Overhead Join in UK please!!

[unusualAtitude]

Hi all,

Could anyone point me to where, in their respective AIP that instructions are given for joining the traffic at an uncontrolled airfield.

uA.......

[IRRenewal]

This is a starting point.

NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=6&Itemid=13.html)

EDIT:

That link doen't seem to work. Try going to AIS.ORG.UK, then go to
IAIP -->> Aerodrome Index - Specific


If there are specific requirements regarding joins it will be in section 2.22, Flight Procedures. If you look at the AIP pages for Duxford it states 'there are no overhead joins at Duxford'.

You might have to be a bit more specific regarding the field your question is about. It might be more of a 'rules of the air' or 'airmanship' issue than an AIP issue.

Ultimately, at an uncontrolled airfield they cannot (by definition) tell you to fly around the circuit in a particular manner. But it does help everybody if you do it the way they ask you to. It possibly also means you're welcome to visit again should you wish to.

[welliewanger]

Hi,
I tried following IRRenewal's link, but it didn't work. He was probably pointing you to the same thing as I'm about to suggest:

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

[Spitoon]

Ultimately, at an uncontrolled airfield they cannot (by definition) tell you to fly around the circuit in a particular manner.Interesting comment, but I'm not sure that it's strictly correct.

Uncontrolled means that there is no ATC service but that does not absolve anyone from following the procedures that have been published in the AIP.

Now, an unlicensed strip is another matter....

[Flyingmac]

Only do an overhead join if it's requested. Don't assume there's a 'deadside'. There often isn't, for any number of reasons. At some major fly-ins a temporary overhead join is put in place when traffic volume is likely to be high. My home base has no deadside and should you choose to invent one you'd be less than popular with the operator or local residents.

[jez d]

Always sensible to assume that there will be square-jawed, sky heroes aerobating in the overhead, so always a good idea to call and ask beforehand what the preferred joining procedure is.

Regards, jez

[mary meagher]

AND DON'T EVEN THINK OF TRYING AN OVERHEAD JOIN AT A WINCH SITE GLIDING CLUB!

Prior permission should have let you know that, but we had a chap who actually kept his little plane at our gliding site who suffered a brain failure on return from elsewhere. Fortunately the winch driver noticed, otherwise he might have been reeled in like an unfortunate tuna....

No two airfields alike, that's the rule.

[fuzzy6988]

On a slightly separate note, was there any work done to assess the feasibility of a US-style 45-degree downwind join, across the whole of the UK?

[robin]

On a slightly separate note, was there any work done to assess the feasibility of a US-style 45-degree downwind join, across the whole of the UK?

Given the way many fly bomber circuits the size of the whole of the UK, I can't see there's a problem .......:ok:

[OpenCirrus619]

Don't forget parachute sites!!

From Lashenden's AIP entry:

b. Whilst parachuting is in progress:

No overhead joining, aeroplanes should join downwind of the runway-in-use;
Aeroplanes are to avoid the Drop Zone and the area in the undershoot of Runway 29 whenever parachuting is in progress;
Helicopters may not operate in the ATZ and should check with A/G Station that no parachuting is in progress before engaging rotors.


OC619

[Ryan5252]

"Helicopters may not operate in the ATZ and should check with A/G Station that no parachuting is in progress before engaging rotors."

Ouch!!!

[vintage ATCO]

Ultimately, at an uncontrolled airfield they cannot (by definition) tell you to fly around the circuit in a particular manner.

Rule 12 can however.

[140KIAS]

Try the CAA Guide to Visual Flight Rules in the UK

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_03_09.pdf

[vee-tail-1]

OMG! Not the dreaded OHJ again. The dangers of this have been done to death on numerous posts here. Always phone and check the prefered joining procedure, and use safetycom if it is a private strip. Any local traffic will be able to give you r/w in use, wind, etc. Please please don't visit an uncontrolled strip in France and do an OHJ :eek:

[Lister Noble]

A bit loud my son,but very useful.
Interesting to note how much one forgets after just a few years,even at a ;)young age such as mine.
Cheers:)

[140KIAS]

LN - it didnt look like that when I typed it in. Will try and find the volume control :ok:

[VMC-on-top]

Slightly off topic but what about at a private airfield -do an overhead join as standard to assess wind direction and ground conditions, or low approach and go around?

[IO540]

I don't know the legality of disregarding instructions at a Class G airfield (I thought that if it has an ATZ and ATC then the ATCO can issue orders within the ATZ) but unfortunately the OHJ has been brought into some disrepute by a number of A/Gs or FISOs who overly enjoy their perceived power and order arriving pilots to use the OHJ even when there is zero traffic, and (upon query) the man admits he has no known traffic :ugh:

Panshanger comes to mind, though it is years since I last went there.

I usually intercept the extended runway centreline and join on a long final, unless there is traffic.

[Jofm5]

IO540

I don't know the legality of disregarding instructions at a Class G airfield (I thought that if it has an ATZ and ATC then the ATCO can issue orders within the ATZ) but unfortunately the OHJ has been brought into some disrepute by a number of A/Gs or FISOs who overly enjoy their perceived power and order arriving pilots to use the OHJ even when there is zero traffic, and (upon query) the man admits he has no known traffic :ugh:



Before you shoot me down in flames, I am a ppl student of 8hrs half of which were done at panshanger (unfortunately the work situation dictates I have to put that on hold).

However, my observations from my time around the place is that the radio is not permanently manned as its usually done by instructors that are around the club house at the time (rightfully or wrongfully - I dont know enough yet to judge).

However I would put forward that if whoever spoke to you on the radio could not guarantee there was no traffic in the circuit then the correct thing to do is ask for an ohj so that you can assess the traffic situation yourself.

In my limited knowledge an OHJ is the safest way to join the circuit when the traffic situation is unknown, I concede there are AIP's for different aerodromes where join procedures are different and multiple circuits operate (hopefully we all think ahead and research that before going there).

Would be interested in your views as am still on the learning curve here.

[gasax]

to reply to VMC on top
Slightly off topic but what about at a private airfield -do an overhead join as standard to assess wind direction and ground conditions, or low approach and go around?.

Remember that technically it is illegal to carry out a low approach and go around if the intention is not to land. Having said that I occasionally do both, the overhead join gives time to assess the approaches, wind and other obstacles houses, horses etc, whilts the go around is the final check that there are no rabbit holes or fence posts of other 'stuff' that finds its way onto strips.

But you must look like you're intending to land - so landing configuration and speed and a controlled go around. Try a high speed pass at low level and unfortunately the legal precedent was set a long time ago.

[Final 3 Greens]

Remember that technically it is illegal to carry out a low approach and go around if the intention is not to land.

But how does anyone prove that intention?

If, as you say, one approaches in a landing configuration and is unhappy with the safety of the approach, the commander is required by law to protect the aircraft and go around?

That unhappiness could arise from a number of factors, including unstable approach.

I doubt any QC in the land could make that one stick, as it would be the commander's judgment (and he was in the aircraft) against someone elses, who was not.

Also, if one lands off the second appraochm it kinda suggests you were serious about landing ;)

Now we all know about practice forced landings, but I see that as rather different.

[IO540]

However I would put forward that if whoever spoke to you on the radio could not guarantee there was no traffic in the circuit then the correct thing to do is ask for an ohj so that you can assess the traffic situation yourself.

Sure, that was an instructor who was doing that stunt, not a "tower employee".

I don't see a basis for an OHJ being the safest approach, however. It is often touted as such, but this is only if you are the only one up there at 2000ft AGL. Normally, with an OHJ at a busy place, there will be several planes doing the OHJ at the same time, and you will never see some of the others. But all are at your height... and they can't see you either. It's not so smart.

I think the OHJ dates back to pre-radio days when the pilot would circle, examining the signals square. And the days when there was no concept of accurate navigation, so navigating to a point representing the extended runway centreline say 5nm away (routinely done with a GPS) was not possible.

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in. If you see some in the (say LH) circuit, you can break off to the right and then turn left to do a crosswind join. On the CW join you have to fit yourself into any traffic currently downwind... but there is no way around having to fit in at some stage.

There is no perfect solution, but I absolutely do not accept that there is anything safe about the OHJ.

I especially don't like the OHJ because when things get really busy at an ATC airfield, the tower tends to revert to the OHJ when they can only just cope with what is happening lower down, and sending people to the overhead puts them where the tower doesn't have to worry about them. So, there you are, going round and round at 2000ft, with several others who you can't see and who can't see you. Not so clever. In such a situation I clear off and come back half an hour later...

Also, there is no "guarantee" of no traffic, unless it is an ATC airfield in which case you can assume there is some level of control.

[gasax]

I doubt any QC in the land could make that one stick, as it would be the commander's judgment (and he was in the aircraft) against someone elses, who was not.

Also, if one lands off the second appraochm it kinda suggests you were serious about landing

As I recall the circumstance of the case were very much as you describe. The pilot claimed he was landing, the observer, an ATPL if I recall correctly, said he was not.

The CAA won and the pilot was virtually ruined - there was even an appeal for funds to support him. This was pre-interweb, I have been unable to find any current references to it.

But it did set the precedent for this circumstance.

[cessnapete]

I fly into nearby White Waltham where the OHJ is the norm. When busy I find it a most unsatisfactory practise. Aircraft joining from all directions at the same height.
Much better to assess the traffic and join dead side or downwind, at least then all flying in the same direction.

[VMC-on-top]

As I recall the circumstance of the case were very much as you describe. The pilot claimed he was landing, the observer, an ATPL if I recall correctly, said he was not.

The CAA won and the pilot was virtually ruined - there was even an appeal for funds to support him. This was pre-interweb, I have been unable to find any current references to it.

Surely not?? At a private field in a light aircraft!? I can understand the illegality of doing it at a busy airfield but on a private, unmanned, grass strip in the middle of nowhere?

[robin]

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in.

I think you'd probably have difficulty on most days, as you'd probably miss the traffic in the ground clutter. It is better to be slightly below circuit height
so the circuit traffic is above the horizon and much easier to see.

I still think though that a straight in approach is less desireable than a join from a base leg, though.

[IO540]

I think you'd probably have difficulty on most days, as you'd probably miss the traffic in the ground clutter. It is better to be slightly below circuit height
so the circuit traffic is above the horizon and much easier to see.That is probably true but there is no "approved method" for arriving at say 600ft AGL :)

Nothing is perfect but anything is better than an OHJ where there is potential traffic in any direction, and some 2/3 of it (assuming a random bearing) will never be visible. Whereas any other approach to the airfield involves scanning a much smaller horizontal angle.

I still think though that a straight in approach is less desireable than a join from a base leg, though.I agree, though only because breaking off from a base leg (if you see traffic on the downwind leg) is a bit easier than breaking off from a straight in.

For some reason, ATC are not so keen on base joins, when busy. IME they readily give them to competent locals who they know are not going to cause trouble if asked to orbit on the base leg. But I suspect after that orbiting-student fatal at Southend they are going to be even less keen on it.

[gasax]

To VMC - brush up on the air law:rolleyes:
Surely not?? At a private field in a light aircraft!? I can understand the illegality of doing it at a busy airfield but on a private, unmanned, grass strip in the middle of nowhere?

It is legal to do it at a licensed airfield, it is illegal to do it at an unlicensed airfield. Rule 5 and its clauses.

[VMC-on-top]

It is legal to do it at a licensed airfield, it is illegal to do it at an unlicensed airfield. Rule 5 and its clauses.

I'm aware of Rule 5 thanks. What I was suggesting that at a private strip in the middle of nowhere that there is little chance of overflying a built up area, or person, being or object and (not that I'm advocating low flying) it would be safer to do a low approach and go around to check out the condition of the strip (for rabbit holes etc.) than to do an overhead join with binoculars at 1,000ft + ? In addition, if anyone were ever to jump up quoting rule 5 etc, then surely the simple answer is "I saw a rabbit / deer etc." running over the strip so I went around?

[IO540]

It should be legal, because one can fly (G-reg) right down to the surface if there are no man-made objects etc present.

So if you have a grass strip in the middle of nowhere, that should be OK.

What happens if there is a garden shed next to it (where you keep your towbar etc) I have no idea.

[gasax]

The crux of the case is there was a witness, walking his dog. So he became the 'persons'.

And it was his complaint and then his evidence that caused and then won the case. The fact that he was an ATPL IIRC probably means he knew his air law - whether that had any influence either way I do not know. It probably had some influence on his credibility, I do not know if his motivation was questioned.

Many strips suffer from the 'classic neighbour from hell'. It is simply necessary to understand what is legal and what is not and act accordingly.

The example of a shed - well it must be man made so keep 500' from it!

I'm not saying this is a good or in anyway sensible rule. Simply quoting a fairly old case which demonstrates the catches possible in rule 5 whilst doing something which seems very sensible.

The recent changes in training from unlicensed strips have introduced similar issues in terms of build-up areas.

[liam548]

Sure, that was an instructor who was doing that stunt, not a "tower employee".

I don't see a basis for an OHJ being the safest approach, however. It is often touted as such, but this is only if you are the only one up there at 2000ft AGL. Normally, with an OHJ at a busy place, there will be several planes doing the OHJ at the same time, and you will never see some of the others. But all are at your height... and they can't see you either. It's not so smart.

I think the OHJ dates back to pre-radio days when the pilot would circle, examining the signals square. And the days when there was no concept of accurate navigation, so navigating to a point representing the extended runway centreline say 5nm away (routinely done with a GPS) was not possible.

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in. If you see some in the (say LH) circuit, you can break off to the right and then turn left to do a crosswind join. On the CW join you have to fit yourself into any traffic currently downwind... but there is no way around having to fit in at some stage.

There is no perfect solution, but I absolutely do not accept that there is anything safe about the OHJ.

I especially don't like the OHJ because when things get really busy at an ATC airfield, the tower tends to revert to the OHJ when they can only just cope with what is happening lower down, and sending people to the overhead puts them where the tower doesn't have to worry about them. So, there you are, going round and round at 2000ft, with several others who you can't see and who can't see you. Not so clever. In such a situation I clear off and come back half an hour later...

Also, there is no "guarantee" of no traffic, unless it is an ATC airfield in which case you can assume there is some level of control.


I've no where near as much flying experience as you but Ive argued these same points with people.

All the OHJ does it move the area of conflict and IMO makes it worse sometimes. Like what has been said, the worst part of any flight for me is going into the overhead knowing there are 3 others doing the same from different directions. Hence the reason I try and avoid flying altogether on busy weekends.
I actually prefer flying into larger airfields and airports. It all seems much safer.

[robin]

For some reason, ATC are not so keen on base joins, when busy.

That's strange. In my experience most airfields don't like straight in approaches as it ties up the approach path. They like the base leg joins as it gives them the chance to be flexible in vectoring aircraft of varying speeds.

At my A/G field, they specifically ask for arrivals not to go for long straight-in approaches, although they have no power to stop them.

[mary meagher]

IO540, with nearly ten thousand comments, are you serious about thinking a long straight in is a good idea?

Please don't come anywhere near my airfield! We do train our pilots to have a good lookout for people doing what you suggest, but o dear. It is certainly not approved by our CFI. Why not join the downwind on the diagonal, where you may be able to slot in nicely between the spam cans, microlites, gliders, motor gliders and non-radio stuff.

As for airfields with ATC, if they want to permit a straight in, that's another matter entirely.

[IO540]

Mary... I have no idea where you are but let me tell you I am happy to slot in anywhere you want me (sorry if that sounds dodgy :) ).

But, as the Americans say, when god made the sky he made lots and lots of it, and the general idea in flying is to make that work in one's favour!

So, in controlled airspace, as the old joke goes, ATC squeeze everybody into a narrow corridor and then try to earn their £90k (£150k in Spain) keeping them separated.

Out of controlled airspace, it's a free for all, and the dumbest thing has to be the OHJ where several planes are orbiting at the same height, 2/3 of them can't see the other 2/3, probably at different speeds, and the circle diameter is about the length of the runway.

To be fair, midair data doesn't indicate a problem with the OHJ but midair data is (thankfully) too thin to mean much anyway - except one should fly above 2000ft.

Your CFI must be a very scary person.

[Jofm5]

Out of controlled airspace, it's a free for all, and the dumbest thing has to be the OHJ where several planes are orbiting at the same height, 2/3 of them can't see the other 2/3, probably at different speeds, and the circle diameter is about the length of the runway.



So whats the better option and why is it we student pilots get taught this - whilst I dont know enough right now to challange your thoughts - the question is what your reasoning is for saying this.

if you feel there is a better option to ohj and in your experience that is so then for sure tell us as I only want to be safe in persuit of my pleasure. My issue is that we get taught this approach for a reason and your speculating its not appropriate....

[IO540]

The reason it is taught is... because, young man, we beat the Germans doing things this way, not once but twice, and if it was good enough for our grandfathers it is good enough for you, young man :)

(John Cleese would do it very well)

I think approaching the circuit at the circuit level (or no higher) is safer than an OHJ, because as you fly the last few miles towards it, you can employ a relatively limited sideways scan to look out for traffic.

Once in the OHJ, lookout isn't a whole lot of good if there are several people in there.

[robin]

You might have a bit of fun taking that line on a Popham event day, though.

[Cows getting bigger]

The problem with getting rid of the OHJ is that, in the UK, you would get a load of pilots joining any which way they could. To me, it is far more dangerous having concurrent left base, right base and straight in joins. If everyone could join in compliance with Rule 12, I wouldn't give two hoots about where they joined.

[IO540]

You might have a bit of fun taking that line on a Popham event day, though.

I am sure you are right. However, one could say that for a join into a lot of places on a nice Sunday preceeded by weeks of bad weather, including my two "favourites": Stapleford or Wellesbourne.

I think the % of people who have even heard of "circuit discipline" (i.e. you are supposed to get behind the one in front of you) is less than most would believe :)

[vee-tail-1]

Hmm Well the French DGAC made a rule to standardise joining at uncontrolled airfields recently. Everyone is supposed to join at circuit height from the extended downwind leg. Also prior knowledge of circuit direction & r/w in use is expected to have been obtained via unicom 123.5. This method at least means you know where to look for other traffic, and it's got to be safer than the OHJ. :eek:

[tmmorris]

The problem in the UK with the US 45-deg to downwind join is that it is illegal at an airfield with an ATZ. Without dragging out the ANO (I'm sure someone will find the reference) I am 99.9% sure that it states 'all turns within the ATZ are to be made in the circuit direction'. By definition a 45-deg join requires a turn against the circuit direction as you enter downwind.

FWIW I like the OH join and I'm not that much of a fan of the 45 deg one - I've flown both quite a bit and hold a US PPL as well.

Tim

[Maoraigh1]

"I am 99.9% sure that it states 'all turns within the ATZ are to be made in the circuit direction'."
At an airfield with ATC, I join and turn in whatever way the ATC tell me to. Often both right hand and left hand are in use, with downwind and base joins, and jets etc straight in on the ILS.
I too am very dubious about overhead joins at uncontrolled airfields. Mixing of high wing and low wing in the descent, with the possibility of some being non-radio, appears the most dangerous possible way of joining. I prefer the US way, but do overhead joins here as required.

[robin]

I think the % of people who have even heard of "circuit discipline" (i.e. you are supposed to get behind the one in front of you) is less than most would believe

You're not wrong there.

If only I could have laid my hands on the guy who nearly took us out by flying an 'unorthodox' join at Popham recently........:ugh:

Still, I saved a fortune on laxatives that day

[jez d]

The crux of the case is there was a witness, walking his dog. So he became the 'persons'.

And it was his complaint and then his evidence that caused and then won the case. The fact that he was an ATPL IIRC probably means he knew his air law - whether that had any influence either way I do not know. It probably had some influence on his credibility, I do not know if his motivation was questioned.

I was under the impression that in order for such a claim to be upheld, there need to be at least two, independent witnesses?

[IO540]

If you are flying with Mode C, the radar tape can be pulled out.

Otherwise, I can't see how you would get done. These cases have come up a number of times and any half decent lawyer will demolish any height estimates done by ground witnesses. But that's assuming you have a half decent lawyer... many street corner lawyers will recommend you plead guilty regardless of the situation, which is the normal practice in motoring cases.