Overhead Join in UK please!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Remember that technically it is illegal to carry out a low approach and go around if the intention is not to land.

But how does anyone prove that intention?

If, as you say, one approaches in a landing configuration and is unhappy with the safety of the approach, the commander is required by law to protect the aircraft and go around?

That unhappiness could arise from a number of factors, including unstable approach.

I doubt any QC in the land could make that one stick, as it would be the commander's judgment (and he was in the aircraft) against someone elses, who was not.

Also, if one lands off the second appraochm it kinda suggests you were serious about landing

Now we all know about practice forced landings, but I see that as rather different.

[IO540]

However I would put forward that if whoever spoke to you on the radio could not guarantee there was no traffic in the circuit then the correct thing to do is ask for an ohj so that you can assess the traffic situation yourself.

Sure, that was an instructor who was doing that stunt, not a "tower employee".

I don't see a basis for an OHJ being the safest approach, however. It is often touted as such, but this is only if you are the only one up there at 2000ft AGL. Normally, with an OHJ at a busy place, there will be several planes doing the OHJ at the same time, and you will never see some of the others. But all are at your height... and they can't see you either. It's not so smart.

I think the OHJ dates back to pre-radio days when the pilot would circle, examining the signals square. And the days when there was no concept of accurate navigation, so navigating to a point representing the extended runway centreline say 5nm away (routinely done with a GPS) was not possible.

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in. If you see some in the (say LH) circuit, you can break off to the right and then turn left to do a crosswind join. On the CW join you have to fit yourself into any traffic currently downwind... but there is no way around having to fit in at some stage.

There is no perfect solution, but I absolutely do not accept that there is anything safe about the OHJ.

I especially don't like the OHJ because when things get really busy at an ATC airfield, the tower tends to revert to the OHJ when they can only just cope with what is happening lower down, and sending people to the overhead puts them where the tower doesn't have to worry about them. So, there you are, going round and round at 2000ft, with several others who you can't see and who can't see you. Not so clever. In such a situation I clear off and come back half an hour later...

Also, there is no "guarantee" of no traffic, unless it is an ATC airfield in which case you can assume there is some level of control.

[gasax]

I doubt any QC in the land could make that one stick, as it would be the commander's judgment (and he was in the aircraft) against someone elses, who was not.

Also, if one lands off the second appraochm it kinda suggests you were serious about landing

As I recall the circumstance of the case were very much as you describe. The pilot claimed he was landing, the observer, an ATPL if I recall correctly, said he was not.

The CAA won and the pilot was virtually ruined - there was even an appeal for funds to support him. This was pre-interweb, I have been unable to find any current references to it.

But it did set the precedent for this circumstance.

[cessnapete]

OHJ

I fly into nearby White Waltham where the OHJ is the norm. When busy I find it a most unsatisfactory practise. Aircraft joining from all directions at the same height.
Much better to assess the traffic and join dead side or downwind, at least then all flying in the same direction.

[VMC-on-top]

As I recall the circumstance of the case were very much as you describe. The pilot claimed he was landing, the observer, an ATPL if I recall correctly, said he was not.

The CAA won and the pilot was virtually ruined - there was even an appeal for funds to support him. This was pre-interweb, I have been unable to find any current references to it.

Surely not?? At a private field in a light aircraft!? I can understand the illegality of doing it at a busy airfield but on a private, unmanned, grass strip in the middle of nowhere?

[robin]

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in.

I think you'd probably have difficulty on most days, as you'd probably miss the traffic in the ground clutter. It is better to be slightly below circuit height
so the circuit traffic is above the horizon and much easier to see.

I still think though that a straight in approach is less desireable than a join from a base leg, though.

[IO540]

I think you'd probably have difficulty on most days, as you'd probably miss the traffic in the ground clutter. It is better to be slightly below circuit height
so the circuit traffic is above the horizon and much easier to see.

That is probably true but there is no "approved method" for arriving at say 600ft AGL

Nothing is perfect but anything is better than an OHJ where there is potential traffic in any direction, and some 2/3 of it (assuming a random bearing) will never be visible. Whereas any other approach to the airfield involves scanning a much smaller horizontal angle.

I still think though that a straight in approach is less desireable than a join from a base leg, though.

I agree, though only because breaking off from a base leg (if you see traffic on the downwind leg) is a bit easier than breaking off from a straight in.

For some reason, ATC are not so keen on base joins, when busy. IME they readily give them to competent locals who they know are not going to cause trouble if asked to orbit on the base leg. But I suspect after that orbiting-student fatal at Southend they are going to be even less keen on it.

[gasax]

To VMC - brush up on the air law

Surely not?? At a private field in a light aircraft!? I can understand the illegality of doing it at a busy airfield but on a private, unmanned, grass strip in the middle of nowhere?

It is legal to do it at a licensed airfield, it is illegal to do it at an unlicensed airfield. Rule 5 and its clauses.

[VMC-on-top]

It is legal to do it at a licensed airfield, it is illegal to do it at an unlicensed airfield. Rule 5 and its clauses.

I'm aware of Rule 5 thanks. What I was suggesting that at a private strip in the middle of nowhere that there is little chance of overflying a built up area, or person, being or object and (not that I'm advocating low flying) it would be safer to do a low approach and go around to check out the condition of the strip (for rabbit holes etc.) than to do an overhead join with binoculars at 1,000ft + ? In addition, if anyone were ever to jump up quoting rule 5 etc, then surely the simple answer is "I saw a rabbit / deer etc." running over the strip so I went around?

[IO540]

It should be legal, because one can fly (G-reg) right down to the surface if there are no man-made objects etc present.

So if you have a grass strip in the middle of nowhere, that should be OK.

What happens if there is a garden shed next to it (where you keep your towbar etc) I have no idea.

[gasax]

The crux of the case is there was a witness, walking his dog. So he became the 'persons'.

And it was his complaint and then his evidence that caused and then won the case. The fact that he was an ATPL IIRC probably means he knew his air law - whether that had any influence either way I do not know. It probably had some influence on his credibility, I do not know if his motivation was questioned.

Many strips suffer from the 'classic neighbour from hell'. It is simply necessary to understand what is legal and what is not and act accordingly.

The example of a shed - well it must be man made so keep 500' from it!

I'm not saying this is a good or in anyway sensible rule. Simply quoting a fairly old case which demonstrates the catches possible in rule 5 whilst doing something which seems very sensible.

The recent changes in training from unlicensed strips have introduced similar issues in terms of build-up areas.

[liam548]

Originally Posted by IO540

Sure, that was an instructor who was doing that stunt, not a "tower employee".

I don't see a basis for an OHJ being the safest approach, however. It is often touted as such, but this is only if you are the only one up there at 2000ft AGL. Normally, with an OHJ at a busy place, there will be several planes doing the OHJ at the same time, and you will never see some of the others. But all are at your height... and they can't see you either. It's not so smart.

I think the OHJ dates back to pre-radio days when the pilot would circle, examining the signals square. And the days when there was no concept of accurate navigation, so navigating to a point representing the extended runway centreline say 5nm away (routinely done with a GPS) was not possible.

But if you are going straight in, say after setting oneself up at 1000ft AGL at 3nm, you have a damn good view (without twisting your neck off) of the whole airfield and any circuit traffic that is actually visible. If you see none, you can go straight in. If you see some in the (say LH) circuit, you can break off to the right and then turn left to do a crosswind join. On the CW join you have to fit yourself into any traffic currently downwind... but there is no way around having to fit in at some stage.

There is no perfect solution, but I absolutely do not accept that there is anything safe about the OHJ.

I especially don't like the OHJ because when things get really busy at an ATC airfield, the tower tends to revert to the OHJ when they can only just cope with what is happening lower down, and sending people to the overhead puts them where the tower doesn't have to worry about them. So, there you are, going round and round at 2000ft, with several others who you can't see and who can't see you. Not so clever. In such a situation I clear off and come back half an hour later...

Also, there is no "guarantee" of no traffic, unless it is an ATC airfield in which case you can assume there is some level of control.

I've no where near as much flying experience as you but Ive argued these same points with people.

All the OHJ does it move the area of conflict and IMO makes it worse sometimes. Like what has been said, the worst part of any flight for me is going into the overhead knowing there are 3 others doing the same from different directions. Hence the reason I try and avoid flying altogether on busy weekends.
I actually prefer flying into larger airfields and airports. It all seems much safer.

[robin]

For some reason, ATC are not so keen on base joins, when busy.

That's strange. In my experience most airfields don't like straight in approaches as it ties up the approach path. They like the base leg joins as it gives them the chance to be flexible in vectoring aircraft of varying speeds.

At my A/G field, they specifically ask for arrivals not to go for long straight-in approaches, although they have no power to stop them.

[mary meagher]

IO540, with nearly ten thousand comments, are you serious about thinking a long straight in is a good idea?

Please don't come anywhere near my airfield! We do train our pilots to have a good lookout for people doing what you suggest, but o dear. It is certainly not approved by our CFI. Why not join the downwind on the diagonal, where you may be able to slot in nicely between the spam cans, microlites, gliders, motor gliders and non-radio stuff.

As for airfields with ATC, if they want to permit a straight in, that's another matter entirely.

[IO540]

Mary... I have no idea where you are but let me tell you I am happy to slot in anywhere you want me (sorry if that sounds dodgy ).

But, as the Americans say, when god made the sky he made lots and lots of it, and the general idea in flying is to make that work in one's favour!

So, in controlled airspace, as the old joke goes, ATC squeeze everybody into a narrow corridor and then try to earn their £90k (£150k in Spain) keeping them separated.

Out of controlled airspace, it's a free for all, and the dumbest thing has to be the OHJ where several planes are orbiting at the same height, 2/3 of them can't see the other 2/3, probably at different speeds, and the circle diameter is about the length of the runway.

To be fair, midair data doesn't indicate a problem with the OHJ but midair data is (thankfully) too thin to mean much anyway - except one should fly above 2000ft.

Your CFI must be a very scary person.

[Jofm5]

Out of controlled airspace, it's a free for all, and the dumbest thing has to be the OHJ where several planes are orbiting at the same height, 2/3 of them can't see the other 2/3, probably at different speeds, and the circle diameter is about the length of the runway.

So whats the better option and why is it we student pilots get taught this - whilst I dont know enough right now to challange your thoughts - the question is what your reasoning is for saying this.

if you feel there is a better option to ohj and in your experience that is so then for sure tell us as I only want to be safe in persuit of my pleasure. My issue is that we get taught this approach for a reason and your speculating its not appropriate....

[IO540]

The reason it is taught is... because, young man, we beat the Germans doing things this way, not once but twice, and if it was good enough for our grandfathers it is good enough for you, young man

(John Cleese would do it very well)

I think approaching the circuit at the circuit level (or no higher) is safer than an OHJ, because as you fly the last few miles towards it, you can employ a relatively limited sideways scan to look out for traffic.

Once in the OHJ, lookout isn't a whole lot of good if there are several people in there.

[robin]

You might have a bit of fun taking that line on a Popham event day, though.

[Cows getting bigger]

The problem with getting rid of the OHJ is that, in the UK, you would get a load of pilots joining any which way they could. To me, it is far more dangerous having concurrent left base, right base and straight in joins. If everyone could join in compliance with Rule 12, I wouldn't give two hoots about where they joined.

[IO540]

You might have a bit of fun taking that line on a Popham event day, though.

I am sure you are right. However, one could say that for a join into a lot of places on a nice Sunday preceeded by weeks of bad weather, including my two "favourites": Stapleford or Wellesbourne.

I think the % of people who have even heard of "circuit discipline" (i.e. you are supposed to get behind the one in front of you) is less than most would believe