I got my PPL in 1964 at Thruxton, no radio, no ATC in tower, 8? Jackeroos (poor direct forward vision) and 2 at least Piper Colts, all training. All non radio. Overhead joins were standard.
When I flew in the US, I much referred the 45° downwind join. In 2010, I was re-educated in the US to use a sort of overhead join.
I don’t like overhead joins. One problem with the CAA diagram is varying runway length. Then there’s the “Do Not Overfly” areas. In a low wing, I am descending into my blindspot. 45° level gives me better vision.
PS most joins I do are not overhead. Only at unmanned airstrips, and not always at them.
PPS Signal squares can be dangerous. An elderly pilot I know had an accident last year, landing according to the T, on a downwind approach to a strip, where the signal T had not been moved for years.
PPS During my PPL, an instructor’s seven year old sat her younger siblings on the T, and pushed it round, on a calm day. Chaos at a no-runway grass landing area.
what_next wrote:
Again: “Commonly” in one country only (or maybe, as someone wrote, with South Africa a second one). Students and beginners throughout the rest of the world obviously have not much difficulty orienting themselves during a level join. I still fly with students regularly and never felt there was a need of an “orientation orbit” 2000ft above the airfield. But I agree that when operating from an untowered airfield (which does not exist in my part of the world) a procedure like an overhead join might be a smart thing to do.
I wrote about SA. It is not that uncommon in the USA at uncontrolled airports.
In terms of safety has there ever been a mid air as a direct result of an overhead join?
Does it give AT an opportunity to streamline traffic at busier airports? Would you prefer a few aircraft joining the circuit and a few joining overhead, than all joining the circuit at busier times?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
It is not that uncommon in the USA at uncontrolled airports.
Not quite. What is used in the US is the ‘teardrop entry’, see the diagram in my earlier post. This achieves the same, but with much less potential ‘gotchas’ than the SOJ.
OHJ is no more dangerous (indeed it is more safe) than other methods.
Consider this – if you are being ‘held’ overhead at 2000ft it is because the circuit is full. The chaps in the circuit are rightly sorting themselves out for an approach and their lookout, especially outside the circuit, is going to be reduced. If we now add an aircraft undertaking a US-style 45 degreee mid point join, the onus on seeing, avoiding and sequencing is almost wholly on the joining pilot (interestingly, on a standard LH ICAO circuit this contradicts the standard right of way principle). Alternatively, joining aircraft can all aim towards (not at) the overhead and sequence against other aircraft wishing to join. In this circumstance, the primary (sole?) aim is see-and-avoid. Once we get into the merry-go-round, we can then assess the circuit traffic, which legally has priority, descending and sequencing as necessary. The concept of the OHJ is poorly taught and badly understood. It makes imminent sense.
One last point, most of us hate being cut-up in the circuit; that is predominately a product of direct joins.
What I don’t like more than anything is all the different ways done all different countries.
Now we are in EASA one method should be used for all countries and if EASA equally cared about evidence based safety. They should commission an audit to determine the safest way and then the whole of Europe should do that
Bathman wrote:
Now we are in EASA one method should be used for all countries and if EASA equally cared about evidence based safety. They should commission an audit to determine the safest way and then the whole of Europe should do that
In principle, yes. But then again, there are so few mid-air collisions in the circuit, that statistics derived from them are mathematically meaningless. There is no way to determine which method is safer.
Add to that the very different population density and noise sensitivity between European countries and you will find that there can not be a single solution for all. Around here most traffic patterns are non-standard because of noise considerations. Overhead joins would be impossible in most cases, because the “deadside” is often a no-fly-zone due to built-up areas. We can be happy that they still let us use those airfields at all.
172driver wrote:
What is used in the US is the ‘teardrop entry’, see the diagram in my earlier post. This achieves the same, but with much less potential ‘gotchas’
I’ve certainly never seen anybody doing anything like a UK-style cross-crossing OHJ in the US. I think people would think you were nuts 
@172driver, having looked more closely at your teardrop entry diagram, as copied below, I agree that if approaching from the inactive side of the runway it makes a good deal of sense. I wouldn’t personally cross the airport as low as 1000 ft above the pattern, I might add a little, and I still don’t like crossing the centerline of a runway if it’s not necessary… But that aside, the thing that strikes me is that the procedure can be adapted to any aircraft, turning onto the 45 at the same angle of bank: Going fast? Just go a little further before turning onto your 45 and the radius of your turn is larger to enter the pattern on the same uniform midfield entry 45 track. And of course the procedure eliminates one of two streams of traffic crossing over the runway and the prospect of low traffic crossing at some ill defined location off the upwind end of the runway. In principle, it appears to me to me a much better procedure than the UK-style OHJ. Maybe I’ll try it next time it’s suitable for my need.
what_next wrote:
In my “book” the IFR traffic has no right of way over normal pattern traffic – at least if weather conditions permit visual patterns.
I agree, but there was a somewhat lengthy discussion about the IFR traffic flying a final and thus having right of way.
Silvaire wrote:
My understanding was that the ‘standard’ OHJ track was to cross both ends of the runway
Essenially you cross so you can see both ends of the runway. The initial idea apparently was to be able to take a look at the airfield.
Silvaire wrote:
For a 2000 ft runway and 130 kts it generates a roughly 1.5 or 2 G turn. Given that few are going to do that, I’ve never understood how a fast plane is supposed to follow the same OHJ ground track as a slow plane, or how given a broader track how (with a short runway) you eliminate conflict between the fast OHJ plane and the fast climbing upwind leg plane.
I guess with aircraft that you need to fly with 130 KTS in the pattern, you wouldn’t fly an OHJ in the first place, for all other aircraft you can slow down to traffic pattern speed. And I guess the ground track does vary with speed, same as the traffic pattern ground track. In the Sperling or the Luscombe we both would fly a much closer traffic pattern as we’d do in the Monsun/Capitaine, in a C310, in an AEST or in a Turbo Commander, wouldn’t we?
Please Note: I am not advocating making a OHJ standard procedure, that would be insane with most airfields I fly to. Plus it would be noisy, as what_next has pointed out. but there are situations where it would be a good procedure and it doesn’t hurt to know how to fly it. It isn’t intrinsic unsafe (other than the overhead-teardrop-join). I personally prefer the most direct entry into the land approach, be it direct downwind, direct base or direct final, as noise abatement permits.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I would say that you are approaching for landing already when you are entering the traffic circuit.
Well, ICAO defines the approach as “Visual Flight Rules (VFR): From the point of VFR pattern entry, or 1,000 feet above the runway elevation, to the beginning of the landing flare”. So I would argue that the turn into the pattern is a turn entering the approach, but not flying an approach. Anyway, the intent of the regulation is to define a standard traffic pattern direction and not to prohibit sensible pattern entries. If you join the pattern in downwind 45°, you should make a 45° turn to the right and not a 315° turn to the left. That would be insane, unsafe, unneccesary and could not be the intent of the regulation.
Ben wrote:
Once overhead I made my call just to see #3 at my 10 o’clock passing overhead at no more than 10m away, maybe even less.
Same happens all the time with any reporting point or pattern entry points. There is no causality between wrong position reports and flying a certain traffic pattern style.
Bathman wrote:
Now we are in EASA one method should be used for all countries and if EASA equally cared about evidence based safety. They should commission an audit to determine the safest way and then the whole of Europe should do that
No, they should not, because what works at one airfield may not work at another. If you declare a standard overhead-teardrop-join you get in conflict with winch launches, skydivers, if you declare a classic ohj standard you’d get in conflict with gliders, or aerobatics, some airfields have so extensive gliding going on (EDLO for instance, or EDLB) that any overflying the airfield would be insane. To pick a right procedure (usually there is more than one right way to approach an airfield) for the current situation is called airmenship and that works quite well.
Silvaire wrote:
And of course the procedure eliminates one of two streams of traffic crossing over the runway and the prospect of low traffic crossing at some ill defined location off the upwind end of the runway.
Well, you have to take care of winch cables and skydivers using this setup. Plus, you cannot observe the traffic in the pattern when flying outbound, nor keep the airfield in sight. So you gain little over an extended straight final or a direct join into the crosswind leg. Please note, that flying the classic ohj you never cross the pattern at pattern altitude, at least not on normal sized European airfields.
At my home airfield, your depicted join would be much discouraged during glider operating hours. A classic OHJ would be even more discouraged, during all times (mainly due to noise). If coming from the “inactive” side you are “supposed” to enter the long final for runway 29 or enter the pattern at the crosswind leg. We don’t have an “official pattern”, but we rather expect some basic airmenship and usually it works exceptionally well.
mh
Well, you have to take care of winch cables and skydivers using this setup.
The OHJ is prohibited at many UK airfields, for example due to proximity to CAS, noise abatement or glider/para-dropping activity.
It is a quirky UK thing, similar to warm, flat beer, perfectly safe in moderation but if real ale, unpasteurised, may lead to flatulence.
RobertL18C wrote:
It is a quirky UK thing, similar to warm, flat beer, perfectly safe in moderation
Beer shouldn’t be warm – this is a huge misconception – it should be cellar cool. Not chilled, like cheap lager (which is chilled so you don’t taste anything except the CO2), but cellar cool.
