Views? The overhead join for an unfamiliar airfield. Remote field, is in my view, a must. Not only for wind direction purposes. Debris, livestock, people, trees, things not shown on the map etc. I actually favour the o/head join for most fields, unless very familiar. Generally it is a lively talking point with pilots about the , ‘correct’ way to do it.
I actually favour the o/head join for most fields, unless very familiar.
I certainly don’t. I get doing one at an uncontrolled farm strip. Otherwise they are a UK anachronism.
Sure, but I thought we were only talking about unmanned strips in this thread…
@ pmh: chapeau for your good eyesight! 
6-million dollar man?
Ditto….
Don’t worry too much Rhino. If the wind is really too much, you’ll notice on final. As said, if you can hold final, you can land. If not, go elsewhere, but I’d be surprised. You may find that you build some really worthwhile confidence.
Pay really close attention as you near your destination: Flags? Smoke? Wind indicators on a body of water?
The force, use the force Luke… I mean Rhino!
Otherwise they are a UK anachronism.
They’re not a UK thing. They are recommended in Sweden as well. I always do overhead joins at uncontrolled fields — unless possibly when arriving downwind with a known wind direction and the field isn’t too busy. In that case I should get a good view of the field anyway.
Certainly not all pilots do this, but frankly most PPLs (myself included, certainly) are sloppy with something.
An “anachronism”… If there was a point in making them 30 years (say) years ago, why should there not be a point in making them today?
Not only UK – both Switzerland and France teach “circuit+500ft” overhead joins. Switzerland is a standard descending turn into downwind, France is a 270 turn.
huv: A pilot was fined for landing at a temporarily closed airfield – Work in Progress on the runway, as I recall. It was NOTAM’ed and the pilot had not checked notams before flight. I guess not everyone checks notams before every flight. But the closure was also marked with X’es on the runway or in the signal square. Approaching straight in, the pilot did not see any X’es until after landing. From above they would have been easy to spot.
If you are referring to this incident here: Link I strongly doubt that anybody was fined over it. It was a visual approach to an airport (Katovice) flown with an airliner. These things stopped doing overhead joins ca. 1925 
And regarding the original question: although we don’t do ”standard overhead joins” in most parts of the world, it is certainly a good idea to overfly an untowered airfield before deciding on the landing direction and wether or not to land there at all. How one does this overflight is entirely upon one’s own discretion, but it will certainly be smart not to do it at pattern altitude. I think – weather and airspace permitting – that I would overfly the runway at right angles and join downwind in the direction the windsock points to. Regarding training and windsocks: It is not really emphasised during training because we are only allowed to fly from airfields with a ground radio operator who will always provide you with a good wind reading, much better than any windsock. Personally, I never look (and never looked) at it and when instructing, if I don’t forget it, I will point my finger towards one and tell the student: ”Look! This is a windsock. It can tell you the wind direction with a precision of +/- 45 degrees and the wind speed at +/- 10 knots. Make sure you don’t run it over because then we will have to rely on what the radio man or the screen onboard our aeoplane tells us."
I am fine with overflying an untowered field with a join to downwind or whatever makes sense. It is the standard overhead join I find strange particularly at towered fields with disparate aircraft types.
It is the standard overhead join I find strange particularly at towered fields with disparate aircraft types.
Certainly! I had a look at the schematic on the CAA website once and decided for myself, that I will never do that because of the high collision risk caused by traffic in three dimensions instead of the usual two. I would rather fly to a controlled airfield instead.
