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.

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

A straight in approach is fine at an ATC field. Without radio straight in will put circuit and approach traffic into conflict, I for one certainly remember a number of incidents where this has happened.

OHJ is essentially a non-radio procedure. And I would certainly accept that if the ceiling comes down then it cannot work properly.

gasax / foxmoth. I aggree with what you are saying, but the way I see it is, most a/c today have a radio of some sort, airfield info is obtained from outside the circuit, so what is the point of flying overhead for a look?
One scenario: East West runway, elevation 400ft, G-AB departing the circuit (left hand) to the North through the overhead (common at the field I have in mind) at 2500ft QNH, G-CD joining overhead from the North at 2000ft QFE, also common & regular. Does this not produce a separation of just 100ft? +/- numerous student pilot / low hrs inaccuracies.
Also the departing a/c may still be climbing from the (high downwind) point towards or through the point of separation.
Which brings me neatly to the issue of the QNH / QFE debate!!

Plus the debate about whether it's a good idea to depart the field/circuit through the overhead.

(Yeah, I know that instructors sometimes teach students to depart through the overhead so that the first leg is flown wholly at cruise speed and levels, making timing of your first leg easier. I've never done that, but it sounds dangerous to me. I'd rather use an easily identifiable point a few miles away.)

I've just read this thread and endorse the view that reading Pooleys etc is important to establish if there are unusual joining procedures. But there are pitfalls even there ...

I got caught out at Lydd a few months ago. I was familiar with their published joining procedure .. which is (in summary) approach from the deadside at 1500', descend over the airfield to circuit height, turn downwind (left or right depending on the runway in use), then base and final as usual.

On this particular day ATC asked me to report for the 'overhead' join. I took that to mean a standard overhead join. I thought it was odd but I just assumed procedures had been updated or something. (OK I should have asked ATC and will next time it happens) but anyway I reported for a standard overhead join as requested and got a sarcastic bollocking from the controller: "We don't do standard overhead joins ... don't you read the published procedures etc etc" := := :ouch: :ouch:

Now ... I wouldn't call the published Lydd join as described in Pooley's, an overhead join because that is simply confusing; it's probably better described as a high crosswind join in my view. Whaddya reckon? Are there other types of overhead joins other than 'standard' ones?

Gasax

Straight in in the way you describe can cause a conflict but with modern aircraft equipt with GPS it is quite usual to call at six miles three miles and finals.

If someone is on base ahead ok on a left circuit break right onto the dead side and fly a normal pattern but at circuit height.

Conflicts are not just with aircraft on straight in approaches but can happen downwind with aircraft on different width of downwind and differing speeds and at any time in the OHJ.

Obviously you would not take a straight in on a busy day and always with communication with other aircraft its not the circuit I have a problem with but the OHJ!

Non radio aircraft are a rareity nowadays and that itself is an arguemnt for updating the status of a standard overhead join to just one method of joining.
The standard overhead was created in just those times when aircraft were non radio.

Pace

Please don't try an OHJ in France...if you survive you may well be jailed for endangering life!
At controlled airfields ATC will tell you where to join. At uncontrolled fields you should have been listening out on French unicom of 123.5 to get proper situation awareness before arriving. You then make an all stations call prefixed with the airfield name on the same frequency to let people in the circuit know you are coming. French law requires a downwind join, joining from any other direction is an infringement liable to prosecution. Needless to say an understanding of aviation French is essential.

The bigger picture is that a very large number but probably not the majority of 'aircraft' do not have radios installed.

My old aircraft did not - and obviously that colours ones perception. Flying from a licensed field in club aircraft - surely everyone has a radio? Well nearly.

Without a radio the OHJ works, well it has for 80 year odd. IF you can invent something as reliable that does not depend upon a radio great, I'm all for it.

I'm sure many of the 'issues' with the OHJ are around people's unfamiliarity with it - due to ATC controlled fields and radio and not having the freedom / responsibility to do it themselves.

You see this to some extent in the number of fields that are beginning to restrict non-radio traffic. But at the majority of strips - where these days there are more light aircraft based than at licensed fields you can have a dedicated frequency, Safetycom, microlight or gliding requencies in use. Not surprisingly the OHJ is about the only near universal procedure.

I have a radio, sure. Quite often I turn it on. But there isn't anyone on the ground to talk to me at most small airfields, so we all say what we are doing, remembering to give the name of the airfield we are flying to or from, as we are all on 123.5 here in sunny france except for the airfields who do have a tower. The frequency can get a bit busy on a nice day :)
The overhead join suits me fine, I do like to take a look at the windsock, and any other traffic. Controlled airfield, then the controller can give me the wind and I can have a nice argument about not having a ten knot tailwind please.....:}

Chapter and verse, please? Is it on the DGAC or SIA sites? I DO understand aviation french......

DGAC L'arrete du 17 juillet 1992 precise que: "l'integration sur un terrain non controle s'effectue au debut de la vent arriere, a la hauteur du circuit d'aerodrome en assurant une separation visuelle avec les autres aeronefs deja engages dans la circulation d'aerodrome et en leur laissant la priorite de passage"

The same arrete indicates in a paragraph that joining should not be effected without prior reconnaissance of the aerodrome, but that this reconnaissance should not be obtained by a passage a' la verticale unless this is a practice that is often used at that aerodrome.
So I may have over egged the chances of being jailed for doing an OHJ, but it sure is not considered a safe procedure.

Sounds like for once the Frogs have it !:D

French Overhead Joins
 

Vee-Tail-1: Just need to correct something here if you don't mind....what's strictly required is MINIMUM 3 sides of the rectangle when joining overhead in France at a non-ATC controlled airfield.

In reality, what is expected - & desirable - is an UPWIND join along runway axis on QDM & then descent in the circuit. Essentially you mimick the real circuit but at a slighter higher height until downwind (easier to explain graphically than with words perhaps...?!?)

In my mind, is vastly superior to the outdated & more sweeping UK OHJ:
- Better visibility all the way round the CX, as turns are punctual rather than continuous
- Spatial awareness is much better, as you spend more time S&L & on circuit headings
- Gives a far better idea of wind conditions in the circuit, as you are essentially flying it, albeit slightly higher, from the join point onwards.

Another positive is that you will be following a slightly larger pattern than those already in the circuit, doing T&G's....this aids visibility of existing traffic & distributes the noise footprint slightly.

While indeed a UK-style join would cause some confusion & would not be brilliant airmanship, a French instructor once told me it would "probably be OK if it's not too busy"

There are some quirks of French rules that are less attractive, but the circuit join is not one of them....;-))

Happy flying...BFA

Its just amazing how many different ways there are for joining a circuit.
Hope EASA never get involved :eek:

It does not matter what walk of life straight in and sod the rest gets the best results :-) flom flying to W :-) forget all the flaffing around. (only joking)

Pace

Vee-Tail-1: Thinking about it, there is one occasion where the French seem to do a UK style overhead join / descent into the circuit & that is when doing a practice engine-off, which they seem to often like doing from the overhead.

At St Cyr l'Ecole, we used to do it from 1500' QNH & was about the only time we ever entered the "dead-side".

Think the French model also works well where there is a mix of gliders & microlights, who will usually be operating an opposite, non-radio, circuit, which was the case at several places I regularly flew from (Dreux, Chartres, Fayence...). Provides a more sensible arrangement than the hybrid type arrangement we have at places like 06/24 at Booker, well as that seems to work.

Remember places like St Cyr, which has a full ATC service (& very strict entry-exit routes) reverts to the circuit join I described after-hours or when ATC on strike (yip...you need a SOP!) /holiday.....

Sorry, but can't help but think this is something that EASA might do well to get involved in....!?!

BFA

If you fly from an airfield where the SOJ is the norm then it does become extremely 2nd nature, i.e. Staverton.
A few rules I have applied to my students for the SOJ are reasonably fool proof, made easier by the fact that we already know circuit direction & wind etc as we ask ATC for rejoins. But basically.

If it's a RH circuit keep the airfield on the right (& Visa Versa)
No turns inside the ATZ opposite to circuit direction
Once overhead, when you can read the active runway numbers the right way up out of your window (or your pax window) you have to be deadside.
Keep your eyes out the cockpit or one day (could be today) it'll kill you (& me).

As for joining from the dead side this was argued by a student who I did a mock test for once, he joined from the deadside at 2,000ft and then just descended to circuit height & went xwind, my argument is that never was he really overhead the airfield, so he should have done an orbit above the airfield first. Another instructor disagreed, so we asked one of the ATCOs, and he said that for the OHJ you can't just descend deadside without having been overhead because this did not constitute an OHJ.

I am a very inexperienced pilot and last week end did my first O/H join. Fortunately I had a more experienced right seat buddy. My comments are that first I tracked to cross O/H as per the diagrams from the live side for a right hand circuit. In a PA28 I lost sight of the airfield completely for a minute or more before crossing O/H I would have needed to be well downwind to have maintained visual with the field. Fortunately i picked another feature to provide clue for starting descent. descent went well searching for the student doing circuits. Turned out he was on bomber circuit and dilemma arose over if we should cut inside and be accused of poor airmanship. Chose to extend upwind a little and fall in behind. Now following miles downwind I found that during turms towards final I lost the field completely. Passenger still had sight and took over to position us but on my own I would perhaps have had to go away and start again ( should mention this was into a grass field known to be hard to spot)

Any comment? My own feelings were that L/H circuits only for O/H join to keep field in sight. Also I think we should have asked for join on downleg as we had the only other known traffic in sight on finals as we approached.

UK OHJs
 

An OHJ is what it says on the tin, an overhead join; it doesn't matter whether you join from N,E,W or S. Others in this discussion have related their experiences at joining in all kinds of other situations but what they are describing is something different. Others have pointed out possible dangers in doing OHJ but this not answering the question.
Please take a look at Pooleys entry for Shoreham: they require you to carry out an OHJ so it's just as well to understand this procedure.