Is the overhead join dangerous? IMO, no.
When first learning it, I found the overhead join a great procedure.
After flying some and experiencing things like go-around out of final, fast climbs of powerful and lightly loaded planes, I would re-assess and assume it creats as many problems as it solves in the first place.
For unmanned fields (of which there aren’t that many where I fly…) it may be a preferred method, for fields with some form of operator, I see a net disadvantage.
Mainly due to the extended patterns near the field (potentially after longer, faster, higher flights).
Question – what happens if you simply do a continental downwind join anyway ? Anyone prepared to share an experience ?
ch.ess wrote:
some form of operator,
That’s the problem I’m talking about….there should be ATC or nothing….except maybe a Unicom for someone to pass the wind and runway info, but nothing else
I think the overhead join has no advantage over the conventional one safety wise plus it creates much more unnecessary noise for the people on the ground in the vicinity of an airfield.
europaxs wrote:
I think the overhead join has no advantage over the conventional one safety wise plus it creates much more unnecessary noise for the people on the ground in the vicinity of an airfield.
That’s what I think as well. Additionally, it adds a third dimension to a problem which is difficult enough to solve in two dimensions, namely configuring the aircraft for landing while looking out for traffic.
The real dangerous thing is mixing radio with non-radio traffic I think. The non radio people rely on everybody else looking out as much as they do while the radio equipped ones rely on position reports from all aircraft around them. Personally (if I have a choice) I avoid flying to places which allow non-radio traffic. What kind of traffic pattern they have is less important to me.
And:
but the UK mid-air stats don’t support that.
These again are statistics derived from a very small number (luckily!) of samples and therefore mathematically totally meaningless. One single mid-air in an overhead-joining environment will reverse that statistics…
One single mid-air in an overhead-joining environment will reverse that statistics…
Yes; I agree.
The main thing I don’t like about the OHJ is that you end up with a bunch of planes orbiting at 2000ft AAL, and obviously you can’t see most of them; you can see only those within the forward view arc. So you have to hope everybody is doing a similar speed, and those behind you can see you, which is obviously not always going to be the case.
The OHJ is also used as a “we give up” position by ATC. It is used when the traffic gets too much for the circuit. They are not responsible for whoever is up there. There is no solution to that situation, however. A queue at a petrol station has to spill out backwards onto the road… Personally I nowadays always in that situation leave the area and come back say 15 mins later, but if you are a renter and paying £250/hr…?
And in a few cases (but they are rather noticeable) the OHJ is used as a way of asserting authority by some personality-disorder dick on the ground. Panshanger (now closed) was one such… throw in the RH circuit and you end up with people having to draw a sketch of what exactly that means 
But the basic thing is that if there is no traffic, nobody should be forced to do the OHJ, because (assuming you have the wind and the runway, etc) it is pointless… yet it does sometimes get forced on people, pointlessly. At a non ATC airfield the pilot is at liberty to disregard such an order, but you could get trouble after landing. Anybody who can fly a plan can just join straight in or base leg, and land, from 1000ft AAL or so.
Peter wrote:
The OHJ is also used as a “we give up” position by ATC. It is used when the traffic gets too much for the circuit. They are not responsible for whoever is up there.
Are they really responsible for their traffic? Around here this is only the case where there is a control zone (class D airspace). The typical radio operator of a small airfield is only responsible for quickly dialing 911 (or whatever number will alert the rescue services) once the accident has happened. Apart from that he only passes information to the aircraft. What they do with this information is their responsibility.
What I ask myself regarding OHJs: Who has the right of way? In a typical two-dimensional ICAO style traffic pattern, aircraft which are already in the pattern have the right of way over those joining. So I assume that in an OHJ those who descend from the overhead into the “normal” pattern must give way to those already flying there. But what about aircraft joining a crowded overhead?
Peter wrote:
Personally I nowadays always in that situation leave the area and come back say 15 mins later,…
This is what I would do as well. Luckily the only times I have to join busy visual circuits is when I instruct. If I don’t like the traffic situation I will easily find some exercises the student can perform five miles away from the airfield while we wait for a less busy moment.
AnthonyQ wrote:
the US style 45deg downwind entry
That kind of join is prohibited by the International Rules of the Air as well as by SERA. All turns in “the vicinity” of the airport have to be done to the left (or right, when there is a right hand circuit) and “the vicinity” includes traffic circuit entries.
I’ve never quite made up my mind if that’s a good or bad thing. In any case, most people don’t care.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That kind of join is prohibited by the International Rules of the Air as well as by SERA.
Well that closes that down then…
Classic overhead join would be crossing above the threshold, though.
mh, would you mind expanding on that?
Not sure what a ‘classic’ overhead join is….surely crossing the upwind end of the runway/strip?
