Overhead Joins - who has priority?

[Okavango]

Hi. This never really came up in training, but now I'm flying from a fairly busy airfield that isn't ATC, I'd appreciate some advice. In an overhead join, there is potential conflict between the A/C approaching the circuit on overhead crosswind with A/C already in the circuit on downwind (say when doing T&G's). In such circumstances - who has priority?

[Talkdownman]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgwebStandardOverheadJoinPosterJan09.pdf

Note guidance offered:

Watch for existing circuit traffic and adjust your path to sequence safely.



Rule 12:

Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome
12.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flying machine, glider or airship flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an aerodrome shall—
(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at that aerodrome otherwise authorises.

Rule 9:

Converging
9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and to rules 10 and 11, aircraft in the air shall give way to other, converging aircraft as follows—
(a) flying machines shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;
(b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(c) gliders shall give way to balloons.
(2) Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing other aircraft or objects.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (1) and (2), when two aircraft are converging in the air at approximately the same altitude, the aircraft which has the other on its right shall give way.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL06.pdf

Wapedia - Wiki: Overhead join (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Overhead_join)

[JohnRayner]

I'd have thought the aircraft already in the circuit, because they're already there.

I suppose in theory if you were joining a right hand circuit, then you could argue that you had right of way on any aircraft to your left on downwind already in the circuit, but that doesn't scan for me. As someone joining an active circuit, I'd still make way.

If there was plenty of scope for me to join without upsetting a craft in the circuit e.g. said craft just turned onto downwind and was still aways away, then I would.

Also, if I was entering an active busy circuit, I'd probably bore the socks off everyone with my constant position reporting!

[Talkdownman]

Is joining a circuit any different to joining a (British) roundabout? The sensible option would be to respect the (runway-occupancy-compatible-) existing sequence and join intelligently, rather than to aggressively push in. At the worst just a small dog-leg behind may be necessary when joining from Crosswind to Downwind. Within a certain Class G Rule 45 ATZ not far from me this is often not the case when some thoughtless individuals fly straight-in approaches into a busy circuit, apparently oblivious to the spirit of Rule 12 and the consequent domino-effect disruption that such a manoeuvre will cause. Such situations are also not helped when 'condoned' by a mis-guided FISO.

[SirLaughalot]

I would say that it's usually good practice to do a small dog-leg and position yourself behind the downwind aircraft, even if they haven't called downwind yet.

The Standard Overhead Join poster from the CAA website:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgwebStandardOverheadJoinPosterJan09.pdf

[Croqueteer]

:ooh:The reason it's the safest method of joining the cct is that you come to the overhead 1000ft above cct traffic, sus out the flow whilst descending dead-side to join the cct crosswind.

[Okavango]

Thanks all. Yes - I agree with the general consensus, I just wasn't sure if I'd create more problems by changing the standard overhead join such as I was then a problem for departing traffic from the active runway and wanted to check. On that last point - note while you're descending in either a high or low wing A/C, you're not always going to be visual with all traffic and you won't be on the same crosswind as a circuit crosswind - that's the point.

And yes - joining a circuit is different to joining any other british roundabout in that you generally can't stop in mid air and other 'cars' may be coming up from below....................

[Gertrude the Wombat]

a problem for departing traffic from the active runway
I've only once been that - in that the aircraft wanting to take off had sufficient performance that it would be at circuit height when passing the upwind numbers.

On that occasion ATC held the jet on the ground until my 152 was safely clear.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Proper use of radio - at a s l o w delivery rate - should take care of most situations, tho' we still have NORDO airfields, and the recommendation is to make left hand turns above the circuit height until the landing direction can be decided, and this leads to interesting situations at right hand circuits, when some aircraft have listened out and are aware of the traffic direction, others haven't - or can't !

I was once letting down on the 'dead' side and narrowly missed an aircraft coming towards me, i.e. carrying out a rt.hand circuit at a left hand airfield. On the ground, and trying to be polite to a foreign ( USA ) visitor, I explained the expectation I had formed as I was joining. She said that she thought we had a left hand circuit, but heard another aircraft joining Right Base, so thought we had changed the direction, and she had missed the written instruction somewhere? We have no ATC. but we are Mandatory Broadcast,

The " other" aircraft was our local scenic tour operator, who repeatedly rejoins in the most cost effective way - to him, i.e. shortest track distance, be it upwind, downwind, cross wind or straight in.

[IMC1]

I had a situation last weekend when I was heading towards an airfield and there was a slower converging light plane following me in. Even though it was a familiar airfield, I elected to do an overhead join. I did all the appropriate calls etc and joined the circuit. While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than me he was landing first. Even though there was no immediate conflict I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit. I cant help feeling angry towards the other pilot. It might have been legal but I think airmanship was clearly lacking.

[Whopity]

While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than meat that point in the circuit you should both have been at the same height; either you were too high or he was too low!
I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit.Where did you initiate the go around, base leg, downwind or on final? Many pilots don't seem to realise you can go around from anywhere in the circuit, which is usually more efficient than extending downwind in an attempt to fit in.

[dublin_eire]

I agree with giving way to existing circuit traffic. I had a situation the other day where I arrived at an airfield and there was a student doing solo circuits. I was coming in from another airfield and more experienced so I reckon I'd have been the one more capable of giving way...

[englishal]

I had a situation last weekend when I was heading towards an airfield and there was a slower converging light plane following me in. Even though it was a familiar airfield, I elected to do an overhead join. I did all the appropriate calls etc and joined the circuit. While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than me he was landing first. Even though there was no immediate conflict I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit. I cant help feeling angry towards the other pilot. It might have been legal but I think airmanship was clearly lacking.
You ELECTED to do an OHJ then are surprised when the chap behind you doesn't and then appears to beat you to the runway. Being angry smacks at Road Rage. If the one behind you was slower, why didn't you join on a base and land before him? I'd never do an OHJ at home unless there was no one around and I needed to see the windsock. If the radio guy was there I'd tell him what I was doing.

[Talkdownman]

<<While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base",>>

This non-compliance with Rule 12.

<<and as he was lower than me he was landing first>>

This is no excuse at all and holds no water.

IMC1, your conflicting aircraft has not conformed to the pattern of the traffic applicable at the time. The direct base join is no different to a straight-in approach into an uncontrolled circuit. It is not an intelligent join if the circuit contains conflicting traffic. I think that you were right to feel aggrieved.

[mjc123]

<<Where did you initiate the go around, base leg, downwind or on final? Many pilots don't seem to realise you can go around from anywhere in the circuit, which is usually more efficient than extending downwind in an attempt to fit in.>>

I knew this in theory but this thread has made me think about how would actually do this - I have never had to go around in practice other than when on final. Assuming a left hand circuit... If on Downwind presumably turn left at circuit height, turn to track over the runway, and if on base leg keep going at circuit height and then turn to track above the runway at circuit height.
And then turn cross wind early as if joining from deadside in an over head join (to avoid taking off traffic climbing out) and then turn downwind as in such a join. Have I got that right?

[Okavango]

GertrudeWombat - again - this is precisely what I'm saying. To quote you...."that it would be at circuit height when passing the upwind numbers." The problem is that if you have to modify your OHJ, where do you go? Only choice really is out beyond the upwind numbers and therefore potential conflict with departing A/C, so I wasn't sure if this was good practise.

[jxk]

To those of us who have enough intelligence and brain power to make proper OHJ (at non ATC airfields) - just ignore those rude people who cut up the circuit and acknowledge your superiority:ok:

[Stephen Furner]

One situation it’s necessary to keep a really good lookout on an OHJ is when descending dead side and someone on final goes around. Sometimes an early go around on final can pop up to circuit height by the time the aircraft reaches the numbers at the upwind end. This can place it just where the descending aircraft is aiming for and at about the same time if both pilots are very unlucky.
I don’t recall ever hearing any discussion of the need for a go around to stay below circuit height until clear of the numbers or aircraft on an OHJ to watch out for a go around in any training material I have seen.

[Molesworth 1]

Common sense?

[Pace]

For me the OHJ is an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure which should have been ditched years ago.

It was a practice designed for the days of non radio aircraft and poor navigation equiptment.

Firstly consider the legality of an OHJ considering VFR rules and how many pilots attempt a so called OHJ when the cannot maintain VFR rules or altitudes required for the OHJ but still state they are joining OH.

Even ATC units call for the OHJ when met conditions do not legally allow it.

Aircraft cross circuit height traffic at altitudes they should not be at or break the VFR rules by scud running to the OH like bees to a honeypot almost blind.

In the OHJ the aircraft and its passengers are exposed to numerous unrequired 90 degree turns often with a mix of high wing and low wing aircraft.

This naturally increases the chances not just of midair collisions but of loss of control or disorientation.

The OHJ is uncomfortable for passengers, wasted money for pilots, burns un needed fuel for the invironment and is potentially dangerous.

It is about time the practice was chucked in the bin or declassified to just another join rather than the standard. It is about time this country moved like most others to sensible joining procedures rather than living in the dark ages.

Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

Pace :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Lister Noble]

Agreed,I don't like them,too many chances of conflict.
I much prefer a downwind join after a call ,if airfield has a radio frequency, and as always,keeping a good look out.
Lister:)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Even ATC units call for the OHJ when met conditions do not legally allow it.

Me: "Unable to comply due to low cloud base, request xxx join"
ATC: "xxx join approved"

There. That's not difficult, is it?

I don't know how exactly ATC know what the cloud base is, but even if their most recent measurement was 2100' that doesn't mean that you can't be stuck below cloud at 1800' several minutes later a couple of miles off to one side of the airfield. So occasionally inappropriate ATC requests must be possible.

[Pace]

Me: "Unable to comply due to low cloud base, request xxx join"
ATC: "xxx join approved"

Gertrude

In a perfect world that should be the case but reality is often very different and is.

Even the above makes for even a bigger mess of the mess of an OHJ.

Abolish this indefensable and ancient practice and stick it in the scrap heap where it belongs :)

Pace

[bjornhall]

It was a practice designed for the days of non radio aircraft and poor navigation equiptment.

Well, since neither radio nor any kind of navigation equipment is required for VFR flight it is as relevant as ever, right?

Surely it must be a good idea to agree on one location for joining the pattern? Early on downwind (as in an overhead join) is the ideal location since it is usually where the workload is lowest. This gives the best chance of avoiding someone else who is joining and hasn't seen you! The fair number of turns required in the overhead join maximizes the opportunity for relative motion between the different aircraft, making it easier to spot each other. If you are on downwind and someone is joining on base, with no relative motion, you could have a very hard time spotting them, especially if for some reason they are slightly lower or if visibility is not great. I'd rather not be totally reliant on them seeing me. :ooh:

Furthermore, the procedures used must cater for the lost comms scenario, even if "everyone" usually has radio. A procedure based on "I give 'em a call, listen to replies and join wherever I want based on what I hear" does not allow that. Let's also recall that in many lost comms situations the pilot is not aware they are lost comms (mistuned radio, audiopanel incorrectly set etc), so the ideal procedure should be robust in such a situation.

When there is no ATC or AFIS I usually consider it prudent to have a good look at the airfield from above, noting any obstructions, activities and of course the windsock before joining the pattern. From that location, surely the overhead join is the most straightforward procedure to use? Running out a long distance and descend far outside the pattern on the live side to join 45 deg on downwind seems awkward.

The only thing I see as potentially unsafe about the overhead join is when multiple aircraft arrive simultaneously from different directions, as those aircraft could have trouble spotting each other (no relative motion). A slight dogleg about a mile or so before arriving overhead should be helpful in ensuring relative motion before or after the turn.

But I am not sure what is the best procedure to join if low clouds prevent an overhead join... Run-and-break, perhaps? :E

I'm at loss as to why ATC would ever require anyone to perform an overhead join! I have never come across a controlled airport where ATC does not provide sequencing to join the traffic pattern; then again, I never fly in the UK...

[Pace]

Well, since neither radio nor any kind of navigation equipment is required for VFR flight it is as relevant as ever, right?

Bjornhall

Well NO? while you are correct that radio or nav equiptment is not required for VFR flight the ratio of radio/nav equipt and non equipt aircraft has changed dramatically since the earlier days of aviation when the OHJ was introduced.

Now it is more a rarety to see a non radio non nav equipt aircraft and personally I would regulate to insist on a hand held and basic nav in all aircraft on safety grounds.

It is normal to bring in procedures designed for the majority not around a miniscule minority and times have changed.

I have not suggested the OHJ is not still available as one of a number of possible joining methods but I am suggesting it is abolished as the "standard"

There are already far better well tried and tested joining methods used in the world so the OHJ is hardly the best method available but one hung onto by the old school brigade.

Pace

[bjornhall]

Well NO? while you are correct that radio or nav equiptment is not required for VFR flight the ratio of radio/nav equipt and non equipt aircraft has changed dramatically since the earlier days of aviation when the OHJ was introduced.

Now it is more a rarety to see a non radio non nav equipt aircraft and personally I would regulate to insist on a hand held and basic nav in all aircraft on safety grounds.

I don't think you have a case. For commercial aviation, if you see a need for increased safety, the first regulation that comes to mind is to require all such aviation to only use controlled airports (at least AFIS, and at least when carrying passengers). For non-commercial aviation, where risks to third parties are not an issue, it should be very hard indeed to impose new regulations.

However, there is no radio requirement yet, and even should there be such a requirement the lost comms scenario must still be handled.

It is normal to bring in procedures designed for the majority not around a miniscule minority and times have changed.

It would be a sad state of affairs if that was true; luckily, it isn't! You can't have procedures where someone else doing something entirely legal and sensible makes the procedure unsafe. Commercial aviation might be all about standardization and enforcing the way of the majority on everyone, but private aviation is not and mustn't be.

I have not suggested the OHJ is not still available as one of a number of possible joining methods but I am suggesting it is abolished as the "standard"


Agree! :ok:

There are already far better well tried and tested joining methods used in the world so the OHJ is hardly the best method available but one hung onto by the old school brigade.

What methods would that be, and how are they "far better"? What data and what reasoning brings you to that conclusion? Joining 45 degrees on downwind makes some sense I suppose, but I don't see how it is better (can see some ways in which it is not so good). Most other methods I know of, notably joining on base, do not appear safe unless everyone is guaranteed to have a radio and use it correctly.

[Captain Smithy]

If the cloudbase is too low for an OHJ, then perhaps it is too low to be doing any sort of practical VFR flying... so whether or not to do an OHJ would be the least of your concerns.

Most of the local GA airfields around my neck of the woods are 2000' QFE for OHJ. If the cloudbase is <2000' AAL & >3/8 then you can't go very far, lots of ground >1500'-2000' :uhoh: So for me it wouldn't be very sensible to go anywhere.

I agree with bjornhall's sentiments.

Smithy

[Pace]

Bjornhall

Firstly I dont "ONLY" fly commercially :)

Let me turn this around a bit.

Why should I put my passengers even in a GA 4 seater aircraft in the extra discomfort of making multiple turns which are Not needed to get to a position of "on finals"?

Why should I increase their risk of a collision (there is most definately an increase in collision risk with an OHJ)

Why should I add mileage and hence cost to the trip flying needless and pointless legs?

Why should I increase my carbon footprint flying needless extra distance?

Why should I increase my risk of loss of control especially in strong winds and poorer vis by making all these extra turns?

On lower cloudbase days why should I add to the confusion of no one knowing what they are doing or even worse confusion on marginal cloudbase days? surely better to have a standard system which fits most VFR weather?

You do an OHJ if you want to I am not against that! but if I ask for a more sensible join dont tell me I cant.

The 45 degree join is well tested and far greater used worldwide than the OHJ and there must be a reason for that.

Pace

[bjornhall]

Pace,

I agree with much of that. I see good reasons for doing an overhead join in many cases, and not in others. An overhead join should be done for such good reasons, not just because it is all one knows. It should certainly not be mandatory!

But I maintain it is usually a good idea, for the reasons I gave above! :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm at loss as to why ATC would ever require anyone to perform an overhead join! I have never come across a controlled airport where ATC does not provide sequencing to join the traffic pattern
Because they don't have radar perhaps?

[Captain Smithy]

Pace

As always you make some good points in your post! However I'm not convinced about the argument that an OHJ takes up more time (and hence money) for no good reason.

An OHJ doesn't really add more than a couple of minutes onto your journey in my experience, and if the AIP entry for my destination airfield recommends or expects a standard OHJ then fair enough that is what I'll do unless circumstances dictate e.g. unexpected deteriorating Wx, traffic, ATC etc. (you mention this point in your post, which I thoroughly agree with). But don't get me started on "Carbon Footprints" ;)

For me an OHJ is a good idea because it generally keeps traffic ordered, especially at an uncontrolled field. One problem is when the AIP says at Aerodrome X a SOHJ is recommended, so when you arrive in the ATZ of X you perform a SOHJ as per the book, but then others decide to join from all different directions, base, downwind or wherever. Fair enough that's up to them and it doesn't bother me in the least but it makes things much more confusing for everyone if people are joining the circuit at all different positions; this happens all the time at a certain airfield near me and it can get a bit confusing at times. Either that or when others cut into the circuit on base or final forcing others in the circuit to have to go around. It can get a little boggling especially if there are 4 or 5 aircraft trying to join the circuit at the same time from different positions.

This was especially confusing when I was a newish student starting out with circuits, my brain already somewhat overloaded with trying to remember BUMFF-etc., when to make the calls/what to say and having my FI screaming "Right Rudder! Right Rudder! Right Rudder!" throughout the flare, all whilst trying to remember how to fly the aeroplane...

Smithy

[Wide-Body]

Hi Pace

you are probably right on most accounts, but it works well. We do not have ATC of any sort. We have multiple non radio aircraft and the most active aerobatic scene in the south. We are constricted to the space around us due LHR. Although the flight training may have many ac in the circuit we are GA only so speeds between 50-130 kts are accommodated. A pilot must observe rule 12, and I suggest if he is worried about a minute extra flight time then the temptation not to go around on cost basis may be in his mind. It is mentally a bad place to be. On lower cloud base days we are flexible enough to change the procedures. It is notable the the landing rate goes down than in an OHJ day.

This subject polarises pilots, you have some good arguments but loose it with the rubbish bits you say.

If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, the average GA four seater is not viable. We can fit a silencer for the noise pollution. If you are concerned at loosing control even on a very windy day drop me a PM and I will give you and hour of FREE instruction.

The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.

Fly safe

[englishal]

Me: "Unable to comply due to low cloud base, request xxx join"
ATC: "xxx join approved"

There. That's not difficult, is it?

Me: "Unable to comply do an OHJ due to cloud base, request XXX join"
ATC(?): "Do whatever you want, this is RADIO"

Seems too many people treat "Radio" like it is ATC. You always hear pilots "requesting" stuff from RADIO.

Actually this is a very good point, where most airfields are RADIO then "ATC" has no authority to tell a pilot what to do. So the other day, I flew into an airfield I know likes the OHJ. So I thought I'd do what they wanted and said "joining overhead" and the radio guy came back with "be aware they are gliding today" so I said "ok, mind if we join on base then?" he said "pilot descretion, this is a A/G radio"....(I knew and was just being polite)....so I said "ok, joining left base 24".

I think that if people joined at the most convienient place in the circuit, then that is best. I joined from the dead side at Compton Abbas the other day as I was coming from the South. I joined on a base somewhere else, and overhead at my home field as it was closed, I wanted to see the windsock, and from 3000 I could glide all the way to landing without upsetting the neighbours.

[Pace]

If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, the average GA four seater is not viable. We can fit a silencer for the noise pollution. If you are concerned at loosing control even on a very windy day drop me a PM and I will give you and hour of FREE instruction.

The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.

Widebody

Nowhere have I said it should be banned only as a standard joining method.

I feel it should have no more prominance than any other join.

If it was so good why is the SOHJ so exclusive to the UK? (Correct me if I am wrong)

No I am not that concerned at Carbon footprints but am at my wallet if paying for a flight. I would question the couple of minutes.

As an ATP with 4000 hrs I am not overly concerned with loss of control but used that to remind us that most accidents due to loss of control happen in turns low level. Adding a mass of extra turns wont help anyone.

From flying passengers on the paid part of my flying the ideal is to takeoff straight and land straight and that becomes inground into flying passengers on private leisure flights.

what bugs me is arriving at an airfield with a couple of aircraft well spaced in the circuit and the runway ahead and being told to fly into the overhead do a mass of turns to end up where I already was. I would rather go straight in adjusting my speed to accomodate the other traffic where you get the best vantage point to see them.

I remember flying down wind at circuit height. an aircraft cut across the front at almost circuit height towards the overhead beneith a lowering cloudbase.
he turned out to be a low time PPL. Several miles out the cloudbase was higher. Atc instructed him to join OH which he complied with albeit nearly a 1000 feet too low :)

My preference would be circuit height joins as standard with the OHJ as an option for those who want or need it and I stress if conditions can legally accept it which on many occasions it cannot.

Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

I like the 45 to downwind that I learnt in the US (went across there with 200 hour UK), although I am open to other suggestions.

Pace makes a good point about losing control, when I was low houred, I was rushed into an OHJ by an ATCO (I know, I should have declined) and the descent rate got out of hand, I recovered by feeling very uncomfortable at the change in the size of the houses. I lost 300 feet more than I intended to.

SOHJ are anachronistic.

Sorry Wide, I know you are an ATPL with zillions of hours, but you are making a luddite argument. I guess you are anti Euro too?

Time to move on to a better solution.

[Wide-Body]

Pace/ 3G

What I mean is both systems do work. OHJ do need a bit more thought. I like the 45 join best but sometimes OH just works better. Thanks for the zillions of hours comment, but that makes me no more unlikely to screw up. It just means that I will be able to work out quicker how I have screwed up

Pace your biggest problem is that you put ATC into the equation, now there I would struggle to put my argument. Just leave OHJ to pilots it works out much better that way.

3G I like the Euro, but also like pre war non radio aircraft. It means that there is no mutual exclusivity to new and old ideas. Bit like Overhead and 45 degree joins really.

[Final 3 Greens]

Wide

That is a very clever reply, I admire it :ok:

[Pace]

Pace your biggest problem is that you put ATC into the equation

Widebody sorry using the word ATC too loosely :) infact where there is proper ATC like EGBJ ATC tend to be more accomodating fitting faster aircraft where they sense the experience of the pilot onto more direct joins while the rest are flying SOHJs.

It is often the clubby fields with just radio who are the worst and demand OHJs regardless of traffic or otherwise.

My preferance would be the 45 degree join as that covers lower cloudbase and weather without throwing confusion into the equation or as I said before even more confusion in marginal OHJ conditions

But all to their own :)

Pace

[bjornhall]

I'm a bit confused by the talk about confusion regarding overhead joins. What is confusing about an overhead join? :confused:

I agree a 45 degree join seems best when you already know the runway in use before you arrive at the airport; i.e., someone trustworthy told you on the radio. But if you do need to overfly the airfield, to check the windsock or whatever, the overhead join seems more straightforward and far quicker (lowering Pace's carbon footprint... ;)).

If I understand correctly a UK style OHJ means arriving overhead at 2,000 ft AFL? Then I can see why cloud base is a bigger problem; around here it is usually 1,500 ft AFL (when it is done at all), making it somewhat easier. :)

I'm astonished there are still ATC towers in operation in the civilized world that do not have radar and can not provide sequencing in the pattern... :oh:

[betterfromabove]

Pace........here, here, here. Landed right on the numbers with your posts.

Bjornhall: There IS another OHJ method that does work extremely well, is ordered, helpful to the pilot & avoids unnecessary turning - the French method.

This involves arriving at 90 deg to main runway orientation & ascertaining runway direction at 1500'AGL. You then turn into the relevant circuit direction & only descend to 1000'AGL once x-wind.

Is used at several gliding sites in the UK, e.g. Booker, so must have sense as this is a scenario where separation & visibility are crucial (aero-tows, low-viz gliders & parallel runway operations). It's also essentially the method used at the London TMA height-limited Denham ATZ when traffic separation on arrival cannot be gauranteed....they tend to call it "an early go-around into the circuit", but in effect it's exactly the same idea & makes a lot of safety sense.

Sure the US 45 deg method also has its logic & is faster, but doesn't allow you to "fly the circuit" or get the overhead perspective on wind/surface conditions in the same way.

I think we should be lobbying the CAA to dump this old WW1 relic & fly what is SAFEST not what is tradition....

We'll be using GPS as a navigation tool next :rolleyes:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

what bugs me is arriving at an airfield with a couple of aircraft well spaced in the circuit and the runway ahead and being told to fly into the overhead do a mass of turns to end up where I already was. I would rather go straight in adjusting my speed to accomodate the other traffic where you get the best vantage point to see them.
ATC: "Join overhead rw nn ..."
Me: "Request straight in"
ATC: "Straight in approved, no. 3 to the xxx late downwind"

Still not difficult. You don't necessarily have to take the first offer, you can always try negotiating.

[Pace]

ATC: "Join overhead rw nn ..."
Me: "Request straight in"
ATC: "Straight in approved, no. 3 to the xxx late downwind

Gertrude

Sounds lovely but at some places (nameless) "request straight in"
"negative we have an aircraft in the circuit, somewhere? or did he go? anyway I am sure we will have another at some time. Join overhead."

Sounds far fetched? I can assure you there are places just like that :) and usually run by commitees :)

Pace