Circuit Procedures

[Pace]

Mary

i totally agree with you on the antiquated and out of date over head join.

It harps back to the days of non radio aircraft with minimal navigation equipment who needed to go over head and were pure VFR with minimal navigation aids

Firstly to be sure they were in the right place, to view the runways and read the signal square and look at the wind sock.

For me the OH join increases collision risk mixing high wing and low wing aircraft all making blind 90 degree turns and all homing into one spot like honey bees over an airfield.

flying straight in why make up to six extra blind 90 degree turns to end up in the position you were already in? why make your PAX uncomfortable and why add needless time to an already expensive flight.

Why mix fast and slow high and low wing together? its all a collision risk?

Very few aircraft do not have GPS and accurate DME readouts. so many of our regulations are still stuck in by gone eras which are not relevant today.

I too had to take avoiding action when an aircraft attempted an OH joint at 1200 feet with a 1400 foot cloud base cutting through the down wind leg :ugh:

Oh well the wheels of aviation turn very slowly and are stuck in the past

Pace

[Dont Hang Up]

..seems to me that it is satisfying after takeoff to climb out at max power....if you have power to spare! Except they have these daft rules in the Uk of the overhead join! so just when my Supercub 150 is reaching circuit height when halfway along the runway heading, I remember that o dear me, there may be some numptie doing the overhead join and we will meet and make a mess on the runway....So nose down and behave, Mary! and sure enough, the other guy tools across just overhead...

Sorry but I have to disagree about the overhead join. It is a recognised manouevre that is more or less essential for a non-radio join, but is also efficient and disciplined no-matter what equipment you have. It is also the place where there should be minimum traffic so long as one has taken the trouble to check the field is not active for parachute jumping or the like.

And while it remains a recognised joining manouevre, then if you happen to meet someone coming up the way in a super-performing sports job then I am not quite sure who counts as the numptie.

[DeltaV]

Sorry but I have to disagree about the overhead join.
I disagree too. I like the overhead join and don't really understand why people here seem to hate it so. Perhaps I fly to less traffic dense strips.

[Pace]

70% of all midair collisions occur in and around the airport. I could be heading 360 to land on runway 36 at a given airport. with the OH I would need to complete six 90 degree turns just to get back to where I was!

That is madness in terms of time, cost, pax comfort , extra collision potential. I maybe in a high wing aircraft mixing with low wing aircraft all making these 90 degree turns and all homing in onto one spot above the airfield.

Also consider the OH join is supposed to be at 2000 feet and with the VFR vertically clear of clouds means the OH join can only be legally flown with a cloud base of 2500 to 3000 feet a rare occurrence in our climate .

That is most certainly abused with pilots scud running just below the cloud base way below those stipulations and sometimes even cutting across the downwind circuit height

For me at best it has a limited place but more likely its an out of date method more relevant to a by gone era of non radio aircraft with limited navigation ability

If the OH was so brilliant many other countries would use it but don't


Pace

[Dont Hang Up]

70% of all midair collisions occur in and around the airport. I could be heading 360 to land on runway 36 at a given airport. with the OH I would need to complete six 90 degree turns just to get back to where I was!

No one is suggesting that an arrival on the runway heading should not do a long-final straight-in approach, or even join downwind if coming from the other direction. However this presumes a) you are familiar with the airfield and visual cues for the circuit and b) you have a radio and have determined the runway direction.

If you are unfamiliar with an airfield or its surroundings then I would always recommend the overhead join as the best way to orient oneself whilst still above the circuit traffic. Be honest, no-matter how hard you study the plates in advance the layout is never quite as you imagined it.

And frankly, if arriving on the deadside I am not sure what joining technique would work better than the overhead join! A lengthy detour onto long-final? An even lengthier detour onto downwind, whilst steering clear of departing traffic? And surely not descending from above into some indeterminate part of the active circuit! No - a smooth descending orbit overhead, with the final crossing of the active-runway over the depart-threshold at 1500ft to join the circuit downwind at co-altitude and at a precisley defined point (abeam depart-threshold). That for me is the safest and most efficient way.

Yes anyone trying to do it with less than 2000ft ceiling is (to use Mary's word) a numptie. But you can be one of those with any joining technique.

Of course I am only talking to pilots who take the "V" in VFR seriously. Those who consider even the most glorious CAVOK flight is an exercise in GPS programming are probably baffled by everything I have just said. :ok:

[Pilot DAR]

I have brought over the discussion of overhead joins to this new thread, so the discussion about steep climbouts can continue in parallel in its original thread....

[Maccyboy]

Before completing my GFPT, I had been taught only mid-field crosswind joins, that is, overhead joins. Inbound on my GFPT flight test, my assessor, who was not my instructor, asked me to join the circuit "downwind". Sudden panic! Thank goodness I remembered join angle etc. Ended up a tight circuit but bluffed my way through. I was mad that my instructor had never got me to perform any other type of join other than mid-field crosswind. Nowdays though, flying at a small country strip, I'll always join mid-field crosswind because, to me, it gives me a good view of the windsock/s and the strip and gives me a couple of minutes to settle into the circuit.

[ChickenHouse]

OH joins are nice where common, but dangerous where not!

Flying in the UK at an airfield where NORDO is common, it is very handy and used with the necessary precaution the best way to get in.
Flying the same procedure even after just crossing the channel may be hazardous, as gliders tend to use the dead side and parachuters may drop in the middle.
Flying OH joins in Africa? Usually a NoGo, we go low approach for lookout and animal chasing.

[9 lives]

Though I'm not totally against overhead joins, and do them as local custom dictates, I avoid them if I can. To me, they are a mixing place where aircraft could be approaching the same point from different altitudes, and turns may be involved. I would rather not be there.

I would rather be straight in to some appropriate part of the circuit - which at a very quiet aerodrome might be straight in, following a good listen and look. Because, yes, I've had to chase animals off too!

[Pace]

ST

I too am not against them if the cloud base is 2500 feet agl and visibility over a set minima.

Where I do disagree in the OH join being a standard join method there are direct joins which maybe more appropriate in lower cloud bases at circuit height.

The OH is abused with pilots attempting to join overhead near cloud bases and often way below the OH join heights AGL.

I am also concerned with the numerous blind turns themselves a collision risk.
so while I still feel there is a place for these joins I don't agree with the STANDARD part

Pace

[TheiC]

Pace,

Pardon my asking... Where does the 70% figure come from?

Cheers.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And while it remains a recognised joining manouevre, then if you happen to meet someone coming up the way in a super-performing sports job then I am not quite sure who counts as the numptie.
I've had ATC hold an airliner on the runway until I (making an OHJ) was clear of his take-off path. Would it be reasonable to hope/expect ATC to be aware of the performance of a "super-performing sports job" and take similar precautions?

That is most certainly abused with pilots scud running just below the cloud base way below those stipulations and sometimes even cutting across the downwind circuit height
Surely if you can't make 2,000' you can't do an OHJ and have to join in some other way?

[fireflybob]

Where is the statistical data that the OHP join is less "safe".

During training pilots should have been taught to avoid the live side when the cloudbase is such that an OHP cannot safely be conducted.

[Pace]

78 percent of the midair collisions that occurred around the traffic pattern happened at nontowered airports.

This is from an AOPA report which is higher than the earlier study I googled. It does not refer to OH joins but surely any join which involves the honeybee effect of joining at a specific point in the OH plus up to 6 needless 90 degree turns mixing high and low wing aircraft MUST indicate a higher collision risk

On the reverse side of the coin it must mean that any joining procedure which does not involve the honeybee effect and minimises the number of blind 90 degree turns of high and low wing aircraft must lower the collision chance

Pace

[TheiC]

That's not the same as 70% of all midair collisions occur in and around the airport.

[Pace]

Theic

I will have to re look up the link for the statistic that 70% of midair collisions happen in and around airports. its probably about right as its in and around airports that there is the greatest proximity of aircraft of all types and with that the greatest chance of a collision.

From a CAA report

c) A study of over two hundred reports of mid-air collisions in the US and Canada showed that they can occur in all phases of flight and at all altitudes. However, nearly all mid-air collisions occur in daylight and in excellent visual meteorological conditions, mostly at lower altitudes where most VFR flying is carried out. Because of the concentration of aircraft close to aerodromes, most collisions occurred near aerodromes

With the HoneyBee effect of the OH join and the multiple unneeded 90 degree turns that join has to increase the risk.

I probably have around 3000 hours in various piston twins and approaching an airfield with an overhead join would always position myself for a circuit height join usually straight in or downwind and request that. i considered mixing a fast twin with Cessna 150s and with all the blind turns was a risk factor electing instead to give final distance reports and communicating with down wind or base aircraft as a safer procedure.

Sometimes the join would be refused and you had to go overhead with the usual dead side descent and multiple turns but I always considered the risk factor as being higher, The turns a waste of time and money and those turns being uncomfortable for PAX. A relic of a bygone era.

Again the OH should be at 2000 in the OH not 1900 1800 1700 or lower which is often the case with cloud base restrictions and again often with aircraft scud running the base of those clouds and should you question the advisability of having everyone approach the same point at exactly 2000 feet?


Pace

[Jumbo Driver]

70% of all midair collisions occur in and around the airport. I could be heading 360 to land on runway 36 at a given airport. with the OH I would need to complete six 90 degree turns just to get back to where I was!

Not sure I follow your reasoning, Pace ... 6 x 90° = 540°, so you would then be landing on runway 18, would you not? The easiest way to join in this case would surely be to approach on the dead-side, descending to circuit height, then turn to join the circuit crosswind? (involving just 4 turns, just like any normal circuit.)

This subject really is an old chestnut. For those of us brought up some years ago, the default way to join a circuit was (and still is) by the Standard Overhead Join. Not only is it recognised practice but it separates joining/descending traffic and circuit traffic and, for established circuit traffic, it clearly defines where any joining traffic should appear. Obviously, for circuits where, for some reason, there is no dead-side or where alternative joining procedures are promulgated, or where there is ATC, an OHJ is neither suitable nor expected. But for a default procedure, where needed, I would suggest that it remains totally adequate.

The only comments I would add are that, firstly, overhead join should made at 1000' above circuit height - i.e. at 1800' for a circuit at 800'. Secondly, it must be infinitely better than the USA pattern joining procedure which involves a 45° turn against the circuit direction in the mid-field downwind position.

JD
:)

[sapperkenno]

...it must be infinitely better than the USA pattern joining procedure which involves a 45° turn against the circuit direction in the mid-field downwind position.
If you think about it sensibly (have you ever flown in the U.S.?) it's a far better system, where you can survey the whole circuit as you approach, and been at the same height can generally spot traffic against the sky as opposed to looking down on it from an overhead join and then descending onto a position where there could be traffic.
Also, everyone knows where you are going to enter the pattern with the 45° system, as you said yourself it's the mid-point downwind. How is that difficult?

[Pace]

JD

You approach to the OH turn to descend deadside 1 descend and make turn two to go to the crosswind 2 make another turn to run crosswind 3 make another turn to go down wind 4 make another turn to go base 5 and another to turn final 6 where you were in the first place with NO turns ;)

[Broadlands]

I just wish those pilots who insist on a long final could be re-educated to fly an OH join and stop screwing up established circuit traffic.
OH joins rule!

[mary meagher]

Jumbo Driver, how do you arrive at a "45 degree turn against the circuit direction in the midfield downwind position?" being the norm in the US of A?

If I remember correctly, you arrive at CIRCUIT (PATTERN) height after announcing your plan on unicom: for example, "Puddletown traffic, Cessna 152 joining downwind for 09". And you simply slot in after having a jolly good look, and follow the other guys around. How does that compute to being a 45 degree turn AGAINST the circuit (PATTERN) direction? Seems to me you have joined downwind, in the same direction of flight as everybody else. And then two left turns, unless the local rules call for RH PATTERNS in the airfield information, which of course you have checked ahead of going there. Simple.

But that overhead join at Wellesborne gets me completely confused. And even on a murky day the local numpties don't turn on their landing lights or indeed nav lights which could help everybody else see them. Saving money perhaps?

[TheiC]

I think that the point being made may be that in a left-hand circuit, the turn from the 45deg leg to establish on the downwind track is a right turn, thus going against one of the UK rules of the air.

[tmmorris]

Joining straight in I'm a fan of the military Initials join, though I appreciate that's an even more esoteric option and can't be done at a civilian airfield. It certainly avoids a 270 degree turn in the overhead before the deadside descent.

[Pittsextra]

Again the OH should be at 2000 in the OH not 1900 1800 1700 or lower which is often the case with cloud base restrictions and again often with aircraft scud running the base of those clouds and should you question the advisability of having everyone approach the same point at exactly 2000 feet?

WW is 1300ft QFE with circuit height of 800ft...... so doesn't always need to be 2000ft.

Pilot Information - West London Aero ClubWest London Aero Club (http://www.wlac.co.uk/wlac/pilot-information/)

[Dont Hang Up]

I am beginning to wonder if the bias for or against the OH join is simply a matter of your normal a/c type - high or low wing.

For me the descending, dead-side, continuous turn gives me maximum visibility for a leisurely assessment of the total airfield environment. That is why I like it, and I do not recognise Pace's "unnecessary 90 degree blind turns".

My very limited hours in a high wing have probably never included an OH join but I am all too aware of how horrendously the dropped wing blocks ones view in a typical Cessna. So I can see how such a joining technique may not seem nearly so nice for high wing types.

I've had ATC hold an airliner on the runway until I (making an OHJ) was clear of his take-off path. Would it be reasonable to hope/expect ATC to be aware of the performance of a "super-performing sports job" and take similar precautions?

I remember, when being taught the OH join, my instructor explained the 1500ft minimum at final runway crossing ensured you were still above the departing traffic "..unless its a departing 757 in which case it may be 1500ft above you by that point!" :)

However, commercial jets aside, I think it is beholden on departing aircraft at a GA airfield to be aware that the OH join is an accepted procedure and behave accordingly.

[Pace]

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

This gives a good picture of the standard OH join in this case a join which could have involved one turn from base to final involves 5 turns.
Every extra turn involves increased collision especially unlike the picture where you might be mixing several aircraft or more some high wing, some low wing some fast some slow.

Also consider the VFR rules vertically clear of cloud unlike many who scud run the bases to the overhead or where the bases do not meet the published procedure and it has to be a very nice day for the OH to work as published something which is rare in the UK.

So while I appreciate its place in joins in good weather I do not like the STANDARD part and pilots attempts to fly it in less than perfect which happens all the time.Even from ATC telling aircraft to Join OH when bases do not meet the VFR requirements vertically clear of cloud or OH join heights

Pace

[Pittsextra]

Its a nice picture but of course gives one example. Of course one might have approached the field on the dead side and traffic willing merely "decended dead side and turned down wind... What is wrong with that?

[Dont Hang Up]

I am surprised that this CAA guidance would have us crossing the depart-threshold at 1000ft. Not what I was taught and seems to risk unnecessarily coming into conflict with a high performance departure. Surely the key thing is to be flying level at 1000ft before joining late downwind? With all but the tightest circuit I think a 1500ft crossing will work, and adds a significant safety margin.

[fireflybob]

With all but the tightest circuit I think a 1500ft crossing will work, and adds a significant safety margin.

But then you run the risk of descending on top of another aircraft which is already established in the circuit.

For me a fundamental point is that whether you're doing an OHJ or some sort of direct join you must be established at the circuit height before entering the live part of the circuit.

Whichever method one uses to join the circuit there is never going to be a "one type fits all". Traffic and situational awareness are vital to conducting a safe join. My observation is that circuit joining (and departure) is sometimes poorly taught.

[mary meagher]

Pace, that is a lovely ideal picture of the overhead join,CAVOK conditions, published by an optimist. Why not simply approach the airfield at 1,000, I used to do this all the time going to Enstone for fuel; call them up abeam Hook Norton, and then slot in downwind. What is this prohibition against a right turn? that's news to me. I had a fright climbing out of Wellesborne when the overhead joiner skated across too close for comfort, that danger shows up clearly in the lovely ideal picture. That situation simply would not arise with the American join downwind at circuit height.

And don't be shy about turning on your lights. Come on, chaps, see and be seen.

[Pace]

Mary

I am in total agreement with you I consider the OH join to be a relic from the past and fraught with extra risk.

like you under a low overcast base had an aircraft cut across the down wind leg proclaiming he was joining overhead and starting his descent towards the deadside early the cloud base was up and down between 1400 and 1500 feet where the FIS at the airfield cleared him for a standard OH join. He came straight through the down wind leg.

This brings another unthought of problem that many of these uncontrolled airfields other than pilot reports do not have accurate cloud base determining ability and will clear such aircraft to join in a fashion which isn't workable

Pace

[mary meagher]

Ahem! It is my understanding that an UNCONTROLLED airfield is not qualified to CLEAR anybody to do anything! Even using the supposed magic words "At your discretion!" That goes for a Flight Information Service, or a Base station, unless they've changed the rules since I looked at them.

All any uncontrolled radio ground station is entitled to do is to give information. Not CLEARANCES.

[Pace]

Mary

You have caught me out this time 😎yes of course you are right but I still know such airfields where little hitlers will still tell you to join OH )))

Pace

[chevvron]

Airfields like Denham, White Waltham and Fairoaks are embedded in the Heathrow Class D CTR and hence altitude limited, so a 2,000ft OHJ is impossible. Go above 1,000ft QNH at Denham and you might be 'collected' by a '146 bound for Northolt!

[flybymike]

Nothing to strike more fear into the soul than to arrive at a busy fly in only to hear the words "join overhead please...."

[fireflybob]

I must have led a sheltered life - I've never encountered any of these problems when executing an OHP but I have had to Go Around on several occasions when aircraft have barged into a busy circuit by flying a straight in etc at a non controlled airfield.

[Pace]

If aircraft are on final they should have priority to aircraft flying down wind it takes nothing to extend down wind and create a decent spacing so an aircraft can clear ahead.

If an aircraft turns base then chops in front that aircraft should not do that.
on final with one ahead create the space with speed control and important in todays age of GPS is to give final distances and communicate with other aircraft.

Part of the problem is aircraft flying circuits and cutting in on aircraft on final approach thinking they have priority which they do not only turn onto base and final when you are clear to do so

FFB Why would you have to go around unless you were on final and hence how could someone barge in on final unless they overtook you? A go around is a final procedure usually on very short final or when unable to land not a base or downwind procedure! I think I know what you mean :E

Pace

[ShyTorque]

The problem with extending downwind is that subsequent aircraft are forced to do the same, or risk a conflict at the normal base leg to final point.

When the circuit is busy, once someone extends downwind the circuit pattern becomes longer and longer until aircraft can end up outside the ATZ. Pilots lose situational awareness because more than one aircraft can be on final, but spaced downwind of the threshold. This effectively results in the same situation as someone just calling "long final" and joining straight in.

Better to extend upwind to gain extra spacing.

Btw, if you try extending downwind at a military airfield you may be told to break off your approach, go to the dead side, and rejoin the circuit from there.

[Pace]

ShyTorque

i am half stirring things :E but there still is a point that aircraft on base do not have a priority over aircraft established on final and to only establish on final when its clear to do so.
Even in the OH join and conventional pattern pilots may have different base points. One ahead may turn later meaning the aircraft behind is turning ahead of him ( that happens a lot especially mixing less experienced and experienced pilots. The pilot behind should still extend to slot in behind the aircraft he is following and not chop him up by turning inside him. As stated I have seen that on numerous occasions.

Final is the right of aircraft already established and those aircraft have to be configured and stabilised. You may have faster aircraft which are adding drag to get stabilised to land and and back to VREF there is nothing worse than Billie Bob doing multiple circuits chopping across in a Cessna 150 :{ The secret is communicate

Pace

[Broadlands]

Pace

I hope you are not suggesting an aircraft on long final (therefore outside atz) has priority over an aircraft established circuit traffic on base!

[Pace]

I am suggesting an aircraft established on final has priority over an aircraft on base without doubt!

That would be like stating an aircraft established down wind has priority to land over an aircraft established on final or for that matter one turning crosswind ?? There is no difference

Pace

[Broadlands]

Our FISOs have got it correct. If an a/c calls long final they are politely requested to report short final and reminded that there are aircraft in the circuit and will likely be allocated the runway.
Long final does not have priority (also as stated in various cap docs) and I am happy for students to turn in front as long as there is safe separation.

If a candidate on test did a long final (I offer the rejoin as their choice) while there was established circuit traffic I would almost certainly fail that section! The CAA staff examiner did this to me (pretending to be the candidate) to see if I would fail him, which I did.
Long final meaning over 4nm.

[fireflybob]

FFB Why would you have to go around unless you were on final and hence how could someone barge in on final unless they overtook you? A go around is a final procedure usually on very short final or when unable to land not a base or downwind procedure! I think I know what you mean


Pace, please don't teach me how to suck eggs! I will Go Around whenever I deem it is necessary to maintain safe flight.

The issue of a/c on long final having right of way (or not) has been flogged to death already. You are entitled to your opinion on this issue but I do not agree.

Also it's nonsense to say you can only Go Around from final - you can Go Around from the beginning of the downwind leg or base leg if you need/want to.

I also agree with Shy Torque that any extending should (notwithstanding local noise abatement) be carried out upwind and not downwind for the reasons Shy has stated.

[ShyTorque]

Pace, as I said, if you extend downwind you may well cause problems for everyone else in the pattern and this could, in many cases, have been resolved earlier by extending upwind. At a military training airfield, where things are perhaps more strictly controlled and circuits are required to be flown to a fairly tight pattern, you are likely to be deemed to have left the normal circuit by extending downwind and unless given permission by ATC to extend you may be required to cross to the dead side whilst maintaining circuit altitude and fit back into the pattern, before you enter the final leg of the circuit.

Having been trained by the RAF over forty years ago (and later trained others to fly) and having now had over two decades of civilian flying, I think the military method provides a safer option for everyone concerned. :ok:

[Pace]

fireflyBob

I am not trying to teach you how to suck eggs ( Who would want to anyway they are horrible )) Okay I am winding up a bit :E so apologies for that ;)

Nevertheless everyone is referring to aircraft on long finals ? I would be interested to know what is classified as Final? Short Final and Long final. to me final is 4 miles Max as for going around that is normally a procedure from final either VFR or IFR and means you are aborting a landing. IFR you follow a go around procedure VFR you miss the landing and proceed back into the circuit?Where would you go around from downwind or base ?

Pace

[fireflybob]

Nevertheless everyone is referring to aircraft on long finals ? I would be interested to know what is classified as Final? Short Final and Long final. to me final is 4 miles Max as for going around that is normally a procedure from final either VFR or IFR and means you are aborting a landing. IFR you follow a go around procedure VFR you miss the landing and proceed back into the circuit?Where would you go around from downwind or base ?


It's a matter of semantics but a "Go Around" (or "abandoned approach" if you prefer) from Downwind or Base Leg would be flown by following the circuit in plan (azimuth) but maintaining and/or climbing back to circuit height and then resequencing back into the circuit again. Hope this helps to clarify.

[Helen49]

Along with Firefly Bob, I must also have lived sheltered life!! During thirty years in towers, I rarely experienced any problems with overhead joins.

Indeed for visiting pilots, OHJs enabled the pilot to orientate him/herself with the runway and circuit direction in use, other traffic etc. They also enabled me to eyeball the aircraft and ascertain that correct procedures were being applied.

However, on countless occasions pilots making straight in approaches regularly co**ed up the circuit by giving wildly incorrect distances from touchdown........often I suspected with the intention of jumping the queue.

Straight in approaches are obviously ideal for the airline traffic, twins etc but overhead joins are ideal for learners, single engine aircraft and visitors to the field.

Just an ATC perspective!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

However, on countless occasions pilots making straight in approaches regularly co**ed up the circuit by giving wildly incorrect distances from touchdown........
Whenever I've negotiated a straight in approach I find that either I'm asked for distance to run (in which case I read it off the DME or GPS) or the controller already knows by some other means (eg by looking at a radar screen even though it's not a radar service).

I can't see that it makes any sense for anyone to deliberately lie about their position, thereby increasing the risk of a collision.

[Pace]

It also makes no sense to me that on a straight in approach I should have to go overhead and make 5 to 6 blind turns to get back to the point I was already at maybe adding 5 to 10 minutes to the flight adding these unneeded turns to discomfort the PAX and increase my collision risk
Remember 7 out of 10 mid airs are in or near the aerodrome
Communicate is the answer and that means with other aircraft giving precise distance to touchdown and negotiating with the relevant ones on who is first!
If someone is base creating the separation to allow them to land and clear !

I do resent the blind stupid way some pilots attempt OH joins when they do not have 2500 feet to cloud base but attempt the OH with maybe 1500 feet just below the cloud base and that happens a lot
The OH join has a place when conditions are right but in the UK that is seldom and the word STANDARD should be removed to be replaced with better joining methods

That is the problem I have with it that it is abused by pilots and FIS or ATC or adjusted to unsafe separations at airfields where airspace restricts a possible OH join! Why ? Because we are fixated with a method of joining which is outdated and will try to accommodate it into less than ideal situations!
In the past that resulted in a near collision with an aircraft attempting an OH join cutting across the downwind leg




Pace

[chevvron]

I do resent the blind stupid way some pilots attempt OH joins when they do not have 2500 feet to cloud base but attempt the OH with maybe 1500 feet just below the cloud base and that happens a lot
The OH join has a place when conditions are right but in the UK that is seldom and the word STANDARD should be removed to be replaced with better joining methods

That is the problem I have with it that it is abused by pilots and FIS or ATC or adjusted to unsafe separations at airfields where airspace restricts a possible OH join! Why ? Because we are fixated with a method of joining which is outdated and will try to accommodate it into less than ideal situations!
In the past that resulted in a near collision with an aircraft attempting an OH join cutting across the downwind leg




Pace
The airfield where I work is part surrounded by class D airspace which also gives us a 'lid' of 1,500 ft amsl, so you can't extend too far upwind without 'busting' (and setting off a CAIT so the zone controller has to take reporting action) and likewise you cannot join overhead at 2,000ft for the same reason.
What sometimes happens therefore is the joiner joins downwind either inside or outside established circuit traffic, gets too close to it on final and has to go-around, there being no 'land afters' allowed at a FISO airfield.

[Pace]

gets too close to it on final and has to go-around, there being no 'land afters' allowed at a FISO airfield.

Chevron

I understand that but its not exclusive to aircraft joining down wind its up to pilots to create a reasonable seperation. Once out of the OH and down to circuit height in the pattern the same problem can exist.
Flying mainly twins in the past I often had to create a separation to a slow aircraft in front and there are many techniques to do that even on final with one ahead.

Go arounds are usually created not by getting too close on final but the aircraft which have landed thinking they have all the time in the world to clear with little consideration to other aircraft on final?

Pace

[flybymike]

Pace, please can you list the many ways to create separation from the slower moving traffic ahead in the circuit.

[Pace]

down wind One is obvious to slow up to a safe speed or add flap to reduce that speed. Watch where he turns base and delay your base turn. Widen your downwind track to extend your track distance compared to him. On final fly a curved final left and right to again extend your track distance

Pace

[thing]

I just wish those pilots who insist on a long final could be re-educated to fly an OH join and stop screwing up established circuit traffic.
OH joins rule!

Amen to that. Why pilots on a VMC day insist on doing a squillion mile bomber circuit is beyond me. Being a Yorkshireman who pays for his flying my ccts are as tight as the proverbial gnats buttocks, base leg is long enough to get the flap down and that's it. In fact bring on oval ccts at civvy airfields as taught by the RAF. Up down in no time.

[DeltaV]

Good grief! A new forum is created specifically to discuss Accidents and Close Calls and this thread with twice as many posts as any other has to do with circuit procedures!
I know it can be a difficult area at times but really, should not this thread be moved to Private Flying where it more properly belongs? I'm sure over there a preexisting thread could be found that this could be merged with.

I mean, same old same old, "the OHJ should be banned", "the OHJ should be standard", "the US 45° downwind join is best".

I'm going flying.

[Pace]

DeltaV

With 7 out of 10 midairs OCAS in and around the circuit maybe this is the right place to discuss joining methods? But not just joining methods separation too
Many of us have had near misses in the circuit or situations where we have been cut up.

Pace

[thing]

I mean, same old same old, "the OHJ should be banned", "the OHJ should be standard", "the US 45° downwind join is best".

I'm going flying.

Don't forget some of us like spouting the same old rubbish. It's comforting and warming and requires little excess thought as you just have to repeat the same thoughts you've already had. There's room for everyone.

Bet you didn't go flying either if your weather is as bad as it is here.

[DeltaV]

Many of us have had near misses in the circuit ...

Pace

http://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/561677-near-mid-air-collisions-2.html#post8989305

Bet you didn't go flying either...
Yes I did.

[Pace]

Come to think of it how many posted subjects haven't been around the block at least a dozen tmes ? Or are variations of a theme
You have to really scrape the subject barrel to come up with anything original
Maybe the PP forum should be renamed Hamster Wheel forum 😃

[Pass your message]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422ed2b40f0b6134200014b/10-1972_G-AVBI_and_G-AVBD.pdf

The above link worth a read . Every time I join OH I think of this awful accident and the only good thing about incidents like this is that we can learn from them. Not all of us do , but I certainly have .

[Pull what]

down wind One is obvious to slow up to a safe speed or add flap to reduce that speed. Watch where he turns base and delay your base turn. Widen your downwind track to extend your track distance compared to him. On final fly a curved final left and right to again extend your track distance


Slowing down downwind is seemingly an unheard of procedure for PPL's, its far to dangerous for them to fly level at approach speed downwind. Its ok between 500 feet to ground level though with idle power.

The problem with slowing down downwind is that it can obstruct the aircraft behind so its not a good procedure if you have aircraft close behind but we do teach it and expect it as an option. The best place and very obvious place to increase your circuit spacing is on the climb out path and guess what, apart from final that may well be your slowest point in the circuit and usually the only point where you are heading away from the other circuit traffic! This wont work of course you have learnt to fly by numbers because you will have to turn at 500 feet!

If however you believe in the use of good judgment and situational awareness you could extend the climb out path straight ahead to even circuit height before turning and that can increase spacing for aircraft joining cross wind or downwind or just from any other aircraft in the circuit.(its also handy for a tailwind on crosswind) Its not about pushing in, it's about letting others in too, by giving them some room!

Going around from base leg was always a military option and I belive its a useful option in a civil circuit but the military circuit and discipline is far more professional and if someone goes around from base and final at the same time it could be more interesting than I would like to think about!

You have to teach the overhead joins for the PPL because for many students that gives them the time and breathing space they need to sort out what may be a complicated six runway airfield.( 8 in the day when we used to fly to Blackpool). With the direct join you have to get it right first time on entering the ATZ, with the O/H join there is more chance of correcting mistakes early on.

I give students the option of what join they want to make and very few ever select the direct option. You have to remember that some students will have less than 10 hours P1 when making an away landing, they need the safety net of an O/H join!

Circuit collisions are caused by poor situation awareness coupled with not listening out and looking out properly. I cant think of any collisions that have happened above circuit height in an ATZ so joining o/h is just as fraught as joining direct in my opinion

[Pull what]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...and_G-AVBD.pdf

The above link worth a read . Every time I join OH I think of this awful accident and the only good thing about incidents like this is that we can learn from them. Not all of us do , but I certainly have .

Same airfield, history shows us we dont learn from history

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422fa16ed915d137400078b/5-1982_G-ABBJ_and_G-AXZC.pdf

[Pace]

Pull What

I understand what you are saying regarding low time students and PPLs but you do mix aircraft of differing speed and a slow 150 in front of a fast twin is a pain and usually means widening the downwind and overtaking, then extending to let him turn base before you.

You can almost guarantee the base will be too far and then the sod is all the way down final at 70 KTS.

Hence on a long final to a runway in faster machinery the thought of joint OH and making all those needless turns and speed differential decisions just to get back to where you already were makes the straight in far more appealing even though it makes for more constructive flying to not cut others up the same goes for downwind joins or even base joins from circuit height.

training aircraft can also be a pain as get 3 or 4 hammering out circuits all thinking they have right of way with instructors keeping them tight makes it impossible for others.

So please excuse pilots like me doing our own thing :ok:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Slowing down downwind is seemingly an unheard of procedure for PPL's, its far to dangerous for them to fly level at approach speed downwind.
???

I got taught bad weather circuits (low and slow, from which I'm clever enough to work out how to do them normal height and slow). I even did some the other weekend.

[Pace]

Strange that the two most viewed threads are mid air collisions and circuit procedures which revolve around potential mid air collisions

both threads have the highest views and circuit procedures the most postings so maybe the most emotive but midair collisions which in a way includes circuit procedures must generate the highest interest?

Pace

[Pull what]

Pace i know what you mean and of course that is a problem but the guy in tbe twin probably wouldnt be in that twin if he hadnt spent some hours going around a circuit in a C152 too, we all have to live together! I prefer the military way of flying a 1500 foot circuit in aircraft faster than the training aircraft already established in the circuit.

To take up Bob's point about the deadside-I/we teach 1500 stop on dead side until sure of what is taking off or possibly going round before further descent to circuit height.

Here is another reason for the O/H join being best for the low hour pilot and I could quote many more as I am sure you all can

Cessna 172 Landing. Warton

Airfield Ground Support Unit (AGSU) was carrying out daily surface inspection during the weekend period whilst the airfield was closed. Whilst at the 25 threshold, they spotted a light aircraft approaching to land. They cleared the runway area ASAP, whereupon the aircraft landed. The RFFS were conducting a crash gate inspection at the time, advised the RFFS watch room what had happened and approached the aircraft, along with the AGSU airfield inspection team. By hand signals, the RFFS instructed the pilot to shut down. It transpired that the aircraft, flown by a student pilot, was en-route and had been cleared to land but had misidentified Warton for Blackpool. After noting details, and at his discretion, the pilot was advised to depart for his destination.

[Pull what]

I got taught bad weather circuits (low and slow, from which I'm clever enough to work out how to do them normal height and slow). I even did some the other weekend.

As an instructor I have to also consider and teach people who arnt that clever(a recent FIC candidate was aghast that I wanted him to slow to approach speed downwind to avoid extending downwind over a built up area)

Most PPL's will never need to fly a bad weather circuit but there will be many occasions in a circuit where it would be best practice to slow down.

Slow flying is part of the PPL but to take if from a box ticking exercise it has to be taught as a practical exercise and slowing down in the circuit for spacing is its greatest practical value, followed by weather and precautionary. In fact teaching spacing in the circuit is rarely done and the approach go around is usually the end result and caused by poor spacing and lack of forward planning.

The other thing that would help is if more pilots used the base leg call when appropriate. Yes I know its an on request call but if you can move away from the confinement of flying by numbers you can start to actually develop some CRM, SA and ADM skills. For instance if you are on or about to turn base and are not sure of what is ahead or out on final why not call, "base leg". Why keep a secret?

The other help is if pilots would follow the correct procedure and actually call final after making the final turn rather than delaying it because of traffic ahead or other folklore reasons.

[Pace]

Cessna 172 Landing. Warton

Airfield Ground Support Unit (AGSU) was carrying out daily surface inspection during the weekend period whilst the airfield was closed. Whilst at the 25 threshold, they spotted a light aircraft approaching to land. They cleared the runway area ASAP, whereupon the aircraft landed. The RFFS were conducting a crash gate inspection at the time, advised the RFFS watch room what had happened and approached the aircraft, along with the AGSU airfield inspection team. By hand signals, the RFFS instructed the pilot to shut down. It transpired that the aircraft, flown by a student pilot, was en-route and had been cleared to land but had misidentified Warton for Blackpool. After noting details, and at his discretion, the pilot was advised to depart for his destination.

Pull What

Landing at the wrong airfield is not only the domain of a low time student a Ryan Air 737 landed on a disused military airfield next to London Derry. I am sure that if the OH was so good it would be adopted world wide which it isn't.
It is a relic from the past and the days of non radio aircraft and minimalistic navigation aids.
Having different circuits heights for different aircraft is trying to modify the OH into something it is not. Having different OH join heights again is trying to modify to fit but both involve reduced vertical separation and hence an increase in collision risk.
i appreciate your world is teaching and the low time student and flying a circuit covers many handling and configuration changes so an excellent training procedure for novice pilots. Many instructors want to bang in as many touch and goes as possible and put 3 or 4 in the circuit and it can be hard to get in.

maybe from my perspective flying PAX firstly in light twins now jets your goal is to make the flight as smooth as possible with as few 90 degree turns as possible

i could never get my head around being setup on a long final and being to told to join overhead making up to 6 extra turns just to get almost back to where i already was. it seemed costly in extra time. an uncomfortable procedure for the PAX. We have evolved a lot since the days of non radio aircraft and nav equipment mainly due to the accuracy of GPS which can give good visual displays and even OBS magenta lines onto the active runway with accurate distances.

I see the OH as an important procedure but not the STANDARD important when conditions allow with correct cloud bases and VFR vertical separations from those clouds. Scud running in is a no no but happens all the time condoned by ATC or FIS. I have heard aircraft being told to join over head where the cloubase precluded such a procedure and feel that the procedure is abused by both pilots and ATC FIS who usually do not have accurate cloud base deterring equipment.

I also have to say I do not like modified OH joins due to airspace or other restrictions. This causes confusion from one airfield to another and confusion means one thing collision risk! OCAS 7 out of 10 midairs are in or around the airfield

Pace

[fireflybob]

Landing at the wrong airfield is not only the domain of a low time student a Ryan Air 737 landed on a disused military airfield next to London Derry.

Just for the record this flight was not operated by Ryan Air but had been subbed to eirjet.

Pace, were you always a rebel?

[Pace]

Pace, were you always a rebel?

Yes but a kind one ;) My writing style in these forums is to challenge to encourage discussion if they come over as rebellious is that a bad thing? Maybe those views are not as rigid as they appear and my views as in the Cirrus chute pulls which started rigid can be changed too ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4857962.stm

Yes you are right ! How the Captain ever lived that one down? to start an approach maybe but to ignore visual clues getting lower to a landing is mind boggling. At some point able to go around he must have surely realised the mistake?
I have never done it but a couple of times seen another airfield and had to think twice! it is especially likely after descending through cloud for a cloud break and visual approach and a transition from flying instruments to visual! The mind plays tricks.
Especially important to not take things you see for granted but to double check everything you think you see is what you really see

Pace

[TheiC]

clues

Cues. They are cues, not clues. I hope you'll forgive me for pointing this out, but it's becoming a common error, and people dont understand what cues are, as a consequence.

[Pace]

No I am happy to be corrected
Googled Clues

>>.v. clued, clue·ing or clu·ing, clues
To give (someone) guiding information: Clue me in on what's happening around the office.<<

Is that wrong in this context ?

Pace

[flybymike]

people dont understand what cues are

Isn't it a long line of people?



Or maybe a long stick.......

[Pace]

No a long line of people is a queue ))

[TheiC]

Well, this would be as good a place as any to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_cue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_cue)

[flybymike]

No a long line of people is a queue ))
My feeble attempts at humour are invariably lost on this forum.

[Pace]

Not your humour I just cannot spill so I would nit under sting the juk any wheeze

:E

[Pull what]

Pace, were you always a rebel?

People who think differently are the only people who can bring about change.

You know when you are too old because that is when you cannot no longer accept change.

Change leads to progress, dont knock it!

[Pull what]

You do need to separate teaching ab initio from what happens after licence issue. Teaching someone with 5 hours P1 to join O/H doesnt mean you are teaching a procedure that should be blindly followed at every opportunity.

The O/H join is a safety net for low hour cross country students. Once you are familiar and confident with airfield procedures I encourage the most expeditious arrival commensurate with experience and traffic.

Good teaching isnt about insisting that students follow what instructors feel is the best way to do something, its about teaching options and encouraging judgement. Too many instructors base their teaching on what is best or appropriate for them.

For instance I teach point and power and also elevator for airspeed but I let the student decide which method is best for them.

Same for PFL, I teach several methods but allow the student to decide which method suits them.

If your struggling with this try thinking of the student as a customer!

[fireflybob]

People who think differently are the only people who can bring about change.

People who act differently are the ones who bring about change.


You know when you are too old because that is when you cannot no longer accept change.

That's a stereotypical comment if ever I heard one. Nothing to do with "age" and more to do with mindset - most experienced instructors/pilots I know are more than open to consider alternatives.

Change leads to progress, dont knock it!

Not always - it all depends whether the ramifications of any changes are thought through beforehand.

Pace, were you always a rebel?

Pull what, my comment was made in jest - you need to lighten up a bit.

[Pace]

FireFlyBob ;)

7 out of 10 midairs occur in and around the airfield which is natural as that is where most aircraft fly in proximity with each other.

The OH join goes back decades and is a relic from the past of non radio aircraft with poor navigational abilities. Flying overhead allowed the pilot to visually confirm that he was where he though he was. He could examine the runway layout as well as the signal area to visually inspect the runway in use ETC.

From that position the pilot could then descend into a circuit.

We all know that nothing in aviation changes fast. A lot is steeped in history on the basis that that is how it has always been done and how it should always be done.

i am not against the OH join but as posted previously question it as a STANDARD
If it was so good it would be used universally worldwide which it is not.
On a good CAVOK day it works as published but is abused by ATC and pilots on days when it cannot be used as published.

Any joining system which requires aircraft to congregate in one spot flying visually and to make level changes and needless 90 degree turns has to increase collision potential?

so while I accept the OH join as one possible join I do not think in this era that it is the best way. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and not many other nations are eating it worldwide. Any system which reduces level changes, aircraft homing into one spot and multiple needless blind 90 degree turns has to reduce collision potential?

People who act differently are the ones who bring about change.
Agreed But to act differently you have to think differently first :ok:

Pace

[fireflybob]

Pace, before any change is likely you will have to show the statistical evidence that your suggested method of joining the circuit is safer.

[Pace]

Firebobfly

Nothing will be completely risk free in an environment which brings numerous pilot controlled rather than radar controlled aircraft into close proximity.

All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.

There are other things like better communication.

I am not against the OH join in its pure form. That is 2000 ft agl OH, 500 feet clear of cloud so used with a minimum of 2500 agl cloud base .
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?

Pace

[Pittsextra]

Nothing will be completely risk free in an environment which brings numerous pilot controlled rather than radar controlled aircraft into close proximity.

All you can do is to reduce the amount of blind turns those aircraft make to get onto final and separate them vertically.

There are other things like better communication. Agree the communication element although one does then need to question the fees being charged for having a dedicated frequency..... the unwillingness of some fields forces them onto the generic safetycom.

I am not against the OH join in its pure form. That is 2000 ft agl OH, 500 feet clear of cloud so used with a minimum of 2500 agl cloud base .
How do you accurately determine the cloud base in many small airfields other than pilot reports?
Should you modify the OH to lower separations because of airspace restrictions or cloud base restrictions ? or use another joining method if neither of the two above work?
Aren't we over thinking this? What is wrong with simply being familiar with the procedure at your destination? As I said before Waltham OH join is nowhere near 2000ft QFE, the OH join height is only 500ft above circuit height and is arguably one of the busiest GA fields in the country, yet it has few problems.

In fact if you follow the process it seems hard to see why there would ever be an issue.

You seem obsessed with a standard joining height that you suggest falls apart with a low cloud base and people arriving at different heights?

Firstly you can all still use the radio and explain the height and position that you are arriving at in order to remain VMC and secondly i'm unsure of the type of people that would willingly try and arrive at this point with a few feet of separation.

Whatever system is in place there will always be a senario able to catch out and foil the standardised norm. No rigid system will be a catch all. Ultimately see and avoid works just as well in the circuit as outside of it and aviate, navigate, communicate...

Isn't it the case that actually regardless of the system bad airmanship is bad airmanship and arguably No.1 on that list is the lack of a plan.

[Pace]

Pitts Extra

But then its not a standard OH as specified by the CAA its a home made adapted OH join to suit that airfield.

OK call it a minimal OH or whatever but if you only have 500 feet separation why bother just use what most of the world uses successfully to join rather than clinging onto something from bygone eras and trying to push it into a hole it really doesn't fit

For 500 (( feet why all the potential extra 90 degree turns? what for ? Every 90 degree turn is an extra collision hazard it has to be especially mixing high and low wing an aircraft of differing speed ?

I really do not understand why countries have to be so territorial in their rule making we should have uniformity worldwide. EASA were created at huge cost to rewrite the rule book when they could have just copied a tried successful and tested FAA system and saved the tax payer a fortune

Pace

[Pittsextra]

I thought we were discussing the merits or otherwise of the OH join?? standard or otherwise?

I hear you re: the 90 turns but i can't see the alternative that hasn't its own set of potential issues..Don't get me wrong its not perfect and i'm not wedded to the OH I just don't see the issues as so huge

Edited to add:-

Your original posting on this makes a lot of assumptions.

It harps back to the days of non radio aircraft with minimal navigation equipment who needed to go over head and were pure VFR with minimal navigation aids

Firstly to be sure they were in the right place, to view the runways and read the signal square and look at the wind sock.

Very few aircraft do not have GPS and accurate DME readouts. so many of our regulations are still stuck in by gone eras which are not relevant today.

Very many aircraft today don't have very much in terms of avionics. Whilst we assume having a radio in the aircraft is normal its fairly common for very many GA airfields not to have the radio manned 100% of the time, and that is during what many would consider to be normal hours in mid-week. For example I flew to Sleap recently mid-week at 4pm-ish and couldn't raise anyone.

Sadly the number of full time people working that can be sustained by a handful of movements is very often not more that 1 and if that chap needs to go to the toilet, have a tea or lock up the pumps etc what does he do?

So the need to look at the signal square and wind sock isn't as uncommon as one might think.

Further many microlights, light sport, aerobatic and gyroplanes don't have anything by way of nav aids other than perhaps the pilot using his own ipad type application.

The point is you can't just apply the thinking to a Piper/Cirrus spam can type, which often have different avionics fit which means if you are SFH many pilots haven't the first idea what is available even when its fitted!

Lets be pragmatic, if the pilot that cut you up in your example can't be bothered to give his position, height and his inability to maintain VMC what are the chances that same chap reading all the gen on the full suite of his avionics fit... none of which would have actually stopped the cloud base and his need to join the circuit anyway..


For me the OH join increases collision risk mixing high wing and low wing aircraft all making blind 90 degree turns and all homing into one spot like honey bees over an airfield.

flying straight in why make up to six extra blind 90 degree turns to end up in the position you were already in? why make your PAX uncomfortable and why add needless time to an already expensive flight. Flying straight in, OH join, downwind... it doesn't matter at some point isn't your argument about heading to "one spot" always going to be the same? After all where do I head straight in from??

Actually an OH join would have saved this accident:-

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5423019340f0b61342000a1f/Taylorcraft_BC12D_Twosome_G-BVXS_Pitts_S-2C_Pitts_Special_G-IICI_11-12.pdf

Why mix fast and slow high and low wing together? its all a collision risk? What do you do at a place like Oxford then?


I too had to take avoiding action when an aircraft attempted an OH joint at 1200 feet with a 1400 foot cloud base cutting through the down wind leg :ugh: Just as easy to blame bad RT as the OH join isn't it?

Oh well the wheels of aviation turn very slowly and are stuck in the past until there is an obviously better solution why change something?

[Maoraigh1]

I was much happier with the US mid-downwind 45° join at unmanned airfields. But I've been told to overfly the field first lately. And there are now roundabouts on the US roads.

[Pittsextra]

I was much happier with the US mid-downwind 45° join at unmanned airfields.

Happier because? Doesn't this "mid-downwind" point become that one spot that everyone then homes in on??

Beyond which how do I get to this "mid-downwind" point if I arrive at the field from the dead side? Do I overfly the field? Drive across the end of the runway crosswind.... errr did you read the AAIB report of the Leicester accident?

[Pace]

Pitts extra

The FAA system is way way bigger worldwide than the CAA :ok: I am sure if the rest of the world thought the OH was so good they would all adopt it and it would be a universal join which it isn't ;)

If you are deadside why not just join crosswind, turn down wind base and land ? which isn't far off what you would do from that direction in an OH join.

any extra 90 degree turn you make is an extra collision hazard as you are partially blind in that turn! Every level change you make is a collision hazard any point you make as a herding point is a collision risk.

I am not against the OH as a join amongst other passible joins at certain airfields and where weather allows? I am against it being fitted into conditions where it doesn't fit as depicted by the CAA. i am against a 500 foot separation and a modified OH join (there are better ways than that)

as stated if it was so good everyone would want it which worldwide they don't :ok: It is an archaic method which yes has a place but the majority of pilots world wide don't want it! Proof of the pudding is in the eating and the vast majority do not want to eat the OH join only us historically jammed Brits

I have had instructions from FIS to join OH when its impossible to do so due weather. Next time I will do so and declare that I am doing so in IMC as to published procedures :ugh:

Pace

[Pittsextra]

f you are deadside why not just join crosswind, turn down wind base and land ? which isn't far off what you would do from that direction in an OH join.
Did you read this?

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5423019340f0b61342000a1f/Taylorcraft_BC12D_Twosome_G-BVXS_Pitts_S-2C_Pitts_Special_G-IICI_11-12.pdf

That crosswind join ended as badly as it ever could for one pilot.

I actually just don't agree that the 90deg turns in an OH join are a collision risk. Firstly the act of turning 90deg is very simple from a piloting perspective and secondly at no 90deg turn should I encounter any traffic I shouldn't have already seen.

I mean what traffic are we expecting a conflict with at any point? Perhaps the very first turn having joined overhead - but really with even the minimal of RT and use of the Mark 1 eyeball its not that hard to see and avoid is it?

I might be oblivious but when was the last mid air collision in the OH?

Don't get me wrong I am fairly confident you are a more experienced aviator than I but I think my points are fair enough :ok:

[Pace]

Pitts Extra

I opened this thread for discussion that doesn't make me right :ok: and its nothing to do with experience ;) OK I may fly more PAX than you and as such as a pilot you want to make the flight as short as possible with as few turns as possible always PAX comfort in mind.

It drives me mad in a fast twin when say 8 miles out setup for a final to be told to join OH. That means OH turn 1 descend deadside turn 2 crosswind 3 downwind 4 base 5 final and hey Bingo I am back where I was after 5 pointless turns.

But I have made my points :ok: and will only repeat my arguments its only a discussion and I respect your opinion even if we don't totally agree

Pace

[deefer dog]

Aiming for a straight in landing is similar to the overhead join in one respect.... everyone is aiming for the same point, but with less space within which to miss each other, and less height too.

Of course if one is at work and being radar vectored it's great to get a short cut to finals, but when flying GA types I'm up there for the fun of it so there is no time pressure. I therefore think that when mixing radio and non radio traffic the overhead join is the safest and most expeditious option.

[27/09]

Some interesting comments.

In New Zealand the over head join is taught. We have many unattended airfields where it can be used.

However it isn't the only accepted means of joining the circuit (pattern). The main reason for using it is to determine the runway in use. If you can determine the runway in use by other means (radio, smoke drift, wind lanes etc) you can join on any leg of the circuit without doing an overhead join, provided you follow the circuit direction.

It's not used at controlled airfields.

I saw one post mention the FIS instructed an overheard join be carried out. Perhaps it's different in the UK, our FIS are just that an information service. They cannot tell you to do anything. You as the P in C decide what you will do based on the information they may give you.

Over all if used properly the overhead join is a useful procedure.

[Talkdownman]

Perhaps it's different in the UK, our FIS are just that an information service. They cannot tell you to do anything
It shouldn't be different...

[flybymike]

But often is.

[27/09]

If it's not different why do pilots take instructions from FIS?

There should be no need for this

I have had instructions from FIS to join OH when its impossible to do so due weather. Next time I will do so and declare that I am doing so in IMC as to published procedures

[flybymike]

If it's not different why do pilots take instructions from FIS?


Usually for the sake of a quiet life.

[Talkdownman]

There should be no need for this
There is no need for it.

Usually for the sake of a quiet life
It's not a quiet life having to listen to such inane, irrelevant drivel.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Problem is that some FISOs fancy themselves as controllers!

[chevvron]

Problem is that some FISOs fancy themselves as controllers!

I'm a FISO and a retired controller, but I think I know who you're talking about and it's not me!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Certainly not you T!

[fireflybob]

Problem is that some FISOs fancy themselves as controllers!

And so do some A/G Operators

[Talkdownman]

The email of my local A/G unit is atc******@btconnect.com

It's cringe-worthy…!

[flybymike]

Go on, go on, go on.......fill in the stars....

[Talkdownman]

6 letters, a fizzy drink with meat...

[fireflybob]

6 letters, a fizzy drink with meat...

Got it!

The A/G at an airfield not far from me has a notice on the door in large capitals "No Admittance to the Control Tower....etc"

Where's the tippex?

[27/09]

6 letters, a fizzy drink with meat...

This reply got me thinking, not being a local and all.

Cut and paste into Google atc******@btconnect.com

Voila first result. :) Made me laugh.

[Pittsextra]

It will be interesting to see how it develops with any final report and what the RT was because the prelim AAIB report on the Blackbushe jet accident would seem to suggest the pilot was distracted or wasn't fully aware of traffic already established in the circuit.

[Pull what]

Pull what, my comment was made in jest - you need to lighten up a bit.

Bob, if its alright by you I would like to be who I am rather than who you think I should be. I flew with you 40 years ago and I remember you being a very serious young man and the first professional acting pilot I had come into contact with, please dont destroy that illusion for me.

[this is my username]

From the (allegedly) offending airfield's website:

FizzydrinkMeat Radio is frequency is 1**.*** and is an Air Ground Communication Service (AGCS) and as such is NOT Air Traffic "Control". However, the generic term "ATC" is widely used as everyone seems to understand this abbreviation! Even XXX Radar, YYYYYYY, ZZZZZZZ, TTTTTTTT, PPPPPPP, etc., still call us on the phone and ask for "ATC"! Perhaps we should just use "AT"! We get numerous calls asking for us to correct the "C" part so before you write in again the answer is the same - all we can do is repeat the above!