Overhead Joins - who has priority?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
o/h joins
Agreed,I don't like them,too many chances of conflict.
I much prefer a downwind join after a call ,if airfield has a radio frequency, and as always,keeping a good look out.
Lister
I much prefer a downwind join after a call ,if airfield has a radio frequency, and as always,keeping a good look out.
Lister
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Even ATC units call for the OHJ when met conditions do not legally allow it.
ATC: "xxx join approved"
There. That's not difficult, is it?
I don't know how exactly ATC know what the cloud base is, but even if their most recent measurement was 2100' that doesn't mean that you can't be stuck below cloud at 1800' several minutes later a couple of miles off to one side of the airfield. So occasionally inappropriate ATC requests must be possible.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me: "Unable to comply due to low cloud base, request xxx join"
ATC: "xxx join approved"
ATC: "xxx join approved"
In a perfect world that should be the case but reality is often very different and is.
Even the above makes for even a bigger mess of the mess of an OHJ.
Abolish this indefensable and ancient practice and stick it in the scrap heap where it belongs
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a practice designed for the days of non radio aircraft and poor navigation equiptment.
Surely it must be a good idea to agree on one location for joining the pattern? Early on downwind (as in an overhead join) is the ideal location since it is usually where the workload is lowest. This gives the best chance of avoiding someone else who is joining and hasn't seen you! The fair number of turns required in the overhead join maximizes the opportunity for relative motion between the different aircraft, making it easier to spot each other. If you are on downwind and someone is joining on base, with no relative motion, you could have a very hard time spotting them, especially if for some reason they are slightly lower or if visibility is not great. I'd rather not be totally reliant on them seeing me.
Furthermore, the procedures used must cater for the lost comms scenario, even if "everyone" usually has radio. A procedure based on "I give 'em a call, listen to replies and join wherever I want based on what I hear" does not allow that. Let's also recall that in many lost comms situations the pilot is not aware they are lost comms (mistuned radio, audiopanel incorrectly set etc), so the ideal procedure should be robust in such a situation.
When there is no ATC or AFIS I usually consider it prudent to have a good look at the airfield from above, noting any obstructions, activities and of course the windsock before joining the pattern. From that location, surely the overhead join is the most straightforward procedure to use? Running out a long distance and descend far outside the pattern on the live side to join 45 deg on downwind seems awkward.
The only thing I see as potentially unsafe about the overhead join is when multiple aircraft arrive simultaneously from different directions, as those aircraft could have trouble spotting each other (no relative motion). A slight dogleg about a mile or so before arriving overhead should be helpful in ensuring relative motion before or after the turn.
But I am not sure what is the best procedure to join if low clouds prevent an overhead join... Run-and-break, perhaps?
I'm at loss as to why ATC would ever require anyone to perform an overhead join! I have never come across a controlled airport where ATC does not provide sequencing to join the traffic pattern; then again, I never fly in the UK...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, since neither radio nor any kind of navigation equipment is required for VFR flight it is as relevant as ever, right?
Well NO? while you are correct that radio or nav equiptment is not required for VFR flight the ratio of radio/nav equipt and non equipt aircraft has changed dramatically since the earlier days of aviation when the OHJ was introduced.
Now it is more a rarety to see a non radio non nav equipt aircraft and personally I would regulate to insist on a hand held and basic nav in all aircraft on safety grounds.
It is normal to bring in procedures designed for the majority not around a miniscule minority and times have changed.
I have not suggested the OHJ is not still available as one of a number of possible joining methods but I am suggesting it is abolished as the "standard"
There are already far better well tried and tested joining methods used in the world so the OHJ is hardly the best method available but one hung onto by the old school brigade.
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well NO? while you are correct that radio or nav equiptment is not required for VFR flight the ratio of radio/nav equipt and non equipt aircraft has changed dramatically since the earlier days of aviation when the OHJ was introduced.
Now it is more a rarety to see a non radio non nav equipt aircraft and personally I would regulate to insist on a hand held and basic nav in all aircraft on safety grounds.
Now it is more a rarety to see a non radio non nav equipt aircraft and personally I would regulate to insist on a hand held and basic nav in all aircraft on safety grounds.
However, there is no radio requirement yet, and even should there be such a requirement the lost comms scenario must still be handled.
It is normal to bring in procedures designed for the majority not around a miniscule minority and times have changed.
I have not suggested the OHJ is not still available as one of a number of possible joining methods but I am suggesting it is abolished as the "standard"
There are already far better well tried and tested joining methods used in the world so the OHJ is hardly the best method available but one hung onto by the old school brigade.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the cloudbase is too low for an OHJ, then perhaps it is too low to be doing any sort of practical VFR flying... so whether or not to do an OHJ would be the least of your concerns.
Most of the local GA airfields around my neck of the woods are 2000' QFE for OHJ. If the cloudbase is <2000' AAL & >3/8 then you can't go very far, lots of ground >1500'-2000'
So for me it wouldn't be very sensible to go anywhere.
I agree with bjornhall's sentiments.
Smithy
Most of the local GA airfields around my neck of the woods are 2000' QFE for OHJ. If the cloudbase is <2000' AAL & >3/8 then you can't go very far, lots of ground >1500'-2000'
So for me it wouldn't be very sensible to go anywhere.I agree with bjornhall's sentiments.
Smithy
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bjornhall
Firstly I dont "ONLY" fly commercially
Let me turn this around a bit.
Why should I put my passengers even in a GA 4 seater aircraft in the extra discomfort of making multiple turns which are Not needed to get to a position of "on finals"?
Why should I increase their risk of a collision (there is most definately an increase in collision risk with an OHJ)
Why should I add mileage and hence cost to the trip flying needless and pointless legs?
Why should I increase my carbon footprint flying needless extra distance?
Why should I increase my risk of loss of control especially in strong winds and poorer vis by making all these extra turns?
On lower cloudbase days why should I add to the confusion of no one knowing what they are doing or even worse confusion on marginal cloudbase days? surely better to have a standard system which fits most VFR weather?
You do an OHJ if you want to I am not against that! but if I ask for a more sensible join dont tell me I cant.
The 45 degree join is well tested and far greater used worldwide than the OHJ and there must be a reason for that.
Pace
Firstly I dont "ONLY" fly commercially
Let me turn this around a bit.
Why should I put my passengers even in a GA 4 seater aircraft in the extra discomfort of making multiple turns which are Not needed to get to a position of "on finals"?
Why should I increase their risk of a collision (there is most definately an increase in collision risk with an OHJ)
Why should I add mileage and hence cost to the trip flying needless and pointless legs?
Why should I increase my carbon footprint flying needless extra distance?
Why should I increase my risk of loss of control especially in strong winds and poorer vis by making all these extra turns?
On lower cloudbase days why should I add to the confusion of no one knowing what they are doing or even worse confusion on marginal cloudbase days? surely better to have a standard system which fits most VFR weather?
You do an OHJ if you want to I am not against that! but if I ask for a more sensible join dont tell me I cant.
The 45 degree join is well tested and far greater used worldwide than the OHJ and there must be a reason for that.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Aug 2009 at 15:34.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I agree with much of that. I see good reasons for doing an overhead join in many cases, and not in others. An overhead join should be done for such good reasons, not just because it is all one knows. It should certainly not be mandatory!
But I maintain it is usually a good idea, for the reasons I gave above!
I agree with much of that. I see good reasons for doing an overhead join in many cases, and not in others. An overhead join should be done for such good reasons, not just because it is all one knows. It should certainly not be mandatory!
But I maintain it is usually a good idea, for the reasons I gave above!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm at loss as to why ATC would ever require anyone to perform an overhead join! I have never come across a controlled airport where ATC does not provide sequencing to join the traffic pattern
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
As always you make some good points in your post! However I'm not convinced about the argument that an OHJ takes up more time (and hence money) for no good reason.
An OHJ doesn't really add more than a couple of minutes onto your journey in my experience, and if the AIP entry for my destination airfield recommends or expects a standard OHJ then fair enough that is what I'll do unless circumstances dictate e.g. unexpected deteriorating Wx, traffic, ATC etc. (you mention this point in your post, which I thoroughly agree with). But don't get me started on "Carbon Footprints"
For me an OHJ is a good idea because it generally keeps traffic ordered, especially at an uncontrolled field. One problem is when the AIP says at Aerodrome X a SOHJ is recommended, so when you arrive in the ATZ of X you perform a SOHJ as per the book, but then others decide to join from all different directions, base, downwind or wherever. Fair enough that's up to them and it doesn't bother me in the least but it makes things much more confusing for everyone if people are joining the circuit at all different positions; this happens all the time at a certain airfield near me and it can get a bit confusing at times. Either that or when others cut into the circuit on base or final forcing others in the circuit to have to go around. It can get a little boggling especially if there are 4 or 5 aircraft trying to join the circuit at the same time from different positions.
This was especially confusing when I was a newish student starting out with circuits, my brain already somewhat overloaded with trying to remember BUMFF-etc., when to make the calls/what to say and having my FI screaming "Right Rudder! Right Rudder! Right Rudder!" throughout the flare, all whilst trying to remember how to fly the aeroplane...
Smithy
As always you make some good points in your post! However I'm not convinced about the argument that an OHJ takes up more time (and hence money) for no good reason.
An OHJ doesn't really add more than a couple of minutes onto your journey in my experience, and if the AIP entry for my destination airfield recommends or expects a standard OHJ then fair enough that is what I'll do unless circumstances dictate e.g. unexpected deteriorating Wx, traffic, ATC etc. (you mention this point in your post, which I thoroughly agree with). But don't get me started on "Carbon Footprints"
For me an OHJ is a good idea because it generally keeps traffic ordered, especially at an uncontrolled field. One problem is when the AIP says at Aerodrome X a SOHJ is recommended, so when you arrive in the ATZ of X you perform a SOHJ as per the book, but then others decide to join from all different directions, base, downwind or wherever. Fair enough that's up to them and it doesn't bother me in the least but it makes things much more confusing for everyone if people are joining the circuit at all different positions; this happens all the time at a certain airfield near me and it can get a bit confusing at times. Either that or when others cut into the circuit on base or final forcing others in the circuit to have to go around. It can get a little boggling especially if there are 4 or 5 aircraft trying to join the circuit at the same time from different positions.
This was especially confusing when I was a newish student starting out with circuits, my brain already somewhat overloaded with trying to remember BUMFF-etc., when to make the calls/what to say and having my FI screaming "Right Rudder! Right Rudder! Right Rudder!" throughout the flare, all whilst trying to remember how to fly the aeroplane...
Smithy
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pace
you are probably right on most accounts, but it works well. We do not have ATC of any sort. We have multiple non radio aircraft and the most active aerobatic scene in the south. We are constricted to the space around us due LHR. Although the flight training may have many ac in the circuit we are GA only so speeds between 50-130 kts are accommodated. A pilot must observe rule 12, and I suggest if he is worried about a minute extra flight time then the temptation not to go around on cost basis may be in his mind. It is mentally a bad place to be. On lower cloud base days we are flexible enough to change the procedures. It is notable the the landing rate goes down than in an OHJ day.
This subject polarises pilots, you have some good arguments but loose it with the rubbish bits you say.
If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, the average GA four seater is not viable. We can fit a silencer for the noise pollution. If you are concerned at loosing control even on a very windy day drop me a PM and I will give you and hour of FREE instruction.
The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.
Fly safe
you are probably right on most accounts, but it works well. We do not have ATC of any sort. We have multiple non radio aircraft and the most active aerobatic scene in the south. We are constricted to the space around us due LHR. Although the flight training may have many ac in the circuit we are GA only so speeds between 50-130 kts are accommodated. A pilot must observe rule 12, and I suggest if he is worried about a minute extra flight time then the temptation not to go around on cost basis may be in his mind. It is mentally a bad place to be. On lower cloud base days we are flexible enough to change the procedures. It is notable the the landing rate goes down than in an OHJ day.
This subject polarises pilots, you have some good arguments but loose it with the rubbish bits you say.
If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, the average GA four seater is not viable. We can fit a silencer for the noise pollution. If you are concerned at loosing control even on a very windy day drop me a PM and I will give you and hour of FREE instruction.
The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.
Fly safe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me: "Unable to comply due to low cloud base, request xxx join"
ATC: "xxx join approved"
There. That's not difficult, is it?
ATC: "xxx join approved"
There. That's not difficult, is it?
ATC(?): "Do whatever you want, this is RADIO"
Seems too many people treat "Radio" like it is ATC. You always hear pilots "requesting" stuff from RADIO.
Actually this is a very good point, where most airfields are RADIO then "ATC" has no authority to tell a pilot what to do. So the other day, I flew into an airfield I know likes the OHJ. So I thought I'd do what they wanted and said "joining overhead" and the radio guy came back with "be aware they are gliding today" so I said "ok, mind if we join on base then?" he said "pilot descretion, this is a A/G radio"....(I knew and was just being polite)....so I said "ok, joining left base 24".
I think that if people joined at the most convienient place in the circuit, then that is best. I joined from the dead side at Compton Abbas the other day as I was coming from the South. I joined on a base somewhere else, and overhead at my home field as it was closed, I wanted to see the windsock, and from 3000 I could glide all the way to landing without upsetting the neighbours.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, the average GA four seater is not viable. We can fit a silencer for the noise pollution. If you are concerned at loosing control even on a very windy day drop me a PM and I will give you and hour of FREE instruction.
The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.
The OHJ works, you have to be a bit more switched on. Flexibility is the key. To state it should be banned is narrow minded. Have a look at some accident rates you will find very few mid air collisions have occurred ( I have the stats somewhere). While you are at it you want to regulate non radio, look how many times non radio pilots have incidents, then look how many times people have incidents messing with avionics.
Nowhere have I said it should be banned only as a standard joining method.
I feel it should have no more prominance than any other join.
If it was so good why is the SOHJ so exclusive to the UK? (Correct me if I am wrong)
No I am not that concerned at Carbon footprints but am at my wallet if paying for a flight. I would question the couple of minutes.
As an ATP with 4000 hrs I am not overly concerned with loss of control but used that to remind us that most accidents due to loss of control happen in turns low level. Adding a mass of extra turns wont help anyone.
From flying passengers on the paid part of my flying the ideal is to takeoff straight and land straight and that becomes inground into flying passengers on private leisure flights.
what bugs me is arriving at an airfield with a couple of aircraft well spaced in the circuit and the runway ahead and being told to fly into the overhead do a mass of turns to end up where I already was. I would rather go straight in adjusting my speed to accomodate the other traffic where you get the best vantage point to see them.
I remember flying down wind at circuit height. an aircraft cut across the front at almost circuit height towards the overhead beneith a lowering cloudbase.
he turned out to be a low time PPL. Several miles out the cloudbase was higher. Atc instructed him to join OH which he complied with albeit nearly a 1000 feet too low
My preference would be circuit height joins as standard with the OHJ as an option for those who want or need it and I stress if conditions can legally accept it which on many occasions it cannot.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Aug 2009 at 18:12.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I like the 45 to downwind that I learnt in the US (went across there with 200 hour UK), although I am open to other suggestions.
Pace makes a good point about losing control, when I was low houred, I was rushed into an OHJ by an ATCO (I know, I should have declined) and the descent rate got out of hand, I recovered by feeling very uncomfortable at the change in the size of the houses. I lost 300 feet more than I intended to.
SOHJ are anachronistic.
Sorry Wide, I know you are an ATPL with zillions of hours, but you are making a luddite argument. I guess you are anti Euro too?
Time to move on to a better solution.
Pace makes a good point about losing control, when I was low houred, I was rushed into an OHJ by an ATCO (I know, I should have declined) and the descent rate got out of hand, I recovered by feeling very uncomfortable at the change in the size of the houses. I lost 300 feet more than I intended to.
SOHJ are anachronistic.
Sorry Wide, I know you are an ATPL with zillions of hours, but you are making a luddite argument. I guess you are anti Euro too?
Time to move on to a better solution.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace/ 3G
What I mean is both systems do work. OHJ do need a bit more thought. I like the 45 join best but sometimes OH just works better. Thanks for the zillions of hours comment, but that makes me no more unlikely to screw up. It just means that I will be able to work out quicker how I have screwed up
Pace your biggest problem is that you put ATC into the equation, now there I would struggle to put my argument. Just leave OHJ to pilots it works out much better that way.
3G I like the Euro, but also like pre war non radio aircraft. It means that there is no mutual exclusivity to new and old ideas. Bit like Overhead and 45 degree joins really.
What I mean is both systems do work. OHJ do need a bit more thought. I like the 45 join best but sometimes OH just works better. Thanks for the zillions of hours comment, but that makes me no more unlikely to screw up. It just means that I will be able to work out quicker how I have screwed up
Pace your biggest problem is that you put ATC into the equation, now there I would struggle to put my argument. Just leave OHJ to pilots it works out much better that way.
3G I like the Euro, but also like pre war non radio aircraft. It means that there is no mutual exclusivity to new and old ideas. Bit like Overhead and 45 degree joins really.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace your biggest problem is that you put ATC into the equation
infact where there is proper ATC like EGBJ ATC tend to be more accomodating fitting faster aircraft where they sense the experience of the pilot onto more direct joins while the rest are flying SOHJs.It is often the clubby fields with just radio who are the worst and demand OHJs regardless of traffic or otherwise.
My preferance would be the 45 degree join as that covers lower cloudbase and weather without throwing confusion into the equation or as I said before even more confusion in marginal OHJ conditions
But all to their own
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused by the talk about confusion regarding overhead joins. What is confusing about an overhead join? 
I agree a 45 degree join seems best when you already know the runway in use before you arrive at the airport; i.e., someone trustworthy told you on the radio. But if you do need to overfly the airfield, to check the windsock or whatever, the overhead join seems more straightforward and far quicker (lowering Pace's carbon footprint...).
If I understand correctly a UK style OHJ means arriving overhead at 2,000 ft AFL? Then I can see why cloud base is a bigger problem; around here it is usually 1,500 ft AFL (when it is done at all), making it somewhat easier.
I'm astonished there are still ATC towers in operation in the civilized world that do not have radar and can not provide sequencing in the pattern...
I agree a 45 degree join seems best when you already know the runway in use before you arrive at the airport; i.e., someone trustworthy told you on the radio. But if you do need to overfly the airfield, to check the windsock or whatever, the overhead join seems more straightforward and far quicker (lowering Pace's carbon footprint...
). If I understand correctly a UK style OHJ means arriving overhead at 2,000 ft AFL? Then I can see why cloud base is a bigger problem; around here it is usually 1,500 ft AFL (when it is done at all), making it somewhat easier.
I'm astonished there are still ATC towers in operation in the civilized world that do not have radar and can not provide sequencing in the pattern...