Does anyone ever use "The Overhead Approach"?

[Thief13x]

I belive thats what its called. I was reading an artical in Aviation Safety Magazine that was stressing the importance of practicing the overhead approach regularly. They said it would help keep profficient in emergency landings, and possibly someday save your life. I had never heard of the overhead approach prior to this article, so i looked into it afterwards. What i found was shocking, i couldn't belive this artical was printed in a safety magazine! the whole maneuver looks extremely dangerous and to me, a stall would be almost inevetible if something was to distract the pilot or go wrong.

Does anyone practice these approaches? are they even in use today? are they legal at all airports? should i be practicing them? My flight instructor has never really mentioned it to me...Besides, usually when i ask him why we don't do a maneuver somone else does, he has a fairly good reason for it.

T13x

[2Donkeys]

If, as your signature line suggests, you are based in the US, you can disregard talk of "Overhead Joins".

The same applies if by "overhead approach", you mean the 45 degree spiralling approach into the overhead.

[SteveR]

In the UK we are taught overhead 'joins', as opposed to joining at 45 degrees to the downwind leg as I believe is practised in the States.

Is this what you mean?

There are people who believe the overhead join is not too safe, but it's nothing to do with stalling.

Could you describe an overhead approach please.

Steve R

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect that you're talking about what we Brits know as an overhead join. They are very common here in Britain, but pretty rare in the US (I've flown one or two).

The principle is simple enough - you join at 1000ft above circuit height (or other height if called for by local procedures) over the main runway centreline, before descending onto deadside (upwind in American), then turning crosswind at circuit height and fitting in with the normal circuit.

It relies upon a very good lookout, since there is risk of intruding into another aircraft's bit of space, particularly during the deadside descent (if somebody else is joining deadside or going around), or during the turn onto downwind since you won't be as far into wind at that turn as you would be if you were flying a conventional circuit. But most other joins require a similar degree of care and lookout so there's nothing particularly scarey there.

Why would be fly an OHJ?, well...

- To take a good look at an unfamiliar airfield.
- If making a non-radio join, you can see the windsock and signal square and get all of the main information you need for your circuit and landing.
- If for any reason you are uncertain of the reliability of your engine, it's possible from most points in an OHJ to convert to a deadstick onto the runway.
- You don't need to descend until overhead the airfield, which in some places (such as where surrounded by high terrain, or close to other airfields) can be advantageous.

So, I'm inclined to agree with your local flight safety mag and say one should regularly practice overhead joins, as well as keeping current on the main signals - since unless you know those, it's a little pointless.

On the other hand, if there's an American procedure that I've not met called an overhead apporoach, which is distinct from an OHJ, please disregard all after "good afternoon" !

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

The overhead join is another anachronism in British aviation (together with Austers and the like).

The principle is very much as GtE describes it.

Can sometimes be handy to have a look at a new airfield if there is enough height under the clouds to climb to the required height/altitude and there is not a lot of traffic.

Other than that not much use and a waste of time and energy.

FD

[Thief13x]

Yes Genghis, that is the proceedure i read. Although, the magazine also said that many time, you just hold a continuous bank angle throughout the manuever untill you're lined up with the runway. Basically then, the pilot would never cease to turn after starting the initial turn. I guess to me this sounded kinda dangerous because you would be riding the airspeed just above stalling because of the bank angle.

The guy that wrote the artical also said that many times, you will hear the stallhorn blaring throughout the approach, but just to keep a good eye on the airspeed. Come to think of it, this actually seems to make more sense than the traditional pattern flown here in the United States. It defenatly sounds much less cumbersom and you're both right, you would be able to get a nice veiw of the runway and windsock before making that final decision to land. Hmm, maybe i will ask my instructor about this. Thanks guys!:ok:

Happy Flyin

T13x

[IO540]

Thief13x

This must be a different procedure to the UK one, because in the UK one you don't do a continuous bank angle until lined up with the runway. You join overhead, typically 2000ft AGL, then descend into the normal circuit (typically 1000ft AGL) on what is called the dead side and fly the normal circuit.

I suppose one could do a no-engine landing from an OHJ at any point, if one kept the circuit very tight, but that's not why they exist. It is a relic from before radio was carried on aircraft, and the idea is that you can read the signals square.

[vintage ATCO]

Mandatory at OW, FD!

Maybe non-radio traffic in the circuit and it gives the model flyers time to clear the landing area.


VA

[Chilli Monster]

This sounds more like a poorly flown PFL just above the stall to me rather than an overhead join.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Why would be fly an OHJ?, well... "Because ATC ask you to" would be another reason, like when a few days ago I wasn't offered an otherwise expected straight-in approach because there were too many people in faster aeroplanes than mine playing with the ILS.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Sounds like the 'constant aspect' forced landing tecnique as taught in the military - and very effective, too.

SSD

[Genghis the Engineer]

Gertrude said:

"Because ATC ask you to" would be another reason

Wash your mouth out with soap sir, I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!


Thief mentioned that:

, the magazine also said that many time, you just hold a continuous bank angle throughout the manuever

Disregarding the strange colonial spelling of manoeuvre, what you're describing seems to be a "constant aspect approach", which is something else altogether. In both the UK and the US it is routinely practiced by the military, and by glider pilots - you'll also find it taught in some places as a way of flying PFLs.

The principle is fairly straightforward in it's application, you keep the landing point (nominally about 1/3 into your runway or field) at the same angle below the horizon through a constant descending turn. You can vary your bank angle for positioning, and the intention is to roll out wings level on your landing heading at 100ft or so. It has two big advantages, one is for mixed circuit traffic that it allows aircraft with very different speeds to share a circuit quite painlessly, the other is that it takes much of the guesswork out of whether you'll correctly you'll judge your landing point if the engine isn't playing.

Looking at my records I did write an 1100 word article in one of the American flying magazines (not on the one mentioned) on how to fly CA approaches, it was published in April 2001. If there's any interest, and given a couple of days I could probably post it in here.

G

[paulo]

By rights, joins should be a 'hotspot' for everyone. Both methods have their issues, and the issues (for me at least) are "where do I need to be" and "what am I looking for". I started on 45s, and these days (back in the UK) have to appreciate overheads.

From a US view.... Are you OK with positioning for 45s to downwind?
When you get positioned, do you know where to look for conflicting (crosswind) traffic?

When you're comfortable with those, then you're set I think.

[goddammit]

Genghis the Engineer

I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests.

Wash your mouth out with soap, whilst revising what the ano says about flight within ATZs and within Controlled airspace!

[DubTrub]

Overhead joins are indeed common in the UK. They are less common in other countries because many other countries' aviation communities (France is a classic example) are more practical in mixing aviating types...e.g. gliding, parachuting, etc, at the same airfield. An overhead join at a drop zone is not considered polite, or indeed safe.

I personally like the US 45 degree join to downwind, but of course if joining from the 'dead' side, the 45 degree join is generally preceeded by routing overhead for traffic observation; a descent somewhere and then joining the downwing leg from wide on the live side (arguably outside the zone).

It can be a bit long-winded, but I guess each community develops its own practices.

DT

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests I'll ask for some other join or not depending on circumstances, but I'm only going to ask if I think that it won't put other pilots to more trouble than it's going to save me, which is a judgement I make based on what else I can hear going on. As a low hours PPL with very limited experience to apply to such judgements I am likely to err on the side of believing that ATC have made a sensible suggestion. After all, the entire existence of ATC "co-incides with my own interests" - they're only down there ect ect.

[Chilli Monster]

I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action! Well, there's something I never expected to read from such a (normally) sensible person.

Genghis - please bear in mind 2 things:

1) We have the big picture.

2) When we ask, the next resort is we tell (when empowered to do so).

This of course is assuming that you are referring to 'Proper' ATC as opposed to FISO or A/G, in which case you have the right to 'discuss' (though that gets laborious too)

[FNG]

The overhead join can be very useful for positively identifying the runway in use, particularly at a field with multiple runways, some of which are closely angled (eg a 21 and a 25). This can avoid blushes (or far worse) consequent upon positioning for the wrong runway.

Flying a constant angle approach (which, as has been pointed out, is distinct from the overhead join, but is the useful circuit and forced landing technique employed by the military) should not make you worried about stalling, as the bank angles involved are not usually dramatic.

I've noticed on Avweb that there's seems to be some debate in US light aviation as to whether the 45 degree downwind join is or is not a good thing. I express no views on this, having no experience upon which to base any, but just mention that it's apparently one of those perennial debates.

[Windy Militant]

I think what Gengis is refering to, is for example that more and more airfields tend to favour the use of one main runway,
for various reasons, noise abatement or licensing.
If you operate a Taildragger or Microlight which prefers grass and is more cross wind sensative than the usual crop of trainers that operate there, it sometimes has to be pointed out to ATC that yes they do have a grass runway and yes we'd be a lot happier using it please.

Integrating with the rest of the traffic is vitally important but not to the point of endangering yourself and your aircraft by accepting an instruction which puts you in a less favourable position than is otherwise available.

Most of the time the wishes of both Pilot and ATC will coincide however it is sensible if you believe that following instructions will endager you or others to query same.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there's something I never expected to read from such a (normally) sensible person.

Genghis - please bear in mind 2 things:

1) We have the big picture.

2) When we ask, the next resort is we tell (when empowered to do so).

This of course is assuming that you are referring to 'Proper' ATC as opposed to FISO or A/G, in which case you have the right to 'discuss' (though that gets laborious too)


I would interpret Ghenghis' post to infer that as captain of the aeroplane, he has the final say in what he does in flight. It would be a foolish pilot indeed who let himself get vectored into the side of very nasty CB which could easily be avoided by a slightly different heading, or a VFR-only pilot who flew into IMC rather than 'discuss' an alternative heading with ATC.

ATC has the 'big picture', but the pilot is the one flying the aeroplane and who has ultimate responsibility for its safety.

As for A/G and FISOS, other than the latter when on the ground, what they request can be complied with or ignored as the pilot sees fit.

SSD

[Genghis the Engineer]

Grief, I didn't mean to cause a firestorm here - SSD is closest to what I meant (even if my phrasing was arguably a little flippant).

I've at various times had ATC (and yes, I mean ATC, not AFIS) give me instructions that if followed would have caused breaches of rule 5, taken me IMC in a VMC aeroplane, taken me in a microlight about 30 seconds behind a landing airliner, taken me into a position where in a single engined aeroplane I would have absolutely no chance of surviving an engine failure. On two occasions, whilst following the instructions of one controller, I've transgressed on another controller's airspace without, as I later discovered, their agreement to my entering it (strangely neither got MOR'd :O ).

There are two big pictures - the one I can see, and the one seen by the controller. If they ask me to take a particular course of action and I can see that it is sensible, safe and legal - then of course one should read back the instruction and follow it. However I have a duty on me as captain of an aircraft to consider ATC instructions, and if there is any good reason not to follow the instruction, to advise the controller immediately of the problem and ask for an alternative.

Or to re-iterate...

I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!

Flying into IMC without the appropriate kit on board, flying at 2000ft over the middle of a city, getting caught in the wake turbulence of a landing airliner, and breaching the ANO are all actions that I class as "not co-incident with my own interests". In the wider picture, I'm probably doing the controller a favour too since I imagine he'd get at-least some share of the blame.

G

N.B. Gertrude, whilst your trusting nature is very laudable, bear in mind that whilst you, for-example, know the crosswind limits of your aeroplane - the tower controller probably doesn't....

N.B.B. Chilli Monster, surely you don't think any qualified pilot is going to obey any instruction of yours if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?

[DRJAD]

An overhead join is, of course, normal procedure at Sherburn: 1500' on the QFE, descend deadside to circuit height, and join the circuit pattern via crosswind perpendicularly orientated on the upwind end of the active runway. All straightforward, allows for a good lookout to be maintained, and appropriate radio calls contribute toward the maintenance of a good traffic picture.

There are no difficulties, though, occasionally, I believe, it can give a student in the circuit some pause for thought if, for example, a visitor insists upon a straight in approach.

[Airbedane]

Overhead Joins:

As VATCO has said, they're mandatory at Old Warden. They're also a useful way of spying the area before joining at other airfields.

The best published description I've yet seen for an Overhead Join is that shown in the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 'Aerodrome Sense':

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL06.PDF

The other leaflets are quite good too:

http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publications.asp?cattype=sercat&id=21

Take a look - they're free!

[vfrflyer]

Genghis the Engineer
I think it was the generalisation:

I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests.

Your interests may be a straight-in approach. ATC issue instructions and advice to achieve a safe orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. The pilot can request what he wants, but if it is not possible for ATC to accomodate that request then the pilot either follows the instructions he's given or remains outside the ATZ or CAS.

surely you don't think any qualified ATCO is going to issue any instruction if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?

[Genghis the Engineer]

My interests are generally wider than that, involving getting to my destination in one piece without breaking the law en-route, I didn't mean it quite that narrowly; my "interests" in this context are always the safe and legal operation of the aircraft. That said, it's quite usual to ask whether an alternative join to that given is acceptable - and in most cases you'll get it.

I don't believe that any ATCO will deliberately issue an instruction which takes you out of legal / aircraft limits, but that doesn't mean that they can't or don't do so inadvertently. The captain of an aircraft has the duty to assess instructions before accepting them - that's part of the reason we do all this training and exams, so that we have the ability to fulfil that duty.

I have to say that I find that the general assumption on some people's parts that our first action should be to accept ATC instructions, and then to think about it later rather disturbing. I know of nothing in any rulebook which says that accepting an ATC service, of any description, absolves the captain of the aircraft from absolute responsibility for ensuring the safe and legal operation of their aircraft.

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I have to say that I find that the general assumption on some people's parts that our first action should be to accept ATC instructions, and then to think about it later rather disturbing. I know of nothing in any rulebook which says that accepting an ATC service, of any description, absolves the captain of the aircraft from absolute responsibility for ensuring the safe and legal operation of their aircraft.

This should be carved in stone and mounted above the book-in desk of every flying school in the UK. It should also be printed on every other page of the log book of every flying instructor until the trend is abolished.

Perhaps the biggest change I've seen in the 25 years I've been flying is this trend towards blind obedience to the radio at the expense of THINKING about what you are doing, assuming command, and making command descisions. My impression, and that's all it is, is that this is a result of the old generation of ex-military instructors retiring and being replaced by low-hours guys on their way to a career in the airlines.

SSD

[Chilli Monster]

N.B.B. Chilli Monster, surely you don't think any qualified pilot is going to obey any instruction of yours if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
No - but there again I wouldn't give such an instruction. You've aroused the curiosity though ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

It wouldn't be difficult, for example:-

(1) You could give a VMC-only aircraft (or non IMC/IR rated pilot) a steer that takes it right through a bank of cloud, which is likely to be invisible to you on radar.

(2) You could ask a Piper Cub to take a route over a town that complies with the 1500ft rule, but not be aware that, unlike the last one you handled, which was on a CofA, that particular cub is on a permit and therefore not permitted to overfly built up areas under any circumstances.

(3) You could clear a Shadow onto finals at Shoreham on runway 25. But, because this is a microlight Shadow, not a group A Streak shadow, it isn't (until the rules change later this year) permitted to overfly the adjoining conurbation even on finals to a licensed aerodrome.


All of which would be instructions given by you in good faith and applying your best level of professionalism, but where the pilot if he is doing the same would be REQUIRED to decline the instruction and ask for an alternative.

G


N.B. SSD, please feel free to carve and reproduce it anywhere you like, with my blessing.

[Mike Cross]

Nice one guys!

I find myself agreeing with all three of you.:ok:

Mike

[Chilli Monster]

Ok - I'll take the bait
(1) You could give a VMC-only aircraft (or non IMC/IR rated pilot) a steer that takes it right through a bank of cloud, which is likely to be invisible to you on radar. Wouldn't happen. The only aircraft that get 'steers' (as in assigned a heading) are IFR on a RAS or aircraft on a RIS being vectored for an instrument approach.
(2) You could ask a Piper Cub to take a route over a town that complies with the 1500ft rule, but not be aware that, unlike the last one you handled, which was on a CofA, that particular cub is on a permit and therefore not permitted to overfly built up areas under any circumstances. Again, wouldn't happen. He'd be asked to route to one side of a point (north/south/east or west) for traffic reasons - how he did it would be up to him to enable him to operate iaw the regs.
(3) You could clear a Shadow onto finals at Shoreham on runway 25. But, because this is a microlight Shadow, not a group A Streak shadow, it isn't (until the rules change later this year) permitted to overfly the adjoining conurbation even on finals to a licensed aerodrome. Ok, you've got me there, but I don't work at Shoreham ;) I would say however that this would fall into the "discuss and you'll get what you want category" rather than a more obnoxious "I'm not doing that, because it doesn't suit!" category.

So - 1 out of 3 ;)

All of which would be instructions given by you in good faith and applying your best level of professionalism, but where the pilot if he is doing the same would be REQUIRED to decline the instruction and ask for an alternative. Which I sincerely hope he/she would do

(Quick example: Transitting a lump of class 'D' a few years back en-rte to my home airfield, operating a Seneca, showers and cloud going through the area. ATCO says "Cleared to transit maintain 3000ft, Remain VFR". My retort was "You get one or the other, you don't get both ;) )

CM

[cubflyer]

What Thief13x seems to be describing does seem to be more like some constant aspect approach, rather than an overhead join.

I find I use overhead joins at most places I fly to, it gives you a good view of the airfield layout and allows you to see the windsock and see other traffic. At airfields/strips with no radio it is the standard procedure and even for those with radio it is used by many.
It is not a British anarchism, Ive flown extensivly in France and there overhead joins are standard practice, except at those airfields with parachuting and winch launch gliding (not many most have towplanes) The French overhead join procedure is different to the UK one though.
Ive also used overhead joins most of the time in the USA, but Ive never flown at any large airfields, except Oshkosh and thus its nearly always been in non radio aircraft to non control tower airfields.

Always a good idea to practice engine failures, I should do it more often.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Gertrude, whilst your trusting nature is very laudable, bear in mind that whilst you, for-example, know the crosswind limits of your aeroplane - the tower controller probably doesn't.... I've no idea what the crosswind limit of the aeroplane is, other than it's greater than my crosswind limit. So far whenever this has been an issue ATC has asked which runway I want. Of course if they didn't I'd refuse a runway I couldn't land on and ask for another one; but this hasn't a lot to do with accepting a request to do an overhead join when the approach is a bit busy.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CM - It is possible for an aircraft limited to VMC to fly IFR on a RAS, whilst remaining VMC as required by their personal permissions.

I lose track of the occasions where I've had to ask for a change of altitude during an airspace transition (usually Brize for some reason) because the altitude I've been asked to fly at is full of cloud and I can't remain VMC. No hassle, but it happens.


Gertrude - so you've declared a crosswind problem to a controller and been offered an alternative runway. That's my point !

G

[Babel Fish]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL06.PDF
The thing I find curious about all of the (written) examples I've seen of an overhead join is that the aircraft depicted is conveniently always arriving from the live side of the circuit where you could perform a "textbook" overhead join. Is the implication, therefore, that before reaching the aerodrome you should position yourself so that this is possible?

For example, for the diagram given in the above CAA document, how would you make your approach if arriving from the south-east?

[Voidhawk]

From the south-east I'd make an orbit around the signals area for a look at it, then join on the dead side for descent, following the rest of the diagram from there.

[DRJAD]

Certainly at Sherburn deadside joins, at 1500' QFE, are done.

For example, returning to the field from the East, via Selby (normal routing into the Church Fenton MATZ from that direction), if the traffic is on the tarmac runway 29 (left hand circuit) or the parallel grass runway 29, the easiest join would be deadside to that runway.

The principle is to keep a good lookout both aurally and visually.

[Chilli Monster]

CM - It is possible for an aircraft limited to VMC to fly IFR on a RAS, whilst remaining VMC as required by their personal permissions. Possible, yes. Probable, No.

The whole idea of ATSOCA is a personal contract / agreement between pilot and controller. Coupled with this is the fact that all civil units now lay down a minimum level at which RAS will be applied. This will often co-incide with the maximum 25 mile MSA. Therefore if it's a nice day, and chummy in a Cub calls me at 2000ft requesting a RAS, the answer is going to be an unequivocal NO. (I've been asked, believe me, and it's been done!).

If he's above MSA, he's got a transponder and I've got good primary then fine, he'll get his RAS - BUT - the minute I give avoiding action and he can't take it because it'll put him in cloud I will downgrade to a RIS with the request to inform me when he's back in a position to accept a RAS and all that it entails. It's up to the pilot to realise the ramifications and limitations of the service he requires and request accordingly.

I lose track of the occasions where I've had to ask for a change of altitude during an airspace transition (usually Brize for some reason) because the altitude I've been asked to fly at is full of cloud and I can't remain VMC. No hassle, but it happens. This boils down to an understanding of flight rules and what you should do which is lacking in the more inexperienced areas of military ATC. They will tell you, a VFR aircraft, to fly at a level. THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. Remember my previous comment - "You get one or the other, you don't get both". That's exactly what I'm talking about. The sooner the military adopt civil practice of class 'D' procedures ("Cleared to transit the Brize zone, not above altitude 2000ft, remain VFR" would be how it should be done, and would be in the civil world) then the problem doesn't arise.

I'm guessing this is going to highlight to you some of the differences between mil and civil. I'm also guessing which side of the operation you've had most problems with - am I right?

[Flyin'Dutch']

There is a time and a place for everything and the overhead join is such a thing.

But it is certainly not a panacea for all joins.

I very much doubt that it adds to safety at busy GA airfields where you artificially crowd a volume of sky with an increased number of aeroplanes for a longer period of time, compared with joins into the circuit at the appropriate points.

FD

[FlyingForFun]

Chilli Monster/Genghis - since the two of you obviously agree, why are we all still arguing?

You have both cited cases where you have received an instruction/request from ATC which was illegal, and you have both given examples of how the pilot should (in fact, must) decline this instruction/request. So now that we all agree on that, let's get some beers in, shake hand, and be friends??? I have no problem with spirited arguments from time to time, but it usually helps if there's a point on which you disagree to be arguing about!

FFF
--------------

[mad_jock]

:D

Just on a light note.

There is nothig better than taking an ATCO up on a check flight.

The local area I operated in has shall we say quite an agressive Mil unit working it (hope jacko dosn't see this although it appears to have improved alot since i was instructing).

I used to be nearly crying with laughter listening to the RT exchanges. And it was an approach controller who was the first to say "negative VFR class G QSY on route bye" was quite shocked when he said it. He then informed me the reason why they were trying to vector us was they have to maintain radar seperation on all traffic be it VFR or what ever so they were trying to control us so to keep us seperated with mil traffic, which they wern't telling us about so tuff, its there problem not ours. I did think if we get anywhere near a Nimbrod it most definatly was going to be our problem, but if the RAF rules require 5 miles around there planes its there problem not ours, which is possible why the RAF boys avoid speaking to this unit as well.

MJ

[Chilli Monster]

FFF

I didn't notice an argument - just a discussion. Thought that's what the forum was for ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Likewise, in the time honoured fashion of good PPrune debates we work through the issues until either reaching completely common ground, or agreeing to disagree. In this case, mostly the former.

CM - I've not at any point said that I had a problem with any ATC service, as it happens I grew up with military ATC and came to civil flying slightly later in life. If Brize want me at 1704 ft that's fine by me, so long as they don't mind my explaining politely that I'd be better at 1635½ ft - they have their problems and if giving slightly restrictive clearances to me ease those (or give me a permission I wouldn't otherwise have got) that's just fine.

Incidedentally, you said that there are published criteria as to under what circumstances a RAS will, or won't, be granted. Where would I find those? - it would be worth knowing for en-route planning.


Weren't we talking about approaches and joins at some point?

G

[Chilli Monster]

Incidedentally, you said that there are published criteria as to under what circumstances a RAS will, or won't, be granted. Where would I find those? - it would be worth knowing for en-route planning. The only place They're published is in each units MATS part II (the individual unit operating instructions). However, if you've got access to approach plates where the 25nm MSA (top right hand corner normally) is published then take the highest figure on there and you won't go far wrong.

[MLS-12D]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "overhead join", but we have the same practice here in Canada for uncontrolled aerodromes (you can see an explanation and diagram here (http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir/moncton/WeeklyTopics/Archives/20031102/CurrentTopic.html)). At controlled aerodromes, we follow ATC instructions unless it is dangerous to do so, then we decline to accept the clearance (not a novel concept, I think?).

I have flown a bit in Oz, and as I recall they also use the "overhead join".


Sounds like the 'constant aspect' forced landing technique as taught in the military - and very effective, too.I was taught this technique for practice forced landings in Harvards, and it seems to be easier than flying a rectangular circuit. I don't agree with flying at the edge of a stall, though ... I'd suggest flying at best L/D speed would be much more appropriate. Also there shouldn't be any need for 45 degree banks ... 30 degrees is plenty.