Circuit Procedures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FireFlyBob 
7 out of 10 midairs occur in and around the airfield which is natural as that is where most aircraft fly in proximity with each other.
The OH join goes back decades and is a relic from the past of non radio aircraft with poor navigational abilities. Flying overhead allowed the pilot to visually confirm that he was where he though he was. He could examine the runway layout as well as the signal area to visually inspect the runway in use ETC.
From that position the pilot could then descend into a circuit.
We all know that nothing in aviation changes fast. A lot is steeped in history on the basis that that is how it has always been done and how it should always be done.
i am not against the OH join but as posted previously question it as a STANDARD
If it was so good it would be used universally worldwide which it is not.
On a good CAVOK day it works as published but is abused by ATC and pilots on days when it cannot be used as published.
Any joining system which requires aircraft to congregate in one spot flying visually and to make level changes and needless 90 degree turns has to increase collision potential?
so while I accept the OH join as one possible join I do not think in this era that it is the best way. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and not many other nations are eating it worldwide. Any system which reduces level changes, aircraft homing into one spot and multiple needless blind 90 degree turns has to reduce collision potential?
.
Agreed But to act differently you have to think differently first
Pace
7 out of 10 midairs occur in and around the airfield which is natural as that is where most aircraft fly in proximity with each other.
The OH join goes back decades and is a relic from the past of non radio aircraft with poor navigational abilities. Flying overhead allowed the pilot to visually confirm that he was where he though he was. He could examine the runway layout as well as the signal area to visually inspect the runway in use ETC.
From that position the pilot could then descend into a circuit.
We all know that nothing in aviation changes fast. A lot is steeped in history on the basis that that is how it has always been done and how it should always be done.
i am not against the OH join but as posted previously question it as a STANDARD
If it was so good it would be used universally worldwide which it is not.
On a good CAVOK day it works as published but is abused by ATC and pilots on days when it cannot be used as published.
Any joining system which requires aircraft to congregate in one spot flying visually and to make level changes and needless 90 degree turns has to increase collision potential?
so while I accept the OH join as one possible join I do not think in this era that it is the best way. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and not many other nations are eating it worldwide. Any system which reduces level changes, aircraft homing into one spot and multiple needless blind 90 degree turns has to reduce collision potential?
People who act differently are the ones who bring about change
Agreed But to act differently you have to think differently first
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 8th Jul 2015 at 19:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firebobfly
Nothing will be completely risk free in an environment which brings numerous pilot controlled rather than radar controlled aircraft into close proximity.
All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.
There are other things like better communication.
I am not against the OH join in its pure form. That is 2000 ft agl OH, 500 feet clear of cloud so used with a minimum of 2500 agl cloud base .
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?
Pace
Nothing will be completely risk free in an environment which brings numerous pilot controlled rather than radar controlled aircraft into close proximity.
All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.
There are other things like better communication.
I am not against the OH join in its pure form. That is 2000 ft agl OH, 500 feet clear of cloud so used with a minimum of 2500 agl cloud base .
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 9th Jul 2015 at 10:27.
Nothing will be completely risk free in an environment which brings numerous pilot controlled rather than radar controlled aircraft into close proximity.
All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.
There are other things like better communication.
All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.
There are other things like better communication.
I am not against the OH join in its pure form. That is 2000 ft agl OH, 500 feet clear of cloud so used with a minimum of 2500 agl cloud base .
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?
In fact if you follow the process it seems hard to see why there would ever be an issue.
You seem obsessed with a standard joining height that you suggest falls apart with a low cloud base and people arriving at different heights?
Firstly you can all still use the radio and explain the height and position that you are arriving at in order to remain VMC and secondly i'm unsure of the type of people that would willingly try and arrive at this point with a few feet of separation.
Whatever system is in place there will always be a senario able to catch out and foil the standardised norm. No rigid system will be a catch all. Ultimately see and avoid works just as well in the circuit as outside of it and aviate, navigate, communicate...
Isn't it the case that actually regardless of the system bad airmanship is bad airmanship and arguably No.1 on that list is the lack of a plan.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts Extra
But then its not a standard OH as specified by the CAA its a home made adapted OH join to suit that airfield.
OK call it a minimal OH or whatever but if you only have 500 feet separation why bother just use what most of the world uses successfully to join rather than clinging onto something from bygone eras and trying to push it into a hole it really doesn't fit
For 500 (( feet why all the potential extra 90 degree turns? what for ? Every 90 degree turn is an extra collision hazard it has to be especially mixing high and low wing an aircraft of differing speed ?
I really do not understand why countries have to be so territorial in their rule making we should have uniformity worldwide. EASA were created at huge cost to rewrite the rule book when they could have just copied a tried successful and tested FAA system and saved the tax payer a fortune
Pace
But then its not a standard OH as specified by the CAA its a home made adapted OH join to suit that airfield.
OK call it a minimal OH or whatever but if you only have 500 feet separation why bother just use what most of the world uses successfully to join rather than clinging onto something from bygone eras and trying to push it into a hole it really doesn't fit
For 500 (( feet why all the potential extra 90 degree turns? what for ? Every 90 degree turn is an extra collision hazard it has to be especially mixing high and low wing an aircraft of differing speed ?
I really do not understand why countries have to be so territorial in their rule making we should have uniformity worldwide. EASA were created at huge cost to rewrite the rule book when they could have just copied a tried successful and tested FAA system and saved the tax payer a fortune
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jul 2015 at 11:17.
I thought we were discussing the merits or otherwise of the OH join?? standard or otherwise?
I hear you re: the 90 turns but i can't see the alternative that hasn't its own set of potential issues..Don't get me wrong its not perfect and i'm not wedded to the OH I just don't see the issues as so huge
Edited to add:-
Your original posting on this makes a lot of assumptions.
Very many aircraft today don't have very much in terms of avionics. Whilst we assume having a radio in the aircraft is normal its fairly common for very many GA airfields not to have the radio manned 100% of the time, and that is during what many would consider to be normal hours in mid-week. For example I flew to Sleap recently mid-week at 4pm-ish and couldn't raise anyone.
Sadly the number of full time people working that can be sustained by a handful of movements is very often not more that 1 and if that chap needs to go to the toilet, have a tea or lock up the pumps etc what does he do?
So the need to look at the signal square and wind sock isn't as uncommon as one might think.
Further many microlights, light sport, aerobatic and gyroplanes don't have anything by way of nav aids other than perhaps the pilot using his own ipad type application.
The point is you can't just apply the thinking to a Piper/Cirrus spam can type, which often have different avionics fit which means if you are SFH many pilots haven't the first idea what is available even when its fitted!
Lets be pragmatic, if the pilot that cut you up in your example can't be bothered to give his position, height and his inability to maintain VMC what are the chances that same chap reading all the gen on the full suite of his avionics fit... none of which would have actually stopped the cloud base and his need to join the circuit anyway..
Flying straight in, OH join, downwind... it doesn't matter at some point isn't your argument about heading to "one spot" always going to be the same? After all where do I head straight in from??
Actually an OH join would have saved this accident:-
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...IICI_11-12.pdf
What do you do at a place like Oxford then?
Just as easy to blame bad RT as the OH join isn't it?
until there is an obviously better solution why change something?
I hear you re: the 90 turns but i can't see the alternative that hasn't its own set of potential issues..Don't get me wrong its not perfect and i'm not wedded to the OH I just don't see the issues as so huge
Edited to add:-
Your original posting on this makes a lot of assumptions.
It harps back to the days of non radio aircraft with minimal navigation equipment who needed to go over head and were pure VFR with minimal navigation aids
Firstly to be sure they were in the right place, to view the runways and read the signal square and look at the wind sock.
Very few aircraft do not have GPS and accurate DME readouts. so many of our regulations are still stuck in by gone eras which are not relevant today.
Firstly to be sure they were in the right place, to view the runways and read the signal square and look at the wind sock.
Very few aircraft do not have GPS and accurate DME readouts. so many of our regulations are still stuck in by gone eras which are not relevant today.
Sadly the number of full time people working that can be sustained by a handful of movements is very often not more that 1 and if that chap needs to go to the toilet, have a tea or lock up the pumps etc what does he do?
So the need to look at the signal square and wind sock isn't as uncommon as one might think.
Further many microlights, light sport, aerobatic and gyroplanes don't have anything by way of nav aids other than perhaps the pilot using his own ipad type application.
The point is you can't just apply the thinking to a Piper/Cirrus spam can type, which often have different avionics fit which means if you are SFH many pilots haven't the first idea what is available even when its fitted!
Lets be pragmatic, if the pilot that cut you up in your example can't be bothered to give his position, height and his inability to maintain VMC what are the chances that same chap reading all the gen on the full suite of his avionics fit... none of which would have actually stopped the cloud base and his need to join the circuit anyway..
For me the OH join increases collision risk mixing high wing and low wing aircraft all making blind 90 degree turns and all homing into one spot like honey bees over an airfield.
flying straight in why make up to six extra blind 90 degree turns to end up in the position you were already in? why make your PAX uncomfortable and why add needless time to an already expensive flight.
flying straight in why make up to six extra blind 90 degree turns to end up in the position you were already in? why make your PAX uncomfortable and why add needless time to an already expensive flight.
Actually an OH join would have saved this accident:-
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...IICI_11-12.pdf
Why mix fast and slow high and low wing together? its all a collision risk?
I too had to take avoiding action when an aircraft attempted an OH joint at 1200 feet with a 1400 foot cloud base cutting through the down wind leg 
Oh well the wheels of aviation turn very slowly and are stuck in the past
Last edited by Pittsextra; 13th Jul 2015 at 13:35.
I was much happier with the US mid-downwind 45° join at unmanned airfields. But I've been told to overfly the field first lately. And there are now roundabouts on the US roads.
I was much happier with the US mid-downwind 45° join at unmanned airfields.
Beyond which how do I get to this "mid-downwind" point if I arrive at the field from the dead side? Do I overfly the field? Drive across the end of the runway crosswind.... errr did you read the AAIB report of the Leicester accident?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts extra
The FAA system is way way bigger worldwide than the CAA I am sure if the rest of the world thought the OH was so good they would all adopt it and it would be a universal join which it isn't
If you are deadside why not just join crosswind, turn down wind base and land ? which isn't far off what you would do from that direction in an OH join.
any extra 90 degree turn you make is an extra collision hazard as you are partially blind in that turn! Every level change you make is a collision hazard any point you make as a herding point is a collision risk.
I am not against the OH as a join amongst other passible joins at certain airfields and where weather allows? I am against it being fitted into conditions where it doesn't fit as depicted by the CAA. i am against a 500 foot separation and a modified OH join (there are better ways than that)
as stated if it was so good everyone would want it which worldwide they don't It is an archaic method which yes has a place but the majority of pilots world wide don't want it! Proof of the pudding is in the eating and the vast majority do not want to eat the OH join only us historically jammed Brits
I have had instructions from FIS to join OH when its impossible to do so due weather. Next time I will do so and declare that I am doing so in IMC as to published procedures
Pace
The FAA system is way way bigger worldwide than the CAA
I am sure if the rest of the world thought the OH was so good they would all adopt it and it would be a universal join which it isn't If you are deadside why not just join crosswind, turn down wind base and land ? which isn't far off what you would do from that direction in an OH join.
any extra 90 degree turn you make is an extra collision hazard as you are partially blind in that turn! Every level change you make is a collision hazard any point you make as a herding point is a collision risk.
I am not against the OH as a join amongst other passible joins at certain airfields and where weather allows? I am against it being fitted into conditions where it doesn't fit as depicted by the CAA. i am against a 500 foot separation and a modified OH join (there are better ways than that)
as stated if it was so good everyone would want it which worldwide they don't
It is an archaic method which yes has a place but the majority of pilots world wide don't want it! Proof of the pudding is in the eating and the vast majority do not want to eat the OH join only us historically jammed Brits I have had instructions from FIS to join OH when its impossible to do so due weather. Next time I will do so and declare that I am doing so in IMC as to published procedures
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 14th Jul 2015 at 12:26.
f you are deadside why not just join crosswind, turn down wind base and land ? which isn't far off what you would do from that direction in an OH join.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...IICI_11-12.pdf
That crosswind join ended as badly as it ever could for one pilot.
I actually just don't agree that the 90deg turns in an OH join are a collision risk. Firstly the act of turning 90deg is very simple from a piloting perspective and secondly at no 90deg turn should I encounter any traffic I shouldn't have already seen.
I mean what traffic are we expecting a conflict with at any point? Perhaps the very first turn having joined overhead - but really with even the minimal of RT and use of the Mark 1 eyeball its not that hard to see and avoid is it?
I might be oblivious but when was the last mid air collision in the OH?
Don't get me wrong I am fairly confident you are a more experienced aviator than I but I think my points are fair enough
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts Extra
I opened this thread for discussion that doesn't make me right and its nothing to do with experience OK I may fly more PAX than you and as such as a pilot you want to make the flight as short as possible with as few turns as possible always PAX comfort in mind.
It drives me mad in a fast twin when say 8 miles out setup for a final to be told to join OH. That means OH turn 1 descend deadside turn 2 crosswind 3 downwind 4 base 5 final and hey Bingo I am back where I was after 5 pointless turns.
But I have made my points and will only repeat my arguments its only a discussion and I respect your opinion even if we don't totally agree
Pace
I opened this thread for discussion that doesn't make me right
and its nothing to do with experience OK I may fly more PAX than you and as such as a pilot you want to make the flight as short as possible with as few turns as possible always PAX comfort in mind.It drives me mad in a fast twin when say 8 miles out setup for a final to be told to join OH. That means OH turn 1 descend deadside turn 2 crosswind 3 downwind 4 base 5 final and hey Bingo I am back where I was after 5 pointless turns.
But I have made my points
and will only repeat my arguments its only a discussion and I respect your opinion even if we don't totally agree Pace
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aiming for a straight in landing is similar to the overhead join in one respect.... everyone is aiming for the same point, but with less space within which to miss each other, and less height too.
Of course if one is at work and being radar vectored it's great to get a short cut to finals, but when flying GA types I'm up there for the fun of it so there is no time pressure. I therefore think that when mixing radio and non radio traffic the overhead join is the safest and most expeditious option.
Of course if one is at work and being radar vectored it's great to get a short cut to finals, but when flying GA types I'm up there for the fun of it so there is no time pressure. I therefore think that when mixing radio and non radio traffic the overhead join is the safest and most expeditious option.
Some interesting comments.
In New Zealand the over head join is taught. We have many unattended airfields where it can be used.
However it isn't the only accepted means of joining the circuit (pattern). The main reason for using it is to determine the runway in use. If you can determine the runway in use by other means (radio, smoke drift, wind lanes etc) you can join on any leg of the circuit without doing an overhead join, provided you follow the circuit direction.
It's not used at controlled airfields.
I saw one post mention the FIS instructed an overheard join be carried out. Perhaps it's different in the UK, our FIS are just that an information service. They cannot tell you to do anything. You as the P in C decide what you will do based on the information they may give you.
Over all if used properly the overhead join is a useful procedure.
In New Zealand the over head join is taught. We have many unattended airfields where it can be used.
However it isn't the only accepted means of joining the circuit (pattern). The main reason for using it is to determine the runway in use. If you can determine the runway in use by other means (radio, smoke drift, wind lanes etc) you can join on any leg of the circuit without doing an overhead join, provided you follow the circuit direction.
It's not used at controlled airfields.
I saw one post mention the FIS instructed an overheard join be carried out. Perhaps it's different in the UK, our FIS are just that an information service. They cannot tell you to do anything. You as the P in C decide what you will do based on the information they may give you.
Over all if used properly the overhead join is a useful procedure.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
Perhaps it's different in the UK, our FIS are just that an information service. They cannot tell you to do anything
If it's not different why do pilots take instructions from FIS?
There should be no need for this
There should be no need for this
I have had instructions from FIS to join OH when its impossible to do so due weather. Next time I will do so and declare that I am doing so in IMC as to published procedures
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
There should be no need for this
Originally Posted by flybymike
Usually for the sake of a quiet life