Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building

"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...
Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building


The Overhead Entry is a "standard" procedure, although you don't see 'em
much except from the warbird and/or experimental crowd. I followed a long,
bitter discussion on this topic on the RV-list (a mail list for RV
builders/flyers), and the opinions on using the overhead approach were all
over the board, ranging from "We do it all the time and it is very safe" to
"It is a very dangerous procedure and should never be used.". In the end,
it comes down to common sense. If an overhead entry causes traffic problems
with other aircraft in the pattern, it shouldn't be used. Othewise, it is
fine (assuming you're keeping your eyes out, using common sense, and all the
other caveats that go with flying).

KB

In article ,
"Harry Shin" wrote:

Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building



It sounds as if the formation leader screwed up. He should have been
looking for other traffic and let you go ahead -- even to the point of
taking his formation around for another approach. Nor should he have
done a "diving break," which impairs his view of other traffic.

I regularly fly formation, with overhead breaks to downwind. Rule #1 is
that traffic already in the pattern has the right-of-way. Another thing
we do is announce our intentions: "White Flight one mile initial, left
overhead break," to let others know we are operating.

Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...
|
| So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
| "approved"?

You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like. AIM
recommends entering on the downwind at a 45 degree entry. Traffic on
instrument approaches tend to enter the pattern using either a straight-in
approach or a circling approach. Straight-in approaches are very common for
VFR traffic as well. Either the 45 degree entry or the straight-in gives you
plenty of opportunity to see and be seen.

Entering the pattern by descending into the downwind makes it difficult for
high wing aircraft to see you. If you are a low-wing aircraft, you also have
trouble seeing all the traffic in the pattern. If there were an accident you
would have to explain to the FAA, the families of the people you killed, and
probably some attorneys and a court room why you did not use the recommended
pattern entry. Even if there isn't an accident you risk incurring the wrath
of local pilots who might have had to take evasive action.

Uncontrolled airports tend to be squirrel nests anyway. Nothing you can do
about it except keep a sharp eye out (and maybe arrange a little blanket
party for the most serious offenders). :-)

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

Orval,

First sentence (!), "My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69),
called in on the 45 to downwind..." (and all other legs as well, FWIW)

You formation guys need to pay more attention...

Harry

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.


Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of turns.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news |
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
|
| You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.
|
|
| Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of turns.

True, but compliance and enforcement vary considerably from place to place.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

True, but compliance and enforcement vary considerably from place to
place.


In other words, you're free to violate any regulation that's not enforced.

Harry Shin wrote:

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"?

Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less than safe
due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the descending
aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

The December "Aviation Safety" had an article by Aviation Consumer Editor
Paul Bertorelli on this very subject.

Bob Gardner

"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...
Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building