Does anyone ever use "The Overhead Approach"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ligonier, Pennsylvania, United States
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone ever use "The Overhead Approach"?
I belive thats what its called. I was reading an artical in Aviation Safety Magazine that was stressing the importance of practicing the overhead approach regularly. They said it would help keep profficient in emergency landings, and possibly someday save your life. I had never heard of the overhead approach prior to this article, so i looked into it afterwards. What i found was shocking, i couldn't belive this artical was printed in a safety magazine! the whole maneuver looks extremely dangerous and to me, a stall would be almost inevetible if something was to distract the pilot or go wrong.
Does anyone practice these approaches? are they even in use today? are they legal at all airports? should i be practicing them? My flight instructor has never really mentioned it to me...Besides, usually when i ask him why we don't do a maneuver somone else does, he has a fairly good reason for it.
T13x
Does anyone practice these approaches? are they even in use today? are they legal at all airports? should i be practicing them? My flight instructor has never really mentioned it to me...Besides, usually when i ask him why we don't do a maneuver somone else does, he has a fairly good reason for it.
T13x
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, as your signature line suggests, you are based in the US, you can disregard talk of "Overhead Joins".
The same applies if by "overhead approach", you mean the 45 degree spiralling approach into the overhead.
The same applies if by "overhead approach", you mean the 45 degree spiralling approach into the overhead.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK we are taught overhead 'joins', as opposed to joining at 45 degrees to the downwind leg as I believe is practised in the States.
Is this what you mean?
There are people who believe the overhead join is not too safe, but it's nothing to do with stalling.
Could you describe an overhead approach please.
Steve R
Is this what you mean?
There are people who believe the overhead join is not too safe, but it's nothing to do with stalling.
Could you describe an overhead approach please.
Steve R
I suspect that you're talking about what we Brits know as an overhead join. They are very common here in Britain, but pretty rare in the US (I've flown one or two).
The principle is simple enough - you join at 1000ft above circuit height (or other height if called for by local procedures) over the main runway centreline, before descending onto deadside (upwind in American), then turning crosswind at circuit height and fitting in with the normal circuit.
It relies upon a very good lookout, since there is risk of intruding into another aircraft's bit of space, particularly during the deadside descent (if somebody else is joining deadside or going around), or during the turn onto downwind since you won't be as far into wind at that turn as you would be if you were flying a conventional circuit. But most other joins require a similar degree of care and lookout so there's nothing particularly scarey there.
Why would be fly an OHJ?, well...
- To take a good look at an unfamiliar airfield.
- If making a non-radio join, you can see the windsock and signal square and get all of the main information you need for your circuit and landing.
- If for any reason you are uncertain of the reliability of your engine, it's possible from most points in an OHJ to convert to a deadstick onto the runway.
- You don't need to descend until overhead the airfield, which in some places (such as where surrounded by high terrain, or close to other airfields) can be advantageous.
So, I'm inclined to agree with your local flight safety mag and say one should regularly practice overhead joins, as well as keeping current on the main signals - since unless you know those, it's a little pointless.
On the other hand, if there's an American procedure that I've not met called an overhead apporoach, which is distinct from an OHJ, please disregard all after "good afternoon" !
G
The principle is simple enough - you join at 1000ft above circuit height (or other height if called for by local procedures) over the main runway centreline, before descending onto deadside (upwind in American), then turning crosswind at circuit height and fitting in with the normal circuit.
It relies upon a very good lookout, since there is risk of intruding into another aircraft's bit of space, particularly during the deadside descent (if somebody else is joining deadside or going around), or during the turn onto downwind since you won't be as far into wind at that turn as you would be if you were flying a conventional circuit. But most other joins require a similar degree of care and lookout so there's nothing particularly scarey there.
Why would be fly an OHJ?, well...
- To take a good look at an unfamiliar airfield.
- If making a non-radio join, you can see the windsock and signal square and get all of the main information you need for your circuit and landing.
- If for any reason you are uncertain of the reliability of your engine, it's possible from most points in an OHJ to convert to a deadstick onto the runway.
- You don't need to descend until overhead the airfield, which in some places (such as where surrounded by high terrain, or close to other airfields) can be advantageous.
So, I'm inclined to agree with your local flight safety mag and say one should regularly practice overhead joins, as well as keeping current on the main signals - since unless you know those, it's a little pointless.
On the other hand, if there's an American procedure that I've not met called an overhead apporoach, which is distinct from an OHJ, please disregard all after "good afternoon" !
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The overhead join is another anachronism in British aviation (together with Austers and the like).
The principle is very much as GtE describes it.
Can sometimes be handy to have a look at a new airfield if there is enough height under the clouds to climb to the required height/altitude and there is not a lot of traffic.
Other than that not much use and a waste of time and energy.
FD
The principle is very much as GtE describes it.
Can sometimes be handy to have a look at a new airfield if there is enough height under the clouds to climb to the required height/altitude and there is not a lot of traffic.
Other than that not much use and a waste of time and energy.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ligonier, Pennsylvania, United States
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Genghis, that is the proceedure i read. Although, the magazine also said that many time, you just hold a continuous bank angle throughout the manuever untill you're lined up with the runway. Basically then, the pilot would never cease to turn after starting the initial turn. I guess to me this sounded kinda dangerous because you would be riding the airspeed just above stalling because of the bank angle.
The guy that wrote the artical also said that many times, you will hear the stallhorn blaring throughout the approach, but just to keep a good eye on the airspeed. Come to think of it, this actually seems to make more sense than the traditional pattern flown here in the United States. It defenatly sounds much less cumbersom and you're both right, you would be able to get a nice veiw of the runway and windsock before making that final decision to land. Hmm, maybe i will ask my instructor about this. Thanks guys!
Happy Flyin
T13x
The guy that wrote the artical also said that many times, you will hear the stallhorn blaring throughout the approach, but just to keep a good eye on the airspeed. Come to think of it, this actually seems to make more sense than the traditional pattern flown here in the United States. It defenatly sounds much less cumbersom and you're both right, you would be able to get a nice veiw of the runway and windsock before making that final decision to land. Hmm, maybe i will ask my instructor about this. Thanks guys!
Happy Flyin
T13x
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thief13x
This must be a different procedure to the UK one, because in the UK one you don't do a continuous bank angle until lined up with the runway. You join overhead, typically 2000ft AGL, then descend into the normal circuit (typically 1000ft AGL) on what is called the dead side and fly the normal circuit.
I suppose one could do a no-engine landing from an OHJ at any point, if one kept the circuit very tight, but that's not why they exist. It is a relic from before radio was carried on aircraft, and the idea is that you can read the signals square.
This must be a different procedure to the UK one, because in the UK one you don't do a continuous bank angle until lined up with the runway. You join overhead, typically 2000ft AGL, then descend into the normal circuit (typically 1000ft AGL) on what is called the dead side and fly the normal circuit.
I suppose one could do a no-engine landing from an OHJ at any point, if one kept the circuit very tight, but that's not why they exist. It is a relic from before radio was carried on aircraft, and the idea is that you can read the signals square.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why would be fly an OHJ?, well...
Gertrude said:
Wash your mouth out with soap sir, I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
Thief mentioned that:
Disregarding the strange colonial spelling of manoeuvre, what you're describing seems to be a "constant aspect approach", which is something else altogether. In both the UK and the US it is routinely practiced by the military, and by glider pilots - you'll also find it taught in some places as a way of flying PFLs.
The principle is fairly straightforward in it's application, you keep the landing point (nominally about 1/3 into your runway or field) at the same angle below the horizon through a constant descending turn. You can vary your bank angle for positioning, and the intention is to roll out wings level on your landing heading at 100ft or so. It has two big advantages, one is for mixed circuit traffic that it allows aircraft with very different speeds to share a circuit quite painlessly, the other is that it takes much of the guesswork out of whether you'll correctly you'll judge your landing point if the engine isn't playing.
Looking at my records I did write an 1100 word article in one of the American flying magazines (not on the one mentioned) on how to fly CA approaches, it was published in April 2001. If there's any interest, and given a couple of days I could probably post it in here.
G
"Because ATC ask you to" would be another reason
Thief mentioned that:
, the magazine also said that many time, you just hold a continuous bank angle throughout the manuever
The principle is fairly straightforward in it's application, you keep the landing point (nominally about 1/3 into your runway or field) at the same angle below the horizon through a constant descending turn. You can vary your bank angle for positioning, and the intention is to roll out wings level on your landing heading at 100ft or so. It has two big advantages, one is for mixed circuit traffic that it allows aircraft with very different speeds to share a circuit quite painlessly, the other is that it takes much of the guesswork out of whether you'll correctly you'll judge your landing point if the engine isn't playing.
Looking at my records I did write an 1100 word article in one of the American flying magazines (not on the one mentioned) on how to fly CA approaches, it was published in April 2001. If there's any interest, and given a couple of days I could probably post it in here.
G
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By rights, joins should be a 'hotspot' for everyone. Both methods have their issues, and the issues (for me at least) are "where do I need to be" and "what am I looking for". I started on 45s, and these days (back in the UK) have to appreciate overheads.
From a US view.... Are you OK with positioning for 45s to downwind?
When you get positioned, do you know where to look for conflicting (crosswind) traffic?
When you're comfortable with those, then you're set I think.
From a US view.... Are you OK with positioning for 45s to downwind?
When you get positioned, do you know where to look for conflicting (crosswind) traffic?
When you're comfortable with those, then you're set I think.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis the Engineer
Wash your mouth out with soap, whilst revising what the ano says about flight within ATZs and within Controlled airspace!
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Overhead joins are indeed common in the UK. They are less common in other countries because many other countries' aviation communities (France is a classic example) are more practical in mixing aviating types...e.g. gliding, parachuting, etc, at the same airfield. An overhead join at a drop zone is not considered polite, or indeed safe.
I personally like the US 45 degree join to downwind, but of course if joining from the 'dead' side, the 45 degree join is generally preceeded by routing overhead for traffic observation; a descent somewhere and then joining the downwing leg from wide on the live side (arguably outside the zone).
It can be a bit long-winded, but I guess each community develops its own practices.
DT
I personally like the US 45 degree join to downwind, but of course if joining from the 'dead' side, the 45 degree join is generally preceeded by routing overhead for traffic observation; a descent somewhere and then joining the downwing leg from wide on the live side (arguably outside the zone).
It can be a bit long-winded, but I guess each community develops its own practices.
DT
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Genghis - please bear in mind 2 things:
1) We have the big picture.
2) When we ask, the next resort is we tell (when empowered to do so).
This of course is assuming that you are referring to 'Proper' ATC as opposed to FISO or A/G, in which case you have the right to 'discuss' (though that gets laborious too)
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The overhead join can be very useful for positively identifying the runway in use, particularly at a field with multiple runways, some of which are closely angled (eg a 21 and a 25). This can avoid blushes (or far worse) consequent upon positioning for the wrong runway.
Flying a constant angle approach (which, as has been pointed out, is distinct from the overhead join, but is the useful circuit and forced landing technique employed by the military) should not make you worried about stalling, as the bank angles involved are not usually dramatic.
I've noticed on Avweb that there's seems to be some debate in US light aviation as to whether the 45 degree downwind join is or is not a good thing. I express no views on this, having no experience upon which to base any, but just mention that it's apparently one of those perennial debates.
Flying a constant angle approach (which, as has been pointed out, is distinct from the overhead join, but is the useful circuit and forced landing technique employed by the military) should not make you worried about stalling, as the bank angles involved are not usually dramatic.
I've noticed on Avweb that there's seems to be some debate in US light aviation as to whether the 45 degree downwind join is or is not a good thing. I express no views on this, having no experience upon which to base any, but just mention that it's apparently one of those perennial debates.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what Gengis is refering to, is for example that more and more airfields tend to favour the use of one main runway,
for various reasons, noise abatement or licensing.
If you operate a Taildragger or Microlight which prefers grass and is more cross wind sensative than the usual crop of trainers that operate there, it sometimes has to be pointed out to ATC that yes they do have a grass runway and yes we'd be a lot happier using it please.
Integrating with the rest of the traffic is vitally important but not to the point of endangering yourself and your aircraft by accepting an instruction which puts you in a less favourable position than is otherwise available.
Most of the time the wishes of both Pilot and ATC will coincide however it is sensible if you believe that following instructions will endager you or others to query same.
for various reasons, noise abatement or licensing.
If you operate a Taildragger or Microlight which prefers grass and is more cross wind sensative than the usual crop of trainers that operate there, it sometimes has to be pointed out to ATC that yes they do have a grass runway and yes we'd be a lot happier using it please.
Integrating with the rest of the traffic is vitally important but not to the point of endangering yourself and your aircraft by accepting an instruction which puts you in a less favourable position than is otherwise available.
Most of the time the wishes of both Pilot and ATC will coincide however it is sensible if you believe that following instructions will endager you or others to query same.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's something I never expected to read from such a (normally) sensible person.
Genghis - please bear in mind 2 things:
1) We have the big picture.
2) When we ask, the next resort is we tell (when empowered to do so).
This of course is assuming that you are referring to 'Proper' ATC as opposed to FISO or A/G, in which case you have the right to 'discuss' (though that gets laborious too)
I would interpret Ghenghis' post to infer that as captain of the aeroplane, he has the final say in what he does in flight. It would be a foolish pilot indeed who let himself get vectored into the side of very nasty CB which could easily be avoided by a slightly different heading, or a VFR-only pilot who flew into IMC rather than 'discuss' an alternative heading with ATC.
ATC has the 'big picture', but the pilot is the one flying the aeroplane and who has ultimate responsibility for its safety.
As for A/G and FISOS, other than the latter when on the ground, what they request can be complied with or ignored as the pilot sees fit.
SSD
I do what ATC asks me to ONLY when it co-incides with my own interests. Otherwise I will politely discuss with them a more appropriate course of action!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's something I never expected to read from such a (normally) sensible person.
Genghis - please bear in mind 2 things:
1) We have the big picture.
2) When we ask, the next resort is we tell (when empowered to do so).
This of course is assuming that you are referring to 'Proper' ATC as opposed to FISO or A/G, in which case you have the right to 'discuss' (though that gets laborious too)
I would interpret Ghenghis' post to infer that as captain of the aeroplane, he has the final say in what he does in flight. It would be a foolish pilot indeed who let himself get vectored into the side of very nasty CB which could easily be avoided by a slightly different heading, or a VFR-only pilot who flew into IMC rather than 'discuss' an alternative heading with ATC.
ATC has the 'big picture', but the pilot is the one flying the aeroplane and who has ultimate responsibility for its safety.
As for A/G and FISOS, other than the latter when on the ground, what they request can be complied with or ignored as the pilot sees fit.
SSD