 and just squwark 1201....Oh and if you decide to land there, you'll pay $20 (or it used to be) ;) Of course you could also add in the other 30 airports within a 30 mile radius as well if you wanted....
Thud, there are probably more GA accidents/mid airs/airproxes in one week in the US than there are in the UK in one year
If you checkout fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, I think you'd find the US far safer (and they don't have the OHJ) ;)