No, I've never come across a need to do precisely that, although a PFL to land on an airfield (which I have practiced) has some similarities.

The other reason to do a spiral descent - to get down through a hole - is with reference to the cloud not the ground, and these days I'd probably just fly through the cloud anyway (icing level permitting).
No, I've never wanted to land at an airport with no communications - there aren't any round here. (There are farm strips, which we wouldn't usually call "airports", but I've not wanted to land at one of those either. If I did I'd talk to the farmer first and follow his/her local procedure.)

Actually I did land at Rottnest once, and I don't recall it having any communications. The instructor was careful to point out to me that it had more than one wind sock, and that they often pointed in completely different directions, and that one had to check them all out before deciding how, or indeed whether, to land. So I have been exposed to this type of decision making even though I've never had to do it for real on my own.

The regulation is no turns against the circuit direction other than with the permission of ATC. Which means that at a controlled airfield orbiting on downwind is a perfectly normal thing to be asked to do, at other airfields it's against the regulations.

It's a little of each.

There's a rule that says that aircraft must conform with the traffic pattern, and make all turns to the left, unless otherwise indicated from the ground.

Most people consider an aircraft orbiting in the circuit to be failing to conform with the traffic pattern.

We refer to whichever side is not in use by the circuit traffic as the 'dead side', and the the side with the circuit traffic, rather unsurprisingly, as the 'live side'.


MJ:ok:

We sure do have plenty of Non Radio traffic (NARDOs).
We tend to avoid terms like dead engine or dead side. Dead anything gets the passengers upset. The media loves terms like that too. I was replying to a thread in a non aviation forum about that recent ATR crash and one of the posters said the plane was in a "death stall". I am positive that was coined by the media somewhere to incite more drama.

We call any operation in runway heading "upwind", the opposite of downwind.
We also make upwind entries to traffic patterns, often to a midfield crosswind. This puts the whole pattern in your view and avoids crossing over high and descending which has its own portion of hazard.
When I was training, a go around from final was a small step to the right, to keep the runway (and probably the reason you went around) in view out your left side. We did not jump all the way over to a proper upwind for many reasons, including complying with noise abatement at one sided airports.

"Final" oo-err, sounds a bit worrying. :ooh:

"Terminal" - that's another one. :eek:

I think this would qualify as a collision avoidance, Mike. ;)

This is similar to our 'Deadside Join', Sky, but our Overhead Join is very different to yours, in that, rather than descending outside the pattern, on what we would call the 'live side', then joining midfield downwind at 45 degrees, we descend on the 'dead side' and join crosswind like your 'upwind entry'.

One added advantage of this is that it effectively separates the climbing(live side) traffic, from the descending(deade side) traffic.

That, at least, is just the same here! :)


MJ:ok:

And I learned in the 1980s that when producing an American version of a piece of software, translated from the English, the "abort" function had to be renamed to something else.

Yesterday I flew with my wife to a nearby airfield for lunch. I did it all by the book. OHJ with a deadside descent. When I called 'Descending deadside' there was one aircraft climbing away, one touching down on a touch and go and one turning final. I was visual with the first two.


On turning right, and calling crosswind, I was visual with the first two aircraft climbing away on the runway heading as I crossed the upwind numbers.
The third aircraft then announced that he was making an early turn onto downwind!


I shot a look at my other half who'd already sussed that something was amiss and she said "I've got him, directly below us, same track".
As I went for the throttle to climb out of circuit height, he announced that he was remaining 'low level'. I carried on to a wide downwind and gave him plenty of room.


This was a based aircraft used for training, as was the aircraft in a previous incident at the same airfield. This one came off the deadside at the midpoint of the runway, straight at me when I was downwind.


I have the times and call signs but I'll keep them to myself. I will say however, that the airfield was Sherburn.


I'll keep going there, as their steak pie is almost worth dying for.

Reminiscent of an incident I experienced at Breighton a few years ago.

Short final behind another aircraft which for no apparent reason after landing, simply decided that he would stop in the middle of the runway at the end of the landing roll, and then wonder to himself whether he would actually just park there and get out for a stroll, or whether he might possibly ask for a clue about a more convenient place to park.

While he decided, I went around and immediately afterwards heard an aircraft behind me ( with an instructor on board) announce that they too were going around behind me. Naturally I expected them to follow me around the circuit and didn't consider their presence in the circuit as an issue to me at all.

However, as I levelled off on the downwind leg, I heard the same instructor calling short final. His go around had evidently simply been to do a low level orbit over the runway threshold.

Whilst I found this mildly irritating, it did not create any problems for me so I left it at that without remark.

It simply shows how interpretation of what constitutes "a circuit" is rather variable, and can include questionable airmanship from no less than an instructor. Doubtless if challenged his response would have been " I had no intention of following you on a cross country around the circuit."

Of course, if I had simply decided to do a low level orbit at the threshold myself as well, things might have been very different.

Hey ho..

Some of these situations are indicative of poor communications and lack of understanding of intention.

Simply saying: First plane going around, I am right behind you and will follow...waggle your wings so I know for sure you are the only one on upwind.

Non standard patterns, like a quick circle back to the threshold is worthy of a radio call to let others know that you are a bit insane or on fire and need to land.

Some will say: I can't possibly work the radio while circling at 50'. WELL DON'T do something stupid. Assume everyone else in the pattern is about to do something stupid.

Work em, think em, watch for traps. And there are traps out there. Everyone is sometimes just thinking of themselves, and therein lies the problem.

I think skyhigh has a point here: we do seem rather reticent in the UK to use the radio (from the POV of the pilots) to actually organise circuit traffic.

Sometimes I think people come into conflict because even if they see one developing, they can’t think of the right phrase from CAP 413 to defuse the situation, so end up doing a last-minute manoeuvre or complaining to all and sundry well after the incident.

If I heard “Joining finals for XX” and there were five aircraft in the circuit, including one on base leg, I’d say something like “it might be a good idea to do an overhead join as it’s very busy” or “you are number six to land, BTW” or if I felt really snarky, “negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full”. ;) Equally I could say something like “there’s one on base leg but quite a gap between him and me, I’ll extend and come in behind” or something neighbourly like that.

I prefer to think that very few (if any) pilots deliberately cut other people up, just that their situational awareness is not as good as they think it is. Just look at all the airproxes that could have been averted just by passing a bit more information...

FullWings


There is a theory of leadership, that in the absence of a leader, one will come forth.

If I was in my home little airport(back when), I wouldn't hesitate to say something like:

Yankton traffic, Cherokee 1234 10 south at 2000', planning straight in to the runway in use (36) does anyone object? Is there anyone in the pattern? HELLO?

And if someone objected, we , repeat WE, would work it out.

Someone might just say: HEY FRED, listen we got five on the downwind and ten waiting for takeoff how about entering on the 45 to left traffic instead?


AND if you can't come up with the right aeronautical phrase, just say it in plain (plane?) english...its your language you know!

When I did my solo flights i 2013 it was on a controlled airport with a substantional amount of commercial 737 / Dash8 operations, and an active flight school. I got to orbit on downwind on my first solo. Instructions such as extended downwind and beeing ordered to shorten downwind an go stright a short final also common during my solo flights in order to get me down before a 737, or to keep me away from wake turbulence.

For me this was completely normal, and something I was used to from all the lessons with my instructor. However most students on my flight school solo quite late, and I suspect that the busy airport is one of the reasons for this.

Chances are, you will be a better pilot because of the inconvenience you have learned to deal with and learned to be flexible in your approach, in both senses of the word.

There is no perfect solution to joining a busy circuit. The rules are a guideline. Many pilots over-rely on saying the minimum, iaw the "rules" in CAP 413 and say nothing more, even when it could improve the safety of the situation.

For example, two aircraft joining via the overhead. A potentially dangerous situation. Pilots obviously need to look out for other aircraft but also for purpose of correct positioning over the field. The initial call could/should include the direction from which you are arriving in the overhead, for the benefit of all. Many pilots do not do this, simply calling "joining overhead".

The most frightening thing is for two pilots to announce that they are "overhead" at the same time because by definition, iaw the standard procedure, they will be in exactly the same location at the same altitude. If the other aircraft isn't seen, it leaves at least one, or both pilots in a quandary - do you carry on with the procedure, do you maintain altitude, or what?

I had this happen at Tatenhill a few years ago. We called for join in good time, giving our location i.e. joining overhead from the North, entering the ATZ from the north, then overhead. Just as we made our call in the overhead and began the deadside descent, another pilot called "deadside, descending". We had seen nothing, heard nothing from him before that call. We could still not see any other aircraft. To say that a few tense seconds followed was an understatement. :eek:

It turned out that he could see us, we were (thankfully) slightly ahead of him and had simply closely followed us into the ATZ, omitting his initial call, copying the airfield details from the response to our call.

We had a conversation on the ground.

The way I see this is simple. CAP413 lists the standard radio calls so that standard announcements are as short and concise as possible. This leaves room on the airways for non-standard, more elaborate calls if and when required.

If you need to make a safety call but you don't know the CAP413 phrase for that, and as a result you keep silent, you're a muppet. IMHO.

Heck, there have been several situations already where ATC did not know the phraseology to use, so they switched to plain Dutch on me. If that's what's required to clear up a misunderstanding, then that's what's going to happen. Fine with me.

At our airfield we all normally give a radio call on Downwind and then on Final.
So imagine my quandary when descending through 750ft on base leg, when someone announced that they were on base leg.... Was he above or below me? I just could not see him. So fearing he was either 20ft above or below me, I announced that I was also on base and at 700ft and I would continue at that level for a go-around.
After I turned onto RW heading, I saw him about 300ft below turning onto Final.... Where he came from, nobody knows...

If you are doing a proper standard join you don't actually fly precisely "overhead".

This is the way I teach it:-

Imagine a bicycle wheel with the axle centred on the middle of the airfield/runway. The rim of the wheel encompasses the boundary of the airfield (or the ends of the runway).

When you are visual with the field (assuming a left hand circuit) turn the a/c to place the airfield on the left (about ten o'clock) and now fly around the rim (notice this will not place the a/c overhead the airfield but a short distance away from the zenith at the axle) until the threshold of the runway on which you intend to land is at nine o'clock (in a low wing out of sight under the left wing).

You are now proceeding towards the dead side and can start descent (below 2,000 ft) still following the rim of the wheel as it is safer to descend turning as a) you are clearing airspace below you and b) able to see traffic taking off or going around and you can intelligently decide where to fit into the pattern.

From certain directions this means it will take a little longer to join the circuit. The difficulty arises when other airspace users decide to "short circuit" the procedure if they are already approaching from the deadside. Eg approaching from the north for RW 27 with a left hand circuit.

Essentially what we are discussing is a non radio join in which case you would need to look at the Signals Square.

For me the term Overhead Join is a misnomer because if flown correctly you are never actually overhead the airfield but on the perimeter.

Logically if all a/c follow the proper full joining procedure whoever calls "Deadside Descending" is ahead of other joining who have yet to make that call.

That said some of the joins which I see the occasional aircraft perform are far from standard so it's essential to maintain a good lookout at all times.

"For me the term Overhead Join is a misnomer because if flown correctly you are never actually overhead the airfield but on the perimeter."


On my planet that statement doesn't compute.

Well yes it's a question of semantics but at a large aerodrome "overhead" could mean a mile or two west of the aerodrome reference point to the same on the east side.

On a correctly flown standard join you don't actually fly precisely overhead the ARP or if you do you're not flying it correctly.

Even on the CAA graphic here the Overhead is in inverted commas:-

The Standard "Overhead" Join

And what we "name" things has a big impact on how the brain processes information.

I know that if I get a clearance to 'Transit via the Overhead' that's precisely what I do.


On an OHJ I'll enter the dead side with the downwind numbers below me and cross to the live side from overhead the upwind numbers. I'd call that Overhead. Any further out, you're risking conflict with departing traffic.

I agree and that's not what I have said!

All very good but this thread is titled "Circuit Joining".

I've just eaten my sock.

FFB, Thanks for the free lesson. I am already aware of the overhead joining procedure (since I was first taught and practiced it in 1973) and subsequently taught it to RAF SEP students.

The problem I was trying to highlight is that (irrespective of where you want to call the actual overhead position) two aircraft could be heading for the same point in space at the same time without prior warning. As far as sequencing goes, one pilot might call early, the other in the ideal position, or slightly late. Lookout, effective use of the radio and common sense/airmanship are the answer to keeping it safe for everyone.

Well it's not a competition but seeing as you brought the subject up I was first taught the OHP in 1967. I have also taught same on numerous occasions to a diversity of students both in the civil and military environments. There is nothing wrong with reiterating the basics and besides that's how we learns new things or ways to teach - as a professional instructor I am always interested to listen to what others have to say.

Like anywhere then? (Especially Class G airspace).

As always.

overhead join?

the best way is to join the PATTERN on downwind is at a 45 Degree angle. you should have your landing light on in the pattern for recognition and avoidance. HIGH wing planes should always be clearing above during climb and low wing planes should CLEAR below in descents.

During turns to base and final, high wing planes lose sight of the airport. Low wings have better views in the turns toward the field

By "best way" do you mean the "safest way"?

If so please show me the statistical evidence that this is a better way to "join the PATTERN"?

If I fly in another country I would expect to comply with the procedures and protocols of that country.

When in Rome do as the Romans.

FFB, I know your father taught you well and I wasn't trying to make it a competition, merely responding to your rejoinder to my post, which seemed intentionally condescending, as if I was unfamiliar with the OHJ.

Which is where many ATZs lie, of course.

Again, my point was that the OHJ procedure, by definition, brings aircraft to the same point in space. The overhead join requires pilots to position their aircraft quite precisely, which in some cases means the pilot is working at high workload with little extra capacity - they quite naturally look down into the circuit and this can reduce overall awareness with regard to other aircraft which may be in very close proximity at a similar level. Any "choke point" brings extra hazard and this is one of them so pilots should not be afraid to use the R/T sensibly and effectively, rather than just sticking very rigidly to the terms of CAP413.

fireflyblob

I won't show you the statistics. I don't have them. It is my opinion after 40 years of flying.

Why is it the best? Entering on the 45 at pattern altitude allows you to see and be seen by those in the pattern, descending into the pattern means you will have a greater chance of descending upon another plane. Those on the crosswind will have a chance of seeing you, you will have a chance of seeing them and those on the downwind. Once in the pattern, good luck to you all.

AND if you all agree to join on the 45 then you will all be looking there for the incoming traffic instead of fooling around with all the other methods. Standardization, try it, you will like it.

When in Rome, its time to go home. I understand the Romans helped build some of the roads in England. But I really don't think the roads in the US lead to rome, now do they?

I don't think anyone is advocating descending directly into the pattern, Sky. We don't do that here, or in the USA.

I think that the 45 midfield downwind join is best for you, because that's what most pilots do over there.

The deadside join crossing the upwind threshold at pattern altitude and making a pattern direction turn into the downwind leg opposite the upwind threshold is still the most common way pilots join here.

I don't think there's much to choose between them in terms of safety. That comes from getting as many people as possible to follow the established and accepted method appropriate to where you happen to be.

One of the problems we have here is that, because learning to fly is so expensive (around $200 for an hour in a beat up old Cessna), people go all over the world, including the USA, to learn to fly, and then bring back whatever method they learned there.

Shy Torque:

I think that any 'standard join' will, by it's very nature, create a choke point somewhere, but I do agree that people could often be a bit more forthcomming with information, wherever they join.

MJ:ok:

Ps. I think that maybe, after 10 pages, this thread is running out of steam, and people are starting to get a bit tetchy. (Or 'over tired' as your Mums might have said?)

Me tetchy? Never! (I just don't believe it).

MJ, Nice summary and I agree.

The method described by Machjump is similar to the standard dead side join taught to military pilots and is arguably safer.

It does however require the pilot to work out in advance where the live and dead sides are, so by implication, radio communication is required.

The OHJ was designed for non radio aircraft to arrive at an airfield, assess the circuit pattern and fit into it.

Agree 100% on that one - nothing wrong with broadcasting to the world where you are if you think it may be appropriate.

Hurrah! :ok:

One example: Pilot of an aircraft calls up, with the intention of transmitting overhead. He is given airfield details and requested to call again when overhead.

Pilot of second aircraft calls up, same intentions, not having heard the first pilot call. He is advised of the first aircraft doing similar.

Neither pilot yet in visual contact with the other.

First pilot reaches the overhead and calls simply "Overhead", because that's what he was told to do.

Great, but far more helpful if he called "Overhead, 2500 feet, heading north" or whatever, as appropriate.

Not clogging up the frequency and certainly helping to improve the big picture for everyone.

I find this thread exhausting to read and one reason is the mixture of different "standards". Can we find a way to label the geo we are referring to?

For example: in the UK you have the "standard" overhead join with life side and dead side of the traffic pattern, which is very uncommon in other countries, the US and parts of Europe I know use the 45 entering downwind, other parts of Europe use a straight in to downwind as does many African countries usually do, besides from common standard T-shaped entering base and no downwind.

All these techniques do have benefits and drawbacks, so we have to chat - especially if somebody is joining from another standards geo. When I first entered a UK overhead join I was frightened, because I never used it in central Europe, mainly because on my frequent airfields we had glider activity directly overhead the fields and this would have been dangerous - but I clearly broke the rule to radio short and said to the others in traffic pattern sorry and explained this is my first time for such a thing. Very british they guided me down very politely, which may be different at other places, where the buttheads rule.

I quite like the idea of a standard 45deg join to down wind as it should give plenty of time to see & be seen.

The chances of a "standard" OHJ these days seem about as high as a "standard" circuit. I certainly don't like the idea of thinking of a bicycle wheel and keeping a constant turn as, in a low wing ac, that means a wing will be blocking the direction the conflict is likely to come from. If we are going to stick with SOHJs why not follow the published method?

We were a little more explicit with ours.


"Have you got tired and cross and horrible then?"


"Yes." (In a tired and cross and horrible voice.)

I never meant to imply that the turn (in terms of angle of bank) was constant - in fact with wind it cannot be to achieve that track over the ground.

Lookout is a given and if you need to clear airspace you can waggle the wings (without turning) if you need to.

By "published method" I presume you mean the one shown on the CAA Standard "Overhead" Join? This including others which I sometimes see shows the descent on the dead side in a straight line which I consider is poorer for lookout for a/c below you. In short I don't think the descent on the dead side should be in a straight line. Another benefit of being in banked flight is that it is easier for other traffic to see you.

There is more than one way of skinning a cat but I wish people would stop bleating on about the US 45 degree join. If I go and fly in USA I would expect to obey their conventions and customs. There may well be merit in doing it that way but it's not the procedure we use in the UK.

Jez, I never knew this was so difficult!

Didn't think I was bleating on. I hadn't really considered it much before but perhaps we should consider whether the merit means it should be the way we do it here. Just coz it's different doesn't make it wrong!

The RAF do teach a turning descent on the deadside.

Published method may contain things like this "nice" example, or involve traffic patterns like this one - ok, these are among the most strange overrulings I encountered, but you have to be open for such things to impinge on you

Can I just say I've never started a thread that's run to 10 pages before... :)

Thanks to all the contributors though as its certainly increased my embryonic knowledge of circuit joining, being a new PPL.

MJ - my Mum used "over tired" too, and that tradition has continued with my kids, because I remember how much I hated it :)