Does anyone ever use "The Overhead Approach"?
Grief, I didn't mean to cause a firestorm here - SSD is closest to what I meant (even if my phrasing was arguably a little flippant).
I've at various times had ATC (and yes, I mean ATC, not AFIS) give me instructions that if followed would have caused breaches of rule 5, taken me IMC in a VMC aeroplane, taken me in a microlight about 30 seconds behind a landing airliner, taken me into a position where in a single engined aeroplane I would have absolutely no chance of surviving an engine failure. On two occasions, whilst following the instructions of one controller, I've transgressed on another controller's airspace without, as I later discovered, their agreement to my entering it (strangely neither got MOR'd
).
There are two big pictures - the one I can see, and the one seen by the controller. If they ask me to take a particular course of action and I can see that it is sensible, safe and legal - then of course one should read back the instruction and follow it. However I have a duty on me as captain of an aircraft to consider ATC instructions, and if there is any good reason not to follow the instruction, to advise the controller immediately of the problem and ask for an alternative.
Or to re-iterate...
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
Flying into IMC without the appropriate kit on board, flying at 2000ft over the middle of a city, getting caught in the wake turbulence of a landing airliner, and breaching the ANO are all actions that I class as "not co-incident with my own interests". In the wider picture, I'm probably doing the controller a favour too since I imagine he'd get at-least some share of the blame.
G
N.B. Gertrude, whilst your trusting nature is very laudable, bear in mind that whilst you, for-example, know the crosswind limits of your aeroplane - the tower controller probably doesn't....
N.B.B. Chilli Monster, surely you don't think any qualified pilot is going to obey any instruction of yours if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
I've at various times had ATC (and yes, I mean ATC, not AFIS) give me instructions that if followed would have caused breaches of rule 5, taken me IMC in a VMC aeroplane, taken me in a microlight about 30 seconds behind a landing airliner, taken me into a position where in a single engined aeroplane I would have absolutely no chance of surviving an engine failure. On two occasions, whilst following the instructions of one controller, I've transgressed on another controller's airspace without, as I later discovered, their agreement to my entering it (strangely neither got MOR'd
).There are two big pictures - the one I can see, and the one seen by the controller. If they ask me to take a particular course of action and I can see that it is sensible, safe and legal - then of course one should read back the instruction and follow it. However I have a duty on me as captain of an aircraft to consider ATC instructions, and if there is any good reason not to follow the instruction, to advise the controller immediately of the problem and ask for an alternative.
Or to re-iterate...
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
Flying into IMC without the appropriate kit on board, flying at 2000ft over the middle of a city, getting caught in the wake turbulence of a landing airliner, and breaching the ANO are all actions that I class as "not co-incident with my own interests". In the wider picture, I'm probably doing the controller a favour too since I imagine he'd get at-least some share of the blame.
G
N.B. Gertrude, whilst your trusting nature is very laudable, bear in mind that whilst you, for-example, know the crosswind limits of your aeroplane - the tower controller probably doesn't....
N.B.B. Chilli Monster, surely you don't think any qualified pilot is going to obey any instruction of yours if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 24th Mar 2004 at 09:49.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An overhead join is, of course, normal procedure at Sherburn: 1500' on the QFE, descend deadside to circuit height, and join the circuit pattern via crosswind perpendicularly orientated on the upwind end of the active runway. All straightforward, allows for a good lookout to be maintained, and appropriate radio calls contribute toward the maintenance of a good traffic picture.
There are no difficulties, though, occasionally, I believe, it can give a student in the circuit some pause for thought if, for example, a visitor insists upon a straight in approach.
There are no difficulties, though, occasionally, I believe, it can give a student in the circuit some pause for thought if, for example, a visitor insists upon a straight in approach.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overhead Joins:
As VATCO has said, they're mandatory at Old Warden. They're also a useful way of spying the area before joining at other airfields.
The best published description I've yet seen for an Overhead Join is that shown in the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 'Aerodrome Sense':
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL06.PDF
The other leaflets are quite good too:
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...e=sercat&id=21
Take a look - they're free!
As VATCO has said, they're mandatory at Old Warden. They're also a useful way of spying the area before joining at other airfields.
The best published description I've yet seen for an Overhead Join is that shown in the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 'Aerodrome Sense':
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL06.PDF
The other leaflets are quite good too:
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...e=sercat&id=21
Take a look - they're free!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis the Engineer
I think it was the generalisation:
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests.
Your interests may be a straight-in approach. ATC issue instructions and advice to achieve a safe orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. The pilot can request what he wants, but if it is not possible for ATC to accomodate that request then the pilot either follows the instructions he's given or remains outside the ATZ or CAS.
surely you don't think any qualified ATCO is going to issue any instruction if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
I think it was the generalisation:
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests.
Your interests may be a straight-in approach. ATC issue instructions and advice to achieve a safe orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. The pilot can request what he wants, but if it is not possible for ATC to accomodate that request then the pilot either follows the instructions he's given or remains outside the ATZ or CAS.
surely you don't think any qualified ATCO is going to issue any instruction if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
My interests are generally wider than that, involving getting to my destination in one piece without breaking the law en-route, I didn't mean it quite that narrowly; my "interests" in this context are always the safe and legal operation of the aircraft. That said, it's quite usual to ask whether an alternative join to that given is acceptable - and in most cases you'll get it.
I don't believe that any ATCO will deliberately issue an instruction which takes you out of legal / aircraft limits, but that doesn't mean that they can't or don't do so inadvertently. The captain of an aircraft has the duty to assess instructions before accepting them - that's part of the reason we do all this training and exams, so that we have the ability to fulfil that duty.
I have to say that I find that the general assumption on some people's parts that our first action should be to accept ATC instructions, and then to think about it later rather disturbing. I know of nothing in any rulebook which says that accepting an ATC service, of any description, absolves the captain of the aircraft from absolute responsibility for ensuring the safe and legal operation of their aircraft.
G
I don't believe that any ATCO will deliberately issue an instruction which takes you out of legal / aircraft limits, but that doesn't mean that they can't or don't do so inadvertently. The captain of an aircraft has the duty to assess instructions before accepting them - that's part of the reason we do all this training and exams, so that we have the ability to fulfil that duty.
I have to say that I find that the general assumption on some people's parts that our first action should be to accept ATC instructions, and then to think about it later rather disturbing. I know of nothing in any rulebook which says that accepting an ATC service, of any description, absolves the captain of the aircraft from absolute responsibility for ensuring the safe and legal operation of their aircraft.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I find that the general assumption on some people's parts that our first action should be to accept ATC instructions, and then to think about it later rather disturbing. I know of nothing in any rulebook which says that accepting an ATC service, of any description, absolves the captain of the aircraft from absolute responsibility for ensuring the safe and legal operation of their aircraft.
This should be carved in stone and mounted above the book-in desk of every flying school in the UK. It should also be printed on every other page of the log book of every flying instructor until the trend is abolished.
Perhaps the biggest change I've seen in the 25 years I've been flying is this trend towards blind obedience to the radio at the expense of THINKING about what you are doing, assuming command, and making command descisions. My impression, and that's all it is, is that this is a result of the old generation of ex-military instructors retiring and being replaced by low-hours guys on their way to a career in the airlines.
SSD
This should be carved in stone and mounted above the book-in desk of every flying school in the UK. It should also be printed on every other page of the log book of every flying instructor until the trend is abolished.
Perhaps the biggest change I've seen in the 25 years I've been flying is this trend towards blind obedience to the radio at the expense of THINKING about what you are doing, assuming command, and making command descisions. My impression, and that's all it is, is that this is a result of the old generation of ex-military instructors retiring and being replaced by low-hours guys on their way to a career in the airlines.
SSD
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N.B.B. Chilli Monster, surely you don't think any qualified pilot is going to obey any instruction of yours if they consider it likely to either endanger the aircraft or breach the ANO?
It wouldn't be difficult, for example:-
(1) You could give a VMC-only aircraft (or non IMC/IR rated pilot) a steer that takes it right through a bank of cloud, which is likely to be invisible to you on radar.
(2) You could ask a Piper Cub to take a route over a town that complies with the 1500ft rule, but not be aware that, unlike the last one you handled, which was on a CofA, that particular cub is on a permit and therefore not permitted to overfly built up areas under any circumstances.
(3) You could clear a Shadow onto finals at Shoreham on runway 25. But, because this is a microlight Shadow, not a group A Streak shadow, it isn't (until the rules change later this year) permitted to overfly the adjoining conurbation even on finals to a licensed aerodrome.
All of which would be instructions given by you in good faith and applying your best level of professionalism, but where the pilot if he is doing the same would be REQUIRED to decline the instruction and ask for an alternative.
G
N.B. SSD, please feel free to carve and reproduce it anywhere you like, with my blessing.
(1) You could give a VMC-only aircraft (or non IMC/IR rated pilot) a steer that takes it right through a bank of cloud, which is likely to be invisible to you on radar.
(2) You could ask a Piper Cub to take a route over a town that complies with the 1500ft rule, but not be aware that, unlike the last one you handled, which was on a CofA, that particular cub is on a permit and therefore not permitted to overfly built up areas under any circumstances.
(3) You could clear a Shadow onto finals at Shoreham on runway 25. But, because this is a microlight Shadow, not a group A Streak shadow, it isn't (until the rules change later this year) permitted to overfly the adjoining conurbation even on finals to a licensed aerodrome.
All of which would be instructions given by you in good faith and applying your best level of professionalism, but where the pilot if he is doing the same would be REQUIRED to decline the instruction and ask for an alternative.
G
N.B. SSD, please feel free to carve and reproduce it anywhere you like, with my blessing.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok - I'll take the bait
Wouldn't happen. The only aircraft that get 'steers' (as in assigned a heading) are IFR on a RAS or aircraft on a RIS being vectored for an instrument approach.
Again, wouldn't happen. He'd be asked to route to one side of a point (north/south/east or west) for traffic reasons - how he did it would be up to him to enable him to operate iaw the regs.
Ok, you've got me there, but I don't work at Shoreham I would say however that this would fall into the "discuss and you'll get what you want category" rather than a more obnoxious "I'm not doing that, because it doesn't suit!" category.
So - 1 out of 3
Which I sincerely hope he/she would do
(Quick example: Transitting a lump of class 'D' a few years back en-rte to my home airfield, operating a Seneca, showers and cloud going through the area. ATCO says "Cleared to transit maintain 3000ft, Remain VFR". My retort was "You get one or the other, you don't get both )
CM
(1) You could give a VMC-only aircraft (or non IMC/IR rated pilot) a steer that takes it right through a bank of cloud, which is likely to be invisible to you on radar.
(2) You could ask a Piper Cub to take a route over a town that complies with the 1500ft rule, but not be aware that, unlike the last one you handled, which was on a CofA, that particular cub is on a permit and therefore not permitted to overfly built up areas under any circumstances.
(3) You could clear a Shadow onto finals at Shoreham on runway 25. But, because this is a microlight Shadow, not a group A Streak shadow, it isn't (until the rules change later this year) permitted to overfly the adjoining conurbation even on finals to a licensed aerodrome.
I would say however that this would fall into the "discuss and you'll get what you want category" rather than a more obnoxious "I'm not doing that, because it doesn't suit!" category.So - 1 out of 3
All of which would be instructions given by you in good faith and applying your best level of professionalism, but where the pilot if he is doing the same would be REQUIRED to decline the instruction and ask for an alternative.
(Quick example: Transitting a lump of class 'D' a few years back en-rte to my home airfield, operating a Seneca, showers and cloud going through the area. ATCO says "Cleared to transit maintain 3000ft, Remain VFR". My retort was "You get one or the other, you don't get both
)CM
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Thief13x seems to be describing does seem to be more like some constant aspect approach, rather than an overhead join.
I find I use overhead joins at most places I fly to, it gives you a good view of the airfield layout and allows you to see the windsock and see other traffic. At airfields/strips with no radio it is the standard procedure and even for those with radio it is used by many.
It is not a British anarchism, Ive flown extensivly in France and there overhead joins are standard practice, except at those airfields with parachuting and winch launch gliding (not many most have towplanes) The French overhead join procedure is different to the UK one though.
Ive also used overhead joins most of the time in the USA, but Ive never flown at any large airfields, except Oshkosh and thus its nearly always been in non radio aircraft to non control tower airfields.
Always a good idea to practice engine failures, I should do it more often.
I find I use overhead joins at most places I fly to, it gives you a good view of the airfield layout and allows you to see the windsock and see other traffic. At airfields/strips with no radio it is the standard procedure and even for those with radio it is used by many.
It is not a British anarchism, Ive flown extensivly in France and there overhead joins are standard practice, except at those airfields with parachuting and winch launch gliding (not many most have towplanes) The French overhead join procedure is different to the UK one though.
Ive also used overhead joins most of the time in the USA, but Ive never flown at any large airfields, except Oshkosh and thus its nearly always been in non radio aircraft to non control tower airfields.
Always a good idea to practice engine failures, I should do it more often.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gertrude, whilst your trusting nature is very laudable, bear in mind that whilst you, for-example, know the crosswind limits of your aeroplane - the tower controller probably doesn't....
CM - It is possible for an aircraft limited to VMC to fly IFR on a RAS, whilst remaining VMC as required by their personal permissions.
I lose track of the occasions where I've had to ask for a change of altitude during an airspace transition (usually Brize for some reason) because the altitude I've been asked to fly at is full of cloud and I can't remain VMC. No hassle, but it happens.
Gertrude - so you've declared a crosswind problem to a controller and been offered an alternative runway. That's my point !
G
I lose track of the occasions where I've had to ask for a change of altitude during an airspace transition (usually Brize for some reason) because the altitude I've been asked to fly at is full of cloud and I can't remain VMC. No hassle, but it happens.
Gertrude - so you've declared a crosswind problem to a controller and been offered an alternative runway. That's my point !
G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I find curious about all of the (written) examples I've seen of an overhead join is that the aircraft depicted is conveniently always arriving from the live side of the circuit where you could perform a "textbook" overhead join. Is the implication, therefore, that before reaching the aerodrome you should position yourself so that this is possible?
For example, for the diagram given in the above CAA document, how would you make your approach if arriving from the south-east?
For example, for the diagram given in the above CAA document, how would you make your approach if arriving from the south-east?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly at Sherburn deadside joins, at 1500' QFE, are done.
For example, returning to the field from the East, via Selby (normal routing into the Church Fenton MATZ from that direction), if the traffic is on the tarmac runway 29 (left hand circuit) or the parallel grass runway 29, the easiest join would be deadside to that runway.
The principle is to keep a good lookout both aurally and visually.
For example, returning to the field from the East, via Selby (normal routing into the Church Fenton MATZ from that direction), if the traffic is on the tarmac runway 29 (left hand circuit) or the parallel grass runway 29, the easiest join would be deadside to that runway.
The principle is to keep a good lookout both aurally and visually.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM - It is possible for an aircraft limited to VMC to fly IFR on a RAS, whilst remaining VMC as required by their personal permissions.
The whole idea of ATSOCA is a personal contract / agreement between pilot and controller. Coupled with this is the fact that all civil units now lay down a minimum level at which RAS will be applied. This will often co-incide with the maximum 25 mile MSA. Therefore if it's a nice day, and chummy in a Cub calls me at 2000ft requesting a RAS, the answer is going to be an unequivocal NO. (I've been asked, believe me, and it's been done!).
If he's above MSA, he's got a transponder and I've got good primary then fine, he'll get his RAS - BUT - the minute I give avoiding action and he can't take it because it'll put him in cloud I will downgrade to a RIS with the request to inform me when he's back in a position to accept a RAS and all that it entails. It's up to the pilot to realise the ramifications and limitations of the service he requires and request accordingly.
I lose track of the occasions where I've had to ask for a change of altitude during an airspace transition (usually Brize for some reason) because the altitude I've been asked to fly at is full of cloud and I can't remain VMC. No hassle, but it happens.
I'm guessing this is going to highlight to you some of the differences between mil and civil. I'm also guessing which side of the operation you've had most problems with - am I right?
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 25th Mar 2004 at 08:23.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a time and a place for everything and the overhead join is such a thing.
But it is certainly not a panacea for all joins.
I very much doubt that it adds to safety at busy GA airfields where you artificially crowd a volume of sky with an increased number of aeroplanes for a longer period of time, compared with joins into the circuit at the appropriate points.
FD
But it is certainly not a panacea for all joins.
I very much doubt that it adds to safety at busy GA airfields where you artificially crowd a volume of sky with an increased number of aeroplanes for a longer period of time, compared with joins into the circuit at the appropriate points.
FD
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster/Genghis - since the two of you obviously agree, why are we all still arguing?
You have both cited cases where you have received an instruction/request from ATC which was illegal, and you have both given examples of how the pilot should (in fact, must) decline this instruction/request. So now that we all agree on that, let's get some beers in, shake hand, and be friends??? I have no problem with spirited arguments from time to time, but it usually helps if there's a point on which you disagree to be arguing about!
FFF
--------------
You have both cited cases where you have received an instruction/request from ATC which was illegal, and you have both given examples of how the pilot should (in fact, must) decline this instruction/request. So now that we all agree on that, let's get some beers in, shake hand, and be friends??? I have no problem with spirited arguments from time to time, but it usually helps if there's a point on which you disagree to be arguing about!
FFF
--------------
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just on a light note.
There is nothig better than taking an ATCO up on a check flight.
The local area I operated in has shall we say quite an agressive Mil unit working it (hope jacko dosn't see this although it appears to have improved alot since i was instructing).
I used to be nearly crying with laughter listening to the RT exchanges. And it was an approach controller who was the first to say "negative VFR class G QSY on route bye" was quite shocked when he said it. He then informed me the reason why they were trying to vector us was they have to maintain radar seperation on all traffic be it VFR or what ever so they were trying to control us so to keep us seperated with mil traffic, which they wern't telling us about so tuff, its there problem not ours. I did think if we get anywhere near a Nimbrod it most definatly was going to be our problem, but if the RAF rules require 5 miles around there planes its there problem not ours, which is possible why the RAF boys avoid speaking to this unit as well.
MJ