Overhead Joins - who has priority?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overhead Joins - who has priority?
Hi. This never really came up in training, but now I'm flying from a fairly busy airfield that isn't ATC, I'd appreciate some advice. In an overhead join, there is potential conflict between the A/C approaching the circuit on overhead crosswind with A/C already in the circuit on downwind (say when doing T&G's). In such circumstances - who has priority?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgw...osterJan09.pdf
Note guidance offered:
Watch for existing circuit traffic and adjust your path to sequence safely.
Rule 12:
Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome
12.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flying machine, glider or airship flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an aerodrome shall—
(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at that aerodrome otherwise authorises.
Rule 9:
Converging
9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and to rules 10 and 11, aircraft in the air shall give way to other, converging aircraft as follows—
(a) flying machines shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;
(b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(c) gliders shall give way to balloons.
(2) Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing other aircraft or objects.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (1) and (2), when two aircraft are converging in the air at approximately the same altitude, the aircraft which has the other on its right shall give way.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL06.pdf
Wapedia - Wiki: Overhead join
Note guidance offered:
Watch for existing circuit traffic and adjust your path to sequence safely.
Rule 12:
Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome
12.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flying machine, glider or airship flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an aerodrome shall—
(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at that aerodrome otherwise authorises.
Rule 9:
Converging
9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and to rules 10 and 11, aircraft in the air shall give way to other, converging aircraft as follows—
(a) flying machines shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;
(b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(c) gliders shall give way to balloons.
(2) Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing other aircraft or objects.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (1) and (2), when two aircraft are converging in the air at approximately the same altitude, the aircraft which has the other on its right shall give way.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL06.pdf
Wapedia - Wiki: Overhead join
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Just a bit lower than the point where the falling angel meets the rising ape
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have thought the aircraft already in the circuit, because they're already there.
I suppose in theory if you were joining a right hand circuit, then you could argue that you had right of way on any aircraft to your left on downwind already in the circuit, but that doesn't scan for me. As someone joining an active circuit, I'd still make way.
If there was plenty of scope for me to join without upsetting a craft in the circuit e.g. said craft just turned onto downwind and was still aways away, then I would.
Also, if I was entering an active busy circuit, I'd probably bore the socks off everyone with my constant position reporting!
I suppose in theory if you were joining a right hand circuit, then you could argue that you had right of way on any aircraft to your left on downwind already in the circuit, but that doesn't scan for me. As someone joining an active circuit, I'd still make way.
If there was plenty of scope for me to join without upsetting a craft in the circuit e.g. said craft just turned onto downwind and was still aways away, then I would.
Also, if I was entering an active busy circuit, I'd probably bore the socks off everyone with my constant position reporting!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is joining a circuit any different to joining a (British) roundabout? The sensible option would be to respect the (runway-occupancy-compatible-) existing sequence and join intelligently, rather than to aggressively push in. At the worst just a small dog-leg behind may be necessary when joining from Crosswind to Downwind. Within a certain Class G Rule 45 ATZ not far from me this is often not the case when some thoughtless individuals fly straight-in approaches into a busy circuit, apparently oblivious to the spirit of Rule 12 and the consequent domino-effect disruption that such a manoeuvre will cause. Such situations are also not helped when 'condoned' by a mis-guided FISO.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that it's usually good practice to do a small dog-leg and position yourself behind the downwind aircraft, even if they haven't called downwind yet.
The Standard Overhead Join poster from the CAA website:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgw...osterJan09.pdf
The Standard Overhead Join poster from the CAA website:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srgw...osterJan09.pdf
Last edited by SirLaughalot; 9th Aug 2009 at 15:52. Reason: Additional information
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason it's the safest method of joining the cct is that you come to the overhead 1000ft above cct traffic, sus out the flow whilst descending dead-side to join the cct crosswind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all. Yes - I agree with the general consensus, I just wasn't sure if I'd create more problems by changing the standard overhead join such as I was then a problem for departing traffic from the active runway and wanted to check. On that last point - note while you're descending in either a high or low wing A/C, you're not always going to be visual with all traffic and you won't be on the same crosswind as a circuit crosswind - that's the point.
And yes - joining a circuit is different to joining any other british roundabout in that you generally can't stop in mid air and other 'cars' may be coming up from below....................
And yes - joining a circuit is different to joining any other british roundabout in that you generally can't stop in mid air and other 'cars' may be coming up from below....................
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
a problem for departing traffic from the active runway
On that occasion ATC held the jet on the ground until my 152 was safely clear.
Proper use of radio - at a s l o w delivery rate - should take care of most situations, tho' we still have NORDO airfields, and the recommendation is to make left hand turns above the circuit height until the landing direction can be decided, and this leads to interesting situations at right hand circuits, when some aircraft have listened out and are aware of the traffic direction, others haven't - or can't !
I was once letting down on the 'dead' side and narrowly missed an aircraft coming towards me, i.e. carrying out a rt.hand circuit at a left hand airfield. On the ground, and trying to be polite to a foreign ( USA ) visitor, I explained the expectation I had formed as I was joining. She said that she thought we had a left hand circuit, but heard another aircraft joining Right Base, so thought we had changed the direction, and she had missed the written instruction somewhere? We have no ATC. but we are Mandatory Broadcast,
The " other" aircraft was our local scenic tour operator, who repeatedly rejoins in the most cost effective way - to him, i.e. shortest track distance, be it upwind, downwind, cross wind or straight in.
I was once letting down on the 'dead' side and narrowly missed an aircraft coming towards me, i.e. carrying out a rt.hand circuit at a left hand airfield. On the ground, and trying to be polite to a foreign ( USA ) visitor, I explained the expectation I had formed as I was joining. She said that she thought we had a left hand circuit, but heard another aircraft joining Right Base, so thought we had changed the direction, and she had missed the written instruction somewhere? We have no ATC. but we are Mandatory Broadcast,
The " other" aircraft was our local scenic tour operator, who repeatedly rejoins in the most cost effective way - to him, i.e. shortest track distance, be it upwind, downwind, cross wind or straight in.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a situation last weekend when I was heading towards an airfield and there was a slower converging light plane following me in. Even though it was a familiar airfield, I elected to do an overhead join. I did all the appropriate calls etc and joined the circuit. While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than me he was landing first. Even though there was no immediate conflict I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit. I cant help feeling angry towards the other pilot. It might have been legal but I think airmanship was clearly lacking.
While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than me
I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On the high side
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with giving way to existing circuit traffic. I had a situation the other day where I arrived at an airfield and there was a student doing solo circuits. I was coming in from another airfield and more experienced so I reckon I'd have been the one more capable of giving way...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a situation last weekend when I was heading towards an airfield and there was a slower converging light plane following me in. Even though it was a familiar airfield, I elected to do an overhead join. I did all the appropriate calls etc and joined the circuit. While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base", and as he was lower than me he was landing first. Even though there was no immediate conflict I made a decision to go around and fly another circuit. I cant help feeling angry towards the other pilot. It might have been legal but I think airmanship was clearly lacking.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<While I was on base leg the other aircraft announced that he was also on base leg from a "straight in join on base",>>
This non-compliance with Rule 12.
<<and as he was lower than me he was landing first>>
This is no excuse at all and holds no water.
IMC1, your conflicting aircraft has not conformed to the pattern of the traffic applicable at the time. The direct base join is no different to a straight-in approach into an uncontrolled circuit. It is not an intelligent join if the circuit contains conflicting traffic. I think that you were right to feel aggrieved.
This non-compliance with Rule 12.
<<and as he was lower than me he was landing first>>
This is no excuse at all and holds no water.
IMC1, your conflicting aircraft has not conformed to the pattern of the traffic applicable at the time. The direct base join is no different to a straight-in approach into an uncontrolled circuit. It is not an intelligent join if the circuit contains conflicting traffic. I think that you were right to feel aggrieved.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Where did you initiate the go around, base leg, downwind or on final? Many pilots don't seem to realise you can go around from anywhere in the circuit, which is usually more efficient than extending downwind in an attempt to fit in.>>
I knew this in theory but this thread has made me think about how would actually do this - I have never had to go around in practice other than when on final. Assuming a left hand circuit... If on Downwind presumably turn left at circuit height, turn to track over the runway, and if on base leg keep going at circuit height and then turn to track above the runway at circuit height.
And then turn cross wind early as if joining from deadside in an over head join (to avoid taking off traffic climbing out) and then turn downwind as in such a join. Have I got that right?
I knew this in theory but this thread has made me think about how would actually do this - I have never had to go around in practice other than when on final. Assuming a left hand circuit... If on Downwind presumably turn left at circuit height, turn to track over the runway, and if on base leg keep going at circuit height and then turn to track above the runway at circuit height.
And then turn cross wind early as if joining from deadside in an over head join (to avoid taking off traffic climbing out) and then turn downwind as in such a join. Have I got that right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GertrudeWombat - again - this is precisely what I'm saying. To quote you...."that it would be at circuit height when passing the upwind numbers." The problem is that if you have to modify your OHJ, where do you go? Only choice really is out beyond the upwind numbers and therefore potential conflict with departing A/C, so I wasn't sure if this was good practise.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those of us who have enough intelligence and brain power to make proper OHJ (at non ATC airfields) - just ignore those rude people who cut up the circuit and acknowledge your superiority
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go around pop up
One situation it’s necessary to keep a really good lookout on an OHJ is when descending dead side and someone on final goes around. Sometimes an early go around on final can pop up to circuit height by the time the aircraft reaches the numbers at the upwind end. This can place it just where the descending aircraft is aiming for and at about the same time if both pilots are very unlucky.
I don’t recall ever hearing any discussion of the need for a go around to stay below circuit height until clear of the numbers or aircraft on an OHJ to watch out for a go around in any training material I have seen.
I don’t recall ever hearing any discussion of the need for a go around to stay below circuit height until clear of the numbers or aircraft on an OHJ to watch out for a go around in any training material I have seen.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the OHJ is an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure which should have been ditched years ago.
It was a practice designed for the days of non radio aircraft and poor navigation equiptment.
Firstly consider the legality of an OHJ considering VFR rules and how many pilots attempt a so called OHJ when the cannot maintain VFR rules or altitudes required for the OHJ but still state they are joining OH.
Even ATC units call for the OHJ when met conditions do not legally allow it.
Aircraft cross circuit height traffic at altitudes they should not be at or break the VFR rules by scud running to the OH like bees to a honeypot almost blind.
In the OHJ the aircraft and its passengers are exposed to numerous unrequired 90 degree turns often with a mix of high wing and low wing aircraft.
This naturally increases the chances not just of midair collisions but of loss of control or disorientation.
The OHJ is uncomfortable for passengers, wasted money for pilots, burns un needed fuel for the invironment and is potentially dangerous.
It is about time the practice was chucked in the bin or declassified to just another join rather than the standard. It is about time this country moved like most others to sensible joining procedures rather than living in the dark ages.
Pace
It was a practice designed for the days of non radio aircraft and poor navigation equiptment.
Firstly consider the legality of an OHJ considering VFR rules and how many pilots attempt a so called OHJ when the cannot maintain VFR rules or altitudes required for the OHJ but still state they are joining OH.
Even ATC units call for the OHJ when met conditions do not legally allow it.
Aircraft cross circuit height traffic at altitudes they should not be at or break the VFR rules by scud running to the OH like bees to a honeypot almost blind.
In the OHJ the aircraft and its passengers are exposed to numerous unrequired 90 degree turns often with a mix of high wing and low wing aircraft.
This naturally increases the chances not just of midair collisions but of loss of control or disorientation.
The OHJ is uncomfortable for passengers, wasted money for pilots, burns un needed fuel for the invironment and is potentially dangerous.
It is about time the practice was chucked in the bin or declassified to just another join rather than the standard. It is about time this country moved like most others to sensible joining procedures rather than living in the dark ages.
Pace