Crosswind joins (uncontrolled)

[tmmorris]

I'm sorry to have a moan, but could we all please, please think carefully before making crosswind joins at uncontrolled/FISO airfields?

Yesterday I went to one such airfield and was put in danger both on arrival and on departure by someone else joining crosswind. I had rung in advance for PPR and was told that an overhead join was the standard procedure, which is as I would have expected for an uncontrolled field unless there was some reason not to. I called at 10 miles and said I would be making an overhead join. I heard someone else call for join who I thought might arrive at around the same time so at 2 miles I called again just to let him know my range. What did he do? He cut just in front of me as I completed my deadside descending turn, and I was forced to follow his enormous downwind leg to avoid catching him up (especially as he didn't think to say whether he was planning to land or a touch-and-go...)

Worse, though, was on climbout after departure: as I approached circuit height my passenger elbowed me violently and pointed out another aircraft on our right (blocked from my view by the cowling) - yes, you've guessed it, another person joining crosswind. I had to stop the climb violently to avoid them: we were on a direct collision course and would have hit each other neatly just where the climbout track meets the crosswind track.

Please - it really isn't a good idea to join crosswind if there are other aircraft in the circuit, unless you are absolutely confident of their positions and number, which is unlikely at an uncontrolled airfield. An overhead join will cost you only a couple of minutes extra and is much, much safer.

Tim

[Final 3 Greens]

TMM

He cut just in front of me as I completed my deadside descending turn

I can understand your frustration and well done for keeping an effective lookout.

Under the circumstances, who do you think had the right of way under the rules of the air?

Edited to say that I'm interested in whether it was plain poor airmanship or illegal poor airmanship.

[BEagle]

Precisely the same thing happened to me at Old Warden a while ago on a display day. The arrival brief included a requirement for an overhead join and a specific arrival slot....

I planned things carefully, arrive in the overhead at the right time and everything was looking fine. Then a "Golf Alfa Life History Sir, over" character in a Cherokee 180 from Thruxton announced that he was joining downwind and cut in front of me. I was then forced to follow his airliner circuit halfway to the North Sea; this delayed the landing of the Shuttlewoth Lysander...

I suppose I could have carved inside the idiot and landed as I'd planned; however, that could have caused yet more angst. The pilot of the Lysander was very polite and held off; we later chatted about it and he agreed that the poor airmanship of the other aircraft and his failure to follow the published arrival procedures were wholly to blame.

The trouble is that 'conventional' joins are being displaced by downwind joins, crosswind joins by pilots who barge their way into the aerodrome circuit rather than fitting in with other traffic - and, of course, those who insist on attempting the American 45 deg entry into downwind which is NOT a normal UK procedure. Add to all that the HUGE circuits often flown 'for noise abatement' and it's hardly surprising that aerdrome circuit procedure standards are slipping.

[englishal]

What is a crosswind join? Are you refering to a "deadside" join...i.e. an overhead but approaching from the deadside without the overhead turn?
If so then I can't see anything wrong with that, just because you're coming from the other direction, have to fly overhead, then make a descending turn I would actually say the other person is infront of you.

I often join my home airfield like this if rejoining from the south. Otherwise I have to overfly, turn once, over fly again, turn again before crossing the departure threshold and this pisses off the neighbours.

Sorry if I have misunderstood your post and the other person was actually in fact joining on a proper crosswind, then this would be pretty stupid for a number of reasons. At least if you cross the runway at circuit height you're unlikely to meet someone wh has just departed.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I thought one of the reasons for the huge circuits we see nowadays is that Instructors extend the circuit out to enable them to debrief the previous pi$$ poor landing... You then get less landings in, making the student pay for more flying......and then the instructor gets more hours so he can wander off to airliner land quicker..

My old, bold instructor told me that you should be able to land back on the runway if you have an engine failure downwind, and you can also see whats going on on the aerodrome.

I had to get the Cherokee I was No. 2 to at the weekend to report his position, as I couldnt even see him (on a CAVOK day!) I estimate he was downwind outside the ATZ. :rolleyes:

[pulse1]

tm

just where the climbout track meets the crosswind track.


Surely, if you are departing an airfield with a normal overhead joining procedure, you should ensure that your departure climbout stays below circuit height until you are well clear of the crosswind leg. In my case, PA28 off 800m, it is not a luxury I can indulge in anyway.

Incidentally, how do you know the other aircraft had not done an overhead join and just happened to be on the crosswind leg as you were departing?

[Johnm]

There's a bit of a question here about what is meant by a "crosswind join". If you join overhead and descend deadside you will join crosswind over the upwind numbers. If you are at circuit height, you should be able to rely on departing traffic not reaching circuit height until well beyond the upwind numbers i.e somewhere around the crosswind leg of the circuit.

Anyone joining on the crosswind leg of the circuit is in a very dangerous position.

[englishal]

I think you're saying that a descending join from dead side is OK, and I've often thought about this one. However, I've figured that with an overhead join, you're meant to be able to read the signal square, safely above circuit height. If you don't then it isn't an overhead rejoin.
Typically when I return to my home field from the south, I normally call up 10 miles out. If the radio operator is working and lets me know it is "25 right hand" then I'll descend to circuit height cross the departure end (upwind)of the runway at circuit height and turn onto downwind (deadside join I think is the technical name :) ). Of course doing this I am aware of people joining from different directions and would normally make sure I join behind someone already on downwind .

My reasoning behind this is that say you were approaching from the North and I from the south for an OHJ, you would be crossing the downwind end of the runway 1000' or so above circuit height, and I would be crossing the upwind end at 1000' above circuit height, which would only put < 700m between us at the same altitude. I then have to make another turn to cross the downwind end of the runway, again 1000' above circuit height before comencing a descending turn to cross the upwind end at circuit height.

To me this seems a lot of low level manouvering with potential conflicts with other traffic when there is really no need. Obviously if the radio operator is not there or there is any descrepancy about which runway to use then I'd overfly the field first.

To reverse the scenario if I were in your shoes approaching from the North for an OHJ, and someone else were approaching from the south in the manner I just described, I would commence my descending turn so I slotted in behind them...

However there is no excuse to actually join on a proper cross wind as this could cause all sorts of potential conflicts, with people departing, people already in the circuit and people joining the circuit.

Cheers

[Mike Cross]

The Rules of the Air Regulations don't mandate a joining procedure. What they do say is that a joining aircraft should conform to the existing pattern and that an aircraft on final has priority over one which is not.
WR - the CAA's "standard overhead join" doesn't require you to overfly the signals square, it assumes you have radio. If you don't then you would need to.
An aircraft making an overhead join (and an aircraft in the circuit for that matter) will not be following any particular track over the ground. The standard OHJ says you should be WITHIN the upwind threshold at circuit height on crosswind and maintain circuit height until you commence the turn on to base apart from that you should expect aircraft to appear from anywhere.
Incidentally, can anyone tell me how you follow the CAA's way of doing it (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_oheadjoin_poster.pdf) when the circuit is right handed?
"Maintain 1000 ft above circuit height and observe windsock and traffic. Keep aerodrome suitable distance on the left of the aircraft." "All turns must then be in the circuit direction"
Only way I can see is to do it inverted.:bored:

[robin]

Interesting thread - I've often found myself in joining in the overhead, as per instructions, descended deadside and got stitched up by pilots joining on crosswind (but not over the upwind numbers), and others joining downwind. Add to that some aircraft with high climb rates coming towards you (the worst combination the lower aircraft high-wing, and the higher a low-wing)

Given that sort of congestion it shows our good standard of airmanship that I can't remember any mid-airs in that phase of flight.

[tmmorris]

Just to clarify: the first ac (as I arrived) joined correctly over the upwind numbers. As he was lower than me and on my right, he had right of way although I still think it was poor airmanship.

The second (as I departed) was well upwind of the numbers - the airfield in question doesn't have a long runway, the wind was light, and so we didn't reach circuit height (1000ft) until some way upwind. Given that and his position when we saw him (to the right and flying level) I very much doubt he was at the end of a deadside descent. Again he was on my right, so had right of way.

And the answer to a RH circuit is of course to keep the airfield on the RIGHT while joining - but of course you all knew that, didn't you...

Tim

[Northern Highflyer]

Like Englishal, if I am joining the circuit and I am approaching from the deadside, I will call descending deadside as I approach the field and cross the numbers at circuit height. This is still a deadside descent and join, and all that is needed is a good lookout and listening to the R/T for spacing (as with any join). It is easier and safer than doing a "360" over the airfield. There is no reason to be upwind of the numbers if done correctly, as all that is missing is the turn over the airfield during the descent.

Whichever direction we join from there is always the chance that two aircraft can meet over the numbers. When this looks like it may happen I will do a more gentle turn to let the other aircraft go ahead or position accordingly. Sometimes I will make a radio call to state my intentions or to ask what theirs are.

Why was the first aircraft lower ? Your initial post suggests you were at the correct circuit height having completed your turn so he must have been below circuit height. A radio call from him to clarify his intentions would have been helpful

As for the second case, there is no excuse for such a join.

[Mike Cross]

WR

Click on the link in my post above for the CAA's poster illustrating the OHJ. It does not require you to overfly the square. (You will probably need to enlarge it to read the text)

AFIK this poster is the only source of a procedure for the OHJ but I'm happy to be corrected.

Agree with you that if an OHJ is specified then it should be adhered to. This will be eithr by an entry in the AIP or NOTAM or as an instruction by ATC. At an uncontrolled field (a/g, FISO or nothing) ROAR do not specify the type of join (nor IMHO should they) and while I for one will always comply with a request from a/g or FISO when it is safe to do so, there is no requirement on the pilot to do so.

If when you call you are told what tnmorris was, you should not assume that just because you were instructed to do an OHJ that everyone else was too.

As an aside, I was on final at Sandown a few weeks ago when I heard the a/g operator say something like "Harry, have you seen the other aircraft abiove you and to your left?"

A few seconds later I saw the pleasure flight Skyhawk appear from below me, having overtaken me from a position below me, behind and to my right, crossing below me to appear below me anbd to my left, as a result of which I had to go round. Separation? less than 300 ft IMHO. Bl@@dy stupid thing to do in order to save the price of a circuit.

Mike

[Mike Cross]

Agreed

LASORS is not an authoritative source of information - it is guidance. There are a number of ways in which it elaborates on things and offers advice and it fails to differentiate between those things that are legal requirements and those that are advice. You can't get prosecuted for failing to follow LASORS. What you get prosecuted for is a breach of the legislation.

This discussion illustrates how people read what is in LASORS and on the OHJ poster and think it's a legal requirement and that everyone is required to comply. This can have a detrimental effect on safety because you assume that people are going to do one thing and then they (quite legally) do something else.

Mike

[Spitoon]

Interesting to see the CAA's poster - it seems to bear an uncanny resemblence to this one (http:///safety_info/overhead.pdf).
Also, I dont know what the status of it is - seeing as it is in an R/T manual rather than a flight procedure manual - but take a look at CAP 413 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=detail&id=247) Chapter 4 Page 35.

[unfazed]

If you join overhead and descend deadside you will join crosswind over the upwind numbers.

Anyone joining on the crosswind leg of the circuit is in a very dangerous position.

OK - So what is the difference ? apart from a descending 360 degree turn to get to the same position ?

If you join overhead or go straight to crosswind at cct height you will get to exactly the same place. I can see that if you have not positively identified the airfield and ensured that you are at the right place prior to entering the crosswind then that is a problem but if you know the airport and are spot on with your positioning, radio call, speed and lookout then getting rid of a 360 degree descending turn in a potentially busy circuit must be more efficient and safer ?;)

[Final 3 Greens]

I suppose that the overhead join is a protocol, developed in the days of non radio aircraft, pre navaids, with the aim of joining in the most efficient manner.

As such is has beceome "best practice" (I do hate the term) and stuck around for a long time.

Personally, I've never much liked the overhead join, as overflying the signals square wasn't much of a need and with radio nav and GPS, airfield identification is not so challenging. So adding in a steep descent into an area of potentially higher traffic doesn't appeal to me, as we all kow that it is often harder to see other aircraft at a lower level due to ground clutter effect. And flying a low wing aeroplane type adds some blind spots too.

On the other hand, there have been few middairs in the circuit and the one I can think of involved a non standard circuit being flow by one aircraft (although the standard procedure was not an overhead join.)

So, being in mind TMM's experience, a question to ponder:

Is it time to develop some type of downwind join protocol, reducing confliction between departing and joining traffic?

[SlipSlider]

Unfazed: I think you missed the subtle nuance ... the OHJ leads to a crosswind leg overhead the upwind runway numbers.

The crosswind circuit leg is further upwind from that, well beyond the runway numbers, the 500 foot aal point at which a departing a/c would make a 90 degree climbing turn on to crosswind. Anyone joining direct on the circuit crosswind leg has potentially another a/c climbing up underneath, with a high/low wing conflict making matters worse.

Slip

[Fournicator]

Sorry, did someone refer to 1000ft agl as "low level" back then? Is that from the same school of thought that says more than 20 degrees AoB in the circuit is dangerous, lest your aeroplane fall over? (Chuckles....)

Apologies for being somewhat off-topic.

[englishal]

Sorry, did someone refer to 1000ft agl as "low level" back then? Is that from the same school of thought that says more than 20 degrees AoB in the circuit is dangerous, lest your aeroplane fall over? (Chuckles....)
Me probably ;) Low enough to give you only a few seconds if something goes wrong. High enough to kill you if you fall from it :)

I can't see much wrong with the American 45 join myself. You can still over fly the airfield at a safe height, descend well clear of the airfiled, then come inbound on a 45 degree join onto downwind. Works well, even in a busy traffic environment.

[Final 3 Greens]

I've used the 45 degree join in busy environments too, also comfortable with it.

[ShyTorque]

I think the most important things are to communicate in good time and to look out. Listen out as well as transmitting intentions in order to build up a good mental picture of all the other aircraft in the circuit - if not sure ASK! Most of the conflicts/problems in circuit joining come from not doing so. Provided that both are done, one can safely fit into a circuit just about anywhere, subject to any over-riding local procedures of course.

For many years the RAF has taught a "standard join" for a busy circuit, which consists of running at circuit height parallel to the runway in use, just offset to the deadside. This allows flexibilty in turning downwind to fit in with other traffic. Any extension of the pattern occurs upwind, rather than messing up the pattern for others by extending the downwind leg. The procedure starts over "initials" which is a point just on the deadside, about 2 miles out from the threshold. Obviously, one does need to get the correct runway..... :eek:

BTW, the "run and break" which people get all bunched up about, is just a modified standard join, using more speed to run in and join and a lot of bank and airbrakes on a closed throttle during a more punchy turn to downwind.

[tmmorris]

Quite right, ShyTorque, and having experienced both (I now fly from an RAF club based on an RAF field) I prefer the military circuit and particularly the initials join. Indeed that was what I did when I got home after the crosswind incidents!

Tim

[Fournicator]

Ive been known to get nosebleeds at 1000ft......

[ShyTorque]

Ive been known to get nosebleeds at 1000ft......

Don't tell your AME := ;)

[unfazed]

Slipslider

Yes I had missed the nuance of the point - I often join crosswind at circuit height from the deadside but over the upwind numbers, I have to say that joining TRUE crosswind sounds risky:uhoh: !

[IO540]

I haven't read the whole thread but I don't understand the fascination with that wonderful olde English institution, the overhead join. It's pretty dangerous to be at 2000ft agl, with four others known to be also joining overhead, and you are visual with two of them.

In any other situation of known traffic in very close proximity and at the same level, one would leg it. And the same people will post here saying they would never fly in IMC without an RIS....

[IO540]

That's right, there is no safe way to do it.

Procedural separation would work OK (self-announced position) but a lot of people don't have a radio, or won't use it.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

How about these situations at North Weald over the weekend?
Traffic just turning up and appearing in front of you short finals, with the tower saying they are not in radio contact with said aircraft. (Maybe Stapleford was?)

Or micro lights, that decide to transit the airfield at 1400 feet on a QNH setting that puts them at circuit height........ :ugh:

[DFC]

tmmorris,

How do you know that the other arriving aircraft did not join overhead and simply do a wider descending turn then you. That would put both aircraft in the relative positions you describe.

The only thing I see wrong with the other aircraft's arrival is the said large circuit. They were ahead, the rules of the air gave them priority. Get over it!

----

Mike Cross,

I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?

If that is what you believe than remember all that guidance your instructor gave you about flying the aircraft. Do you ignore their guidance about landing or the simple guidance that crashing is not good for you? ;)

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

DFC

I find your posting style to be aggressive and lacking in thought.

Reading TMM's first post, it is clear that he heard the other aircraft call with the intention of joining crosswind.

If TMM was briefed that the standard join was overhead, then one can only conclude that the other pilot was either not briefed or decided to make a non standard join.

If a pilot joins a circuit without getting an adequate briefing, then IMHO, that is poor airmanship. Equally, if a pilot decides to make a non standard join (which is perfectly legal), then, again IMHO, s/he must take responsibility for avoiding conflicts with aircraft following the standard procedure and not to do this is poor airmanship.

Finally, I dislike your suggestoin that TMM should get over this incident.

Any reasonable person reading TMMs post can see that it is safety concerned and sending a safety related message to the GA community.

As such, in my opinion, it is serving a valuable purpose, unlike you, so I have added you to my ignore list.

[Mike Cross]

DFC
Mike Cross,
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
I hinted at no such thing.
You misinterpret my point. What concerns me is LASOR's failure to distinguish between that which is advice/best practice and that which is law. It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement. An example would be this from LASORS F 1.4The Training Flight
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.
FI's will no doubt take the above as a requirement, however none of the above wording appears either in JAR or UK legislation.
"FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement " Eh? JAR-FCL says
"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.

Another example would be the AIC (now withdrawn) that laid down the content of the 1 Hr training flight as being that of the JAA Proficiency Check, which it absolutely is not.

This sort of thing leads to confusion, and confusion erodes safety.

Mike

[IO540]

It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement.

How true. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

You could write this about the other organ of the CAA that gets mailed to their G-INFO database addresses: GASIL (or is it GASCO, thankfully I don't receive either of them anymore). Full of opinion presented as law, and responsible for so much of the cr*p that goes around GA, the bogus "illegality" claims about GPS usage being a prime example.

[unfazed]

While we are on the subject of standard methods of joining (overhead or otherwise) It would be nice if we had more "standard" circuits at airfields (not talking Tower controlled airports here)

If you look at many small airfields they have constructed very specific local procedures (some of which you need a magnifying glass or microscope to follow). E.G. Report the red telephone box inbound, if it's thursday after 1pm do a wide circuit to the north but after 1pm tight circuit to the south, join on runway heading at 1400qfe then enter crosswind. Not licensed after 4:45 Must get PPR via telephone, no landings before 4pm must be gone by 4:45 - bring wads of cash and don't annoy the people in the red cottage who live on Short Final :rolleyes:

Sounds a bit far fetched doesn't it ? but have a look at Pooleys and you will see very unique recommendations for individual places - Now before people jump down my throat and tell us that everywhere has local noise complainers (why do they alwats move into a new house on the threshold of a very established airfield ?) - that each place has unique local geography etc etc etc

We could and should ! get rid of local nonsense - be it radio, circuit procedures or quaint customs because a proper "standard" circuit would enhance flight safety and lead to better airmanship

Steps down off soap box !:ok:

[DFC]

Final 3 Greens,

Here is what he said;

I heard someone else call for join who I thought might arrive at around the same time so at 2 miles I called again just to let him know my range. What did he do? He cut just in front of me as I completed my deadside descending turn

Says nothing there about exactly where the other aircraft arrived from or what it did before being in front of him as he descended deadside.

However, unless he could see that the aircraft was joining from way out on the deadside then he has no way of knowing exactly what the aircraft did.

Of course if he could see the other aircraft when well away then he could have perhaps safely fitted in ahead.

The safe thing to do would be to do what the overhead join is for - observe the signal square, the runway in use then windsock and the traffic. Perhaps a delay before descending deadside until the other aircraft was in sight would have been the safe thing to do especially thinking of the visibility from most GA cockpits in a descending turn.

Sorry but while this indeed starts a good debate about safety when joining and it indeed highlighted the problems with large circuits, it does unfortunately (perhaps unintentionally) to a small extent smack of the airbourne version on the road rage we have in the UK on a daily basis.

---------
Mike,

"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.

I have highlighted the bit in your own quote that erquires an FI to be involved

As for opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Given a choice between the CAA's published opinion and your personal opinion, which do you think carries the most weight?

Regards,

DFC

[Mike Cross]

DFC

My opinion carries very little weight. My point is that the CAA says in LASORS "FI will sign the applicants logbook" while JAR-FCL (as quoted in your post) says that the flight has to be with a FI or a CRI. There is no requirement under JAR-FCL that the instructor MUST hold a FI rating.

You know and I know and the JAA knows that the flight has to be signed off in the log book by the instructor and that the instructor can hold a FI or a CRI rating. The author of LASORS may have written something different but that doesn't change the law or the regulations.

What point is it you are trying to make?

Mike

[tmmorris]

I've quite enjoyed watching the arguments on here...

owever, unless he could see that the aircraft was joining from way out on the deadside then he has no way of knowing exactly what the aircraft did.

Said aircraft had just reported its position over a nearby disused airfield. I have no doubt that he joined crosswind. My 2-mile call was intended to suggest gently that perhaps he should join overhead too, so we could see each other...

The airfield has a FISO so there was no need to observe the signals square, and I was of course looking for the other traffic but as he was lower than me he was hard to see until close.

T

[NorthSouth]

one of the reasons for the huge circuits we see nowadays is that Instructors extend the circuit out to enable them to debrief the previous pi$$ poor landingNo, students extend the circuit by flying faster than Vy on climbout, taking a year and a day to trim on reaching circuit height, and failing to lookout before turning downwind causing the instructor to intervene and get them to continue crosswind until they have looked. With early circuit students it's important not to hurry them too much because they're already close to or beyond overload all the way round the circuit.
NS

[NorthSouth]

The airfield has a FISO
What was he doing then? Did he not look out of his window and give you and the other geezer traffic info? Or was he like one of our A/G Operators who hasn't the remotest idea where the traffic is and isn't manning the radio most of the time anyway?

TMM, I'm also intrigued by your account of encountering someone joining crosswind just as you reached circuit height on climbout. I think you said he was at the correct position for joining crosswind. If that's the case then you must have been flying a very high performance aircraft and there must have been a stiff headwind, because reaching 1000ft over the upwind numbers is pretty damned hard! Either he was very wide - i.e. joining way upwind of the runway - or you had not taken account of the relationship between your climb performance and the joining traffic. Brings us back to the FISO - "TMM take off at your discretion, surface wind blah di blah, traffic information there's a XXXX shortly joining crosswind."

NS

[tmmorris]

NS

Unfair both to me and the FISO! First, the FISO doesn't have to look out of the window (though he was in a tower, actually). And I knew about the crosswind joiner, as he told me about him.

But, the crosswind joiner was nowhere near where he should have been: I was only in a PA28-181 and we were 3-up so we weren't rocketing skywards. I would say we were at least 1 mile upwind of the numbers when we 'encountered' each other.

T

[DFC]

There is absolutely no reason why the "faster and more complicated types" can not slow down and get themselves to a reasonable speed for the circuit while joining overhead. No GA aircraft regardless of perceived complexity or possible flat out speed can not be flown at 120Kt or less over the upwind threshold.

What is the radius of turn at 120Kt and 30 deg AOB?

Regards,

DFC

[NorthSouth]

the FISO doesn't have to look out of the windowPerhaps, but CAP 410 says "The FISO has the following specific responsibilities:
a) issuing information to aircraft flying in the aerodrome traffic zone to assist the pilots in preventing collisions...the immediate passing of accurate information could be a vital safety factor when the FISO becomes aware of a dangerous situation developing within his area of responsibility." If a FISO doesn't look out of the window in support of that task I'd say they're not very good at their job. No criticism meant of your scenario since I guess neither of us know whether your FISO did look out of the window.

the crosswind joiner was nowhere near where he should have beenAh I get the picture now - so this is a general point about bad positioning not just for people joining directly on crosswind but also on standard overhead joins. And it's a point well made. I find students take quite some time to grasp the principals of SOJs. Most frequent mistakes are 1) not knowing which way to turn in the overhead, 2) slowing down too much and not lowering the nose enough in the deadside descent, 3) using far too little bank, resulting in joining upwind of the runway :uhoh: and 4) not raising the nose enough to stop the descent at circuit height (also dangerous if there's someone going around).

[H Ferguson]

hi

could someone clarify the standard overhead join.
i know the caa version but i was taught what the instructor called the ICAO standard overhead join, which is to pass overhead the middle of the runway at 1500 aal decend on the deadside making a left hand turn. pass overhead the mid point at circuit height and then turn onto the downwind leg. i am told by my instructor that passing over the mid point is the safest place, a kind of safety zone.

[Andy_RR]

OK - So what is the difference ? apart from a descending 360 degree turn to get to the same position ?

I think the point is that the crosswind leg and crosswind over the upwind numbers are actually different places in the circuit.

BTW, how do you do an overhead join when approaching the airfield from the deadside of the circuit? The CAA piccie doesn't seem to demonstrate this eventuality. I'm presuming you need to do a 180° turn as you overfly to return to the deadside before descending?

A

[tmmorris]

As I think was explained before...

(assuming a LH circuit)

Approach the field at 2000ft AGL keeping the field on your left. Fly turning left around the airfield boundary until you are over the numbers for the runway in use. Then descend deadside. (For RH circuit substitute right for left!)

This always works, and keeps you within the UK ANO rule that all turns inside the ATZ must be in the circuit direction.

Tim

[nzmarty]

coming from a place that has only 13 or 14 controlled, and probably over 100 uncontrolled airfields, an accurate o/h rejoin is reasonably common, and something that you need to be sure you can do well. in general most GA and RPT traffic handles it pretty well (like in taupo), microlights and other nordo traffic can be a hassle, but a few things that i've picked up:

if there's other traffic in the circuit, and the runway in use is known, then a direct descent on the non-traffic (deadside) to join downwind over the numbers, instead of doing a full o/h rejoin, is quite common. a straight in approach is frowned upon, but not illegal. a mid-runway downwind joining is not really the done thing unless it's really quiet (ie no-one else on the radio in circuit).

andyrr - if you're joining the o/h from the deadside, it's no different, circle overhead until you're happy with the layout, wind direction, circuit traffic, then and only then, descend. you're only losing or gaining 1/2 a turn if you join from there.

[nzmarty]

question tmmoris: if rwy 36 is rh, and 18 is lh, and you don't know which runway is in use, what direction do you circle in the overhead?

[tonyhalsall]

With the advent of very fast, high performance microlights and LSA types I think it is time to amend the Standard Overhead Join to reflect modern day performances.
Anyone who has seen a Quik or a Pegasus CT climb skyward would realise that crossing the upwind numbers is not as safe as it once was when performance was measured by PA28 types and light Cessna's.
As the LSA category gets wider and wider acceptance there will be more and more very high performance aircraft getting up beyond circuit height at or about the upwind numbers.
It's time to re-think the procedure and I for one prefer to aim half or at least one third down the runway for my crossing point as our local circuit height is 500' and the Quiks are at that height in seconds.
It is true that a large number of Pilots make the mistake of joining crosswind somewhere along the extended centre line and even if they have joined overhead it is still poor airmanship in this phase and potentially very dangerous.

[englishal]

BTW, how do you do an overhead join when approaching the airfield from the deadside of the circuit?
I wouldn't. I'd join from the deadside - same as OHJ without the flying over, turning, flying back and descending part.......There is NO reason to join overhead if you know the layout, runway in use, wind, etc.....you just lengthen the time of possible conflicts with other aeroplanes, and irritate the neighbours due to longer time in the air.