Overhead joins

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Perhaps the "rest of the World" may eventually catch up and embrace order, discipline and looking out of the window.

[vee-tail-1]

eharding #1. Spamcan doing unexpected go-aound: Airmiss to left.
#2. Another aircraft on an unannounced OHJ: Airmiss to right.

My conclusion: Not a good idea to join crosswind where I become a target from both sides!!

[733driver]

Your comment was probably tongue in cheek but since I am German and by definition don't have a sense of humour, I assume it wasn't. I have done most of my small aircraft flying in the US and in Germany and usually found it disciplined and orderly enough and certainly was looking out the window most of the time. I also fly a lot throughout Europe and the rest of the worls in a biz jet and of course standards vary but the UK stands out in Europe as the one place with the most "unique" procedures. That doesn't make it easier for the rest of the world to fit in when visitting. And when a UK trained pilot comes to any other European country he better be prepared for quite some differnces. Not just joins but also air traffic services in uncontrolled airspace, terminology etc. All Iam saying is: One standard would be better and as far as overhead joins go: Sure, they work well at small unattended fields. But busy places with lot's of mixed traffic: Not so sure.

[Cows getting bigger]

733driver, there already is one standard (ICAO Annex 2, para 3.2.5)

3.2.5 Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
An aircraft operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall, whether or not within an aerodrome traffic zone:
a) observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
b) conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
c) make all turns to the left, when approaching for a landing and after taking off, unless otherwise instructed;
d) land and take off into the wind unless safety, the runway configuration, or air traffic considerations determine that a different direction is preferable.

I'll let you figure whether this standard is being applied.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

OHJs involve a 'cross wind join' which in my opinion is suicidal at a busy airfield with a mix of low and high performance aircraft.

Only had that conflict once. ATC held the airliner on the runway whilst I crossed the upwind numbers and didn't let it take off until I was well clear in my 152.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Spamcan doing unexpected go-aound

What is an "unexpected go-around"? - this is not a concept with which I am familiar, I have been taught that every approach is a potential go-around.

[Thud105]

So GBZ, are you saying that the UK is right and the rest of the world wrong? There are probably more GA movements in one week in the USA, than there are in a year in the UK. You probably think Heathrow is a busy airport too. (Trust me, compared to some US airports its positively sleepy!)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Awarded "pass" for perception but "fail" for sense of humour"!

[Cows getting bigger]

Thud, there are probably more GA accidents/mid airs/airproxes in one week in the US than there are in the UK in one year.

PS. I'm trying to figure how US procedures comply with ICAO Annex 2.

[Lone_Ranger]

"probably think Heathrow is a busy airport too. (Trust me, compared to some US airports its positively sleepy!)"


London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale including domestic flights carrying smaller passenger numbers per flight, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago

Positively Sleepy?, yea right

[mm_flynn]

My list (operations rather than Pax) says

Altanta,
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
LAX
Las Vegas
Houston
CDG
Charlotte
Phoenix
Frankfurt
Heathrow !!!

Cows,

The AIM specifies a procedure which appears to tick all of the boxes for ICAO Annex 2 3.2.5. It also has the benefit of being quite similar to what seems to happen in every European country I have flown in - - - except the UK.

[Cows getting bigger]

mm, having studied AIM vs. Annex 2 you appear to be correct. But I would offer that the UK also appears to comply with Annex 2.

Time for some more Chianti.........

PS. I personally don't have an axe to grind in either direction, as long as everyone behaves in a similar fashion and nobody gets confused.

[englishal]

I know these were all tounge in cheek but.....

London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale including domestic flights carrying smaller passenger numbers per flight, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago

Someone beat me to it, but LAX is FAR busier than LHR, and you can fly right across the top at 2000 talking to LAX tower if you want, or if you can't be bothered to talk to anyone, go across at 3500/4500 and just squwark 1201....Oh and if you decide to land there, you'll pay $20 (or it used to be) Of course you could also add in the other 30 airports within a 30 mile radius as well if you wanted....

Thud, there are probably more GA accidents/mid airs/airproxes in one week in the US than there are in the UK in one year

If you checkout fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, I think you'd find the US far safer (and they don't have the OHJ)