Overhead Joins
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish the CAA would publish diagrams of what do do is you (to do if you) are NOT approaching from the live side.
It doesn't matter where you join from! This is the point, you join overhead above circuit height to observe the airfield, access wind direction and check for other aircraft until you do this you don't know which is the 'live' side. Very simple really. This procedure probably hasn't been been built into the EFIS type systems yet that's why some people find it difficult
It doesn't matter where you join from! This is the point, you join overhead above circuit height to observe the airfield, access wind direction and check for other aircraft until you do this you don't know which is the 'live' side. Very simple really. This procedure probably hasn't been been built into the EFIS type systems yet that's why some people find it difficult
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Cusco and IO540 on this one.
The overhead join is for the twirly tash brigade flying slow non-radio aircraft using their monocled mark one eyeballs.
The overhead join is for the twirly tash brigade flying slow non-radio aircraft using their monocled mark one eyeballs.
SS
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have always been taught the standard overhead join, works fine for me, keep a good look out and all is OK. Also helps if everyone sticks to the same join procedure, much simpler... instead of all sorts of folks joining from everywhere, downwind, base, long final, and from **** knows where else. 
Of course at a larger controlled airfield circuits per se may not exist and you may be instructed to join downwind or base, which on the other hand is fine under the instruction of ATC, if the controllers are trying to slot you in between 757s and Scarebuses for example.
I would think the best course of action when visiting an aerodrome is to check the arrival procedures first before leaving... I know that some airfields like Fife have odd circuit patterns/procedures due to noise abatement etc.
No big deal if you check the procedures before leaving and then follow it. Mountain, molehill etc.
Of course at a larger controlled airfield circuits per se may not exist and you may be instructed to join downwind or base, which on the other hand is fine under the instruction of ATC, if the controllers are trying to slot you in between 757s and Scarebuses for example.I would think the best course of action when visiting an aerodrome is to check the arrival procedures first before leaving... I know that some airfields like Fife have odd circuit patterns/procedures due to noise abatement etc.
No big deal if you check the procedures before leaving and then follow it. Mountain, molehill etc.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"any pilot who calls for the banning of the OHJ is clearly a habitual IFR-fondling agoraphobic, prone to panic attacks when required to look outside the aircraft"
What is clear from the responses here is that everyone has a different interpretation of what constitutes a correct OHJ - and in their own minds everyone is right of course! Positional ambiguity when joining overhead at closing speeds of 250+ kts can lead to hairy moments even for the most steely eyed sky gods among us.
E-hardon (or what ever your monicker is), a healthy degree of agoraphobia has kept me alive for 2000+ flying hrs. Agoraphobia in pilots is a healthy trait, unlike bravado which can be fatal.
SB
What is clear from the responses here is that everyone has a different interpretation of what constitutes a correct OHJ - and in their own minds everyone is right of course! Positional ambiguity when joining overhead at closing speeds of 250+ kts can lead to hairy moments even for the most steely eyed sky gods among us.
E-hardon (or what ever your monicker is), a healthy degree of agoraphobia has kept me alive for 2000+ flying hrs. Agoraphobia in pilots is a healthy trait, unlike bravado which can be fatal.
SB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they had a simple diagram showing a plane approaching from the dead side - flying over head - doing a 180 - and then continuing the join "as normal" (or as per the safetysense leaflet), if would save a lot of confusion.
We often talk about midair's in class G airspace and everyone has come to the conclusion that they are thankfully very rare. However when they DO occur, stats show that *most* of them happen within two miles of an airfield.....so buggered if I'm going to hang around above one for too long
I flew into Bembridge the other day, and one chap joined straight in, one on downwind and I joined on base. No problem whatsoever, we all slotted in nicely....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many aircraft in the same place at the same time can easily result and the US system of joining downwind on the 45 wins hands down as it is NOT open to misinterpretation and also allows for safe overtaking so people have less incentive to lie about their position (as IO experienced).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not though a fan of of the 45 downwind join - to me this gets even more people aiming for the same place than the OHJ, with less room to manoeuvre and cutting up others already in the circuit!
In any event, the 45 degree downwind join breaches the spirit, if not the actual letter, of Rule 12 of the Rules of the Air Regulations ... that all turns made within the vicinity of the aerodrome should be to the left (or right, if that is the indicated circuit direction) unless otherwise authorised by an ATCU.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US 45 deg joins work well, but so does a UK DW join, but only if you happen to be approaching the field from the live side. The question was about airmanship/safety when coming in from another direction. In that case, even the US system can require some extensive manouevering, loss of height, potential conflicts with other joining traffic etc.
I agree that the CAA advice could be modernised: many aerodromes have ATIS and/or active ATC chatter to reveal circuit direction, so there is no need to arrive o/h for that reason alone.
I agree that the CAA advice could be modernised: many aerodromes have ATIS and/or active ATC chatter to reveal circuit direction, so there is no need to arrive o/h for that reason alone.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe the OHJ is a throwback to the days when you could easily lose 1000ft in the length of the runway. My, not exactly state of the art, Emeraude has to be slipped to do that, taking my attention away from the big picture, hence I join with the call "Decending dead side for a crosswind join" or "Passing aunty Mary's at 1000ft, will join left base/downwind XX" etc. A/G field by the way. ATC fields, do as yr told.
Edit:- Obviously if it's an unmanned non radio strip, then fly overhead to have a look, still dangerous though if someone else is doing the same.
Edit:- Obviously if it's an unmanned non radio strip, then fly overhead to have a look, still dangerous though if someone else is doing the same.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dangers of the O/H Join
Let me be arguementative :-) I will describe a scenerio I was on the down wind leg for landing at 1000 agl under a 1400-1500 cloud base.
A student pilot tried to join overhead effectively at circuit height cutting right across the downwind leg in the process.
No overhead join should be allowed without at Least a cloudbase of 2500 feet but how many airfields call for such a join when it is impossible and dangerous to do so.
Then lets look at two scenarios an aircraft joining long finals and giving dme distances on his approach. He is visual left and right of his track.
Now put him overhead. To get to the same point he flies overhead turns 90 degrees onto deadside, descends and turns to the left, he then makes another 90 degree crosswind turn, followed by another 90 degree turn onto downwind another 90 degree onto base another 90 degree onto final.
That is a total of six 90 degree turns to get onto final. Any turn adds danger not just from the physics but add high and low wing aircraft and you have the added danger of blind turns and collision potential.
Everyone homing into the same spot over an airfield also adds danger.
Aircraft of different speeds also adds danger.
For me the overhead join is outmoded and fraught with risk especially with todays aircraft equipt with GPS where the ability to give distances on non dme airfields exists.
It is also often used when the cloudbase does not allow it what do you do then?
Okay years ago when aircraft where non radio and you had to join overhead to check the windsock and signal square ok but to use it as the be end and end all of joining today?
Apart from all that what about the comfort of your passengers being thrown into needless blind turns.
The O/H is one form of join or should be but one which should only ever be used in good weather and vis.
Nothing changes fast in aviation. It was good enough for our grandfathers its good enough for us?
Pace
A student pilot tried to join overhead effectively at circuit height cutting right across the downwind leg in the process.
No overhead join should be allowed without at Least a cloudbase of 2500 feet but how many airfields call for such a join when it is impossible and dangerous to do so.
Then lets look at two scenarios an aircraft joining long finals and giving dme distances on his approach. He is visual left and right of his track.
Now put him overhead. To get to the same point he flies overhead turns 90 degrees onto deadside, descends and turns to the left, he then makes another 90 degree crosswind turn, followed by another 90 degree turn onto downwind another 90 degree onto base another 90 degree onto final.
That is a total of six 90 degree turns to get onto final. Any turn adds danger not just from the physics but add high and low wing aircraft and you have the added danger of blind turns and collision potential.
Everyone homing into the same spot over an airfield also adds danger.
Aircraft of different speeds also adds danger.
For me the overhead join is outmoded and fraught with risk especially with todays aircraft equipt with GPS where the ability to give distances on non dme airfields exists.
It is also often used when the cloudbase does not allow it what do you do then?
Okay years ago when aircraft where non radio and you had to join overhead to check the windsock and signal square ok but to use it as the be end and end all of joining today?
Apart from all that what about the comfort of your passengers being thrown into needless blind turns.
The O/H is one form of join or should be but one which should only ever be used in good weather and vis.
Nothing changes fast in aviation. It was good enough for our grandfathers its good enough for us?
Pace
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe the OHJ is a throwback to the days when you could easily lose 1000ft in the length of the runway. My, not exactly state of the art, Emeraude has to be slipped to do that,
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think both the for & against brigade have valid points with regards to joining overhead. One thing you can be sure of though is that whenever or however you rejoin the circuit or approach an airfield to land, you're definitely going to be keeping a very very good look out and listening intently to the radio to try and get a feel for where everyone is.
The main problem in my opinion seems to be those pilots whom say they are somewhere they're not e.g... "Golf bla bla bla is overhead the numbers 2000ft" when the reality is they are still a good 1/2 mile from the airfield.
I personally like the OHJ, not because it more / less safer than others, I just f*cking enjoy it!
It's good fun and all passengers I flown it with have thoroughly enjoyed it!
Supersport.
The main problem in my opinion seems to be those pilots whom say they are somewhere they're not e.g... "Golf bla bla bla is overhead the numbers 2000ft" when the reality is they are still a good 1/2 mile from the airfield.
I personally like the OHJ, not because it more / less safer than others, I just f*cking enjoy it!
It's good fun and all passengers I flown it with have thoroughly enjoyed it!Supersport.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supersport
The other problem is pilots idea of a circuit. You have those who consider down wind on a circuit more fitting of a 747 those who consider downwind with the runway literally vertically below, those whos idea of finals is six miles out.
If you place a racecourse pattern around the airfield the most obvious is to join it at whatever position you arrive. The height of that pattern then adjusts with a good clearance to the cloudbase but aiming to be 1000 feet or whatever and as you said communication and a good eye is all important.
Pace
The other problem is pilots idea of a circuit. You have those who consider down wind on a circuit more fitting of a 747 those who consider downwind with the runway literally vertically below, those whos idea of finals is six miles out.
If you place a racecourse pattern around the airfield the most obvious is to join it at whatever position you arrive. The height of that pattern then adjusts with a good clearance to the cloudbase but aiming to be 1000 feet or whatever and as you said communication and a good eye is all important.
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents worth:
In the early days of aviation, there was one spot where all traffic converged. That spot was the aiming point on the runway.
So we created the circuit with a direct downwind join. All of a sudden we now have a different spot where all traffic converges. Roughly mid-downwind.
So we created a new procedure so that you can see the circuit traffic before joining it, by flying overhead. Now all traffic converges overhead.
And when the Mk 1 eyeball didn't work due to speed or cloud, and we started flying on instruments, we moved that spot somewhere else and called it the IAF.
So let's face it. Whatever procedure you follow, there will always be a spot somewhere in space where the traffic converges.
Personally I prefer the direct downwind join under a 90 degree angle like what's prescribed in the Netherlands, or under a 45 degree angle like what's done in the US. The advantage is that at that point in space traffic is at the same altitude (at least in theory), that there's only a few places where traffic can come from and there's only one direction it'll be flying to.
With the OHJ, traffic can come from 360 degrees around you and might at that spot actually be turning head-on towards you. Plus, the CAA OHJ requires two distinct altitudes (circuit plus OHJ altitude) each offering sufficient clearance from terrain and from each other.
In the early days of aviation, there was one spot where all traffic converged. That spot was the aiming point on the runway.
So we created the circuit with a direct downwind join. All of a sudden we now have a different spot where all traffic converges. Roughly mid-downwind.
So we created a new procedure so that you can see the circuit traffic before joining it, by flying overhead. Now all traffic converges overhead.
And when the Mk 1 eyeball didn't work due to speed or cloud, and we started flying on instruments, we moved that spot somewhere else and called it the IAF.
So let's face it. Whatever procedure you follow, there will always be a spot somewhere in space where the traffic converges.
Personally I prefer the direct downwind join under a 90 degree angle like what's prescribed in the Netherlands, or under a 45 degree angle like what's done in the US. The advantage is that at that point in space traffic is at the same altitude (at least in theory), that there's only a few places where traffic can come from and there's only one direction it'll be flying to.
With the OHJ, traffic can come from 360 degrees around you and might at that spot actually be turning head-on towards you. Plus, the CAA OHJ requires two distinct altitudes (circuit plus OHJ altitude) each offering sufficient clearance from terrain and from each other.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I also believe the OHJ is a throwback to the days when you could easily lose 1000ft in the length of the runway. My, not exactly state of the art, Emeraude has to be slipped to do that,
Either you are flying it wrong or the airfield you fly from has a runway too short for the Emeraude!
600 metres grass. 60 knots. = 18 seconds end to end. 1000ft in 18 seconds. Forgive me if I am wrong but that equates to a decent rate of 3000ft per min or thereabouts, Angle of decent about 30deg.
I suppose we could muck about with acceleration rates etc but it doesn't look very comfortable / safe to me. I'll give it a practical next time.
What exactly am I doing wrong? because I can get it on the ground & stopped in about 400 metres.
I also believe the OHJ is a throwback to the days when you could easily lose 1000ft in the length of the runway. My, not exactly state of the art, Emeraude has to be slipped to do that,
Either you are flying it wrong or the airfield you fly from has a runway too short for the Emeraude!
600 metres grass. 60 knots. = 18 seconds end to end. 1000ft in 18 seconds. Forgive me if I am wrong but that equates to a decent rate of 3000ft per min or thereabouts, Angle of decent about 30deg.
I suppose we could muck about with acceleration rates etc but it doesn't look very comfortable / safe to me. I'll give it a practical next time.
What exactly am I doing wrong? because I can get it on the ground & stopped in about 400 metres.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree that the CAA advice could be modernised: many aerodromes have ATIS and/or active ATC chatter to reveal circuit direction, so there is no need to arrive o/h for that reason alone.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest - from the AAIB stats how many collisions have happened in the overhead or ATZ of an active airfield in the last 25 years?
Are we not getting a bit wound up over something that concentrates the mind, but actually isn't that much of a problem. And given the way fewer hours are being flown, this risk is reducing.........right
Are we not getting a bit wound up over something that concentrates the mind, but actually isn't that much of a problem. And given the way fewer hours are being flown, this risk is reducing.........right
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are issues with interpretation, so the CAA drawing could usefully be improved. But in 20 odd years of lfying I have no recollection of an incident in the OH, so the 'big sky' theory applies just as well there as elsewhere. That compares very well with a variety of serious events at various points around the circuit which I recall - although to be fair some of them have been 'radio asisted'.
Crash one - the intention is to loose the height from a point on the runway centreline, inside the finals turn to the runway centreline on the crosswind leg. This will typically give you at least 3 times the runway length to do this - much more if the airfield fly the typical 'transport command' type circuits. But I'll grant the CAA drawing is a bit mixed - compare the ground track to the runway.
Crash one - the intention is to loose the height from a point on the runway centreline, inside the finals turn to the runway centreline on the crosswind leg. This will typically give you at least 3 times the runway length to do this - much more if the airfield fly the typical 'transport command' type circuits. But I'll grant the CAA drawing is a bit mixed - compare the ground track to the runway.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
It is not just the risk of collision overhead but the added risks of multiple blind turns with high and low wing aircraft which are not needed.
Take my example of a striaght in approach. To get to the same point with an overhead requires six ninety degree turns and a desent as well.
I fly commercially and want my passengers to complete their journey as quickly as possible and as smoothly as possible so why would I want to lengthen the trip and add numerous turns?
Then we have the cloudbase issue. There are rules for cloud seperation flying VFR but how many times are you asked to join overhead and end up skud running to the overhead or when the cloudbase is below a proper OHJ level make your join at 1500 feet instead of 2000 feet?
Yes the OHJ has a place but to use it as a standard in this modern age is outmoded and has to increase the danger factor.
Pace
It is not just the risk of collision overhead but the added risks of multiple blind turns with high and low wing aircraft which are not needed.
Take my example of a striaght in approach. To get to the same point with an overhead requires six ninety degree turns and a desent as well.
I fly commercially and want my passengers to complete their journey as quickly as possible and as smoothly as possible so why would I want to lengthen the trip and add numerous turns?
Then we have the cloudbase issue. There are rules for cloud seperation flying VFR but how many times are you asked to join overhead and end up skud running to the overhead or when the cloudbase is below a proper OHJ level make your join at 1500 feet instead of 2000 feet?
Yes the OHJ has a place but to use it as a standard in this modern age is outmoded and has to increase the danger factor.
Pace