Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868570
Personally I don't really understand why the Overhead Join excites such passions. The fact of the matter is that there is no perfectly safe/foolproof way of entering a circuit without the risk of inconveniencing people who are already in the circuit, or worse. The OHJ is no worse an option than the others.

What is important, however, is that when it is carried out it is carried out correctly. It is very disconcerting seeing a visitor executing their own version of an OHJ and then trying to work out what he's going to do next. The reason for a procedure is that if everyone follows it then everyone knows what to expect of everyone else.

I think that the wider problem is that of differing performance levels in the circuit and, regretably, of poor airmanship in the circuit - all of which can be exacerbated by 'avoid' areas. Some airfields successfully operate 'microlight' and GA circuits operating in a concentric pattern. I don't see anything wrong with that in principle and it's safer, in my view, that either 1) obliging faster aeroplane to wallow about at low-speed; or 2) gradually expanding the circuit as everyone extends the legs for spacing.

As a minor beef, personally I would stop using the term Microlight Circuit. It's actually a Low-Performance Circuit; the category of aeroplane is irrelevant. In my Tiger Moth (which certainly ain't a microlight) I'm much happier in the smaller/lower circuit if there is one. And there are plenty of microlights that zip along happily in the big-boys circuit.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868583
David Wood wrote:What is important, however, is that when it is carried out it is carried out correctly. It is very disconcerting seeing a visitor executing their own version of an OHJ and then trying to work out what he's going to do next. The reason for a procedure is that if everyone follows it then everyone knows what to expect of everyone else.

It would be a good start towards achieving this objective if instructors consistently taught students to do it properly. It's not even as if it's more difficult than doing it wrong.
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868621
Some airfields successfully operate 'microlight' and GA circuits operating in a concentric pattern. I don't see anything wrong with that in principle <snip>


I'm afraid I do. I think having two circuits for one runway is a recipe for one aircraft landing on top of another, especially where there is no ATC. I have on one occasion had to go around six times (including therefore five circuits and an extra twenty minutes in the air) whilst attempting to land due to "microlight" aircraft cutting in front of me on final from the "other" circuit. I now refuse to visit the airfield concerned.
#1868636
T67M wrote:I have on one occasion had to go around six times (including therefore five circuits and an extra twenty minutes in the air) whilst attempting to land due to "microlight" aircraft cutting in front of me on final from the "other" circuit. I now refuse to visit the airfield concerned.


If an aeroplane on the inner circuit ended up in front of you on final it was in front of you in the circuit (allowing for the difference in speeds and distance travelled in the two different circuits). It didn't cut in front of you. You are supposed to be able to judge where the other circuit traffic will be. Clearly, by your own admission, you need to get better at doing that - if you don't want to put in the extra effort then probably it is best that you keep away.
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868644
I called final at about 1nm from the threshold 10-15 seconds before the microlights. Plural. There were three, or maybe four of them in "their" circuit, and three other aircraft in the "normal" circuit. I think we had about 20 go arounds in total between us, all from the "normal" aircraft. I talked to one of the other pilots afterwards, who was based at the airfield, and he said it was pretty normal for that to happen.

I also note with hindsight that this thread has drifted a long way from the original topic, in part my fault, and the tone of some replies is most definitely not appropriate for the Student Pilot forum.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873226
Human Factor wrote:
Often I'll slow down to 65 knots or less downwind, which gives them time.

Please don’t. We Nanchang drivers fly the circuit at 170kmh (91kts) and can’t go much slower safely.

David Wood wrote:Some airfields successfully operate 'microlight' and GA circuits operating in a concentric pattern. I don't see anything wrong with that in principle

T67M wrote:. I think having two circuits for one runway is a recipe for one aircraft landing on top of another,


I thought that the original idea was that fast aeroplanes do bigger circuits than slow aeroplanes... and this extended to microlights (of yore, not the modern supaships) doing slightly slower lower circuits too...
This whole line of thinking appears to have been corrupted by the desire to actually have every aeroplane follow "a circuit line on the map" for whatever reason, one for aeroplanes and one for microlights, even if some of the aeroplanes are slower than the microlights!!

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873231
@TopCat I take it that you've not done a lot of non-UK GA flying then.

The OHJ is a UK phenomenon unlikely to br encountered elsewhere.

It is important for students to have a good understanding of it, as there are places where it is preferred and mandated.

The roundabout in the sky method is IMO the best way to understand, learn and apply it, whereby for several locations variations on thatbtheme are required

I personally don't like it for a host of well rehearsed reasons* but that is in the student forum neither here nor there.

*available on request or by looking at most OHJ posts on the forums :twisted:
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873336
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:@TopCat I take it that you've not done a lot of non-UK GA flying then.

No, very little. About 40 hours in the the USA a long time ago and a few places in France but that's all. Compared with many here my touring experience is negligible but I did know that the OHJ is a UK thing.

Never understood why people don't like it.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873340
Never understood why people don't like it.


Because it is UK only and is an anachronism. Join overhead to look at the signal square and then descend to join the circuit. We've invented radio since then so a down wind join at 45 degrees is now more sensible IMHO
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873342
TopCat wrote:Never understood why people don't like it.


OK, go on then....

1. It is poorly understood by many people despite it, apparently, being simple. Repeat threads on it demonstrate this, and that is not only by students but also by qualified pilots.

Demonstrated by the number and lengths of threads, and the observations at any aerodrome where it is implemented;

2. It is poorly implemented in every day flying practise, see above and again at any aerodrome;

3. It creates a honey pot above the airfield leading to the potential of a mid air collision;

4. It requires turning in a potentially busy piece of airspace (see 3) where people are trying to work out what they need to do; the turning reducing the pilots view out of the window blanketed by pieces of wings;

5. It is less efficient than any other form of joining, as time required and that extra time is spent in the busiest bit of airspace of the flight, near the aerodrome - which is where the most mid air collisions happen statistically.

6. It is not something non-Brit pilots are familiar with making them joining a more difficult and non-standard thing.

That is why I don't like it.

For sure I can do it and will do it at those places where it is required such as White Waltham and Old Warden, but out of choice. Nope.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873345
johnm wrote:
Never understood why people don't like it.


Because it is UK only and is an anachronism. Join overhead to look at the signal square and then descend to join the circuit. We've invented radio since then

But none of the above is a reason why
a down wind join at 45 degrees is now more sensible IMHO

... so it doesn't really explain anything.

I fly OHJs all the time – wherever possible in fact – and I don't remember the last time I looked at a signal square. It's got nothing to do with radio - I join overhead because it allows me to look at the runway, any obstructions, trees etc, and at other aircraft in the circuit, before I'm potentially in conflict with them.

I don't see how you can get the same situational awareness with the 45° downwind join (or the straight one, for that matter), which also requires descent to circuit height further away from the airfield, with its inevitable greater noise footprint.

Aircraft joining overhead should all be doing so at the same height, so spotting other traffic also joining overhead is much easier than if they are all descending into the downwind from different directions and at different rates of descent.

Also, at any airfield in the UK with an ATZ, the 45° downwind join is technically illegal, unless the downwind leg is outside the ATZ, which would be ridiculously wide. This is because the turn from the 45° line to the downwind is by definition in the opposite direction to the circuit.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873349
I have been known to do an overhead join and I learned at White Waltham so was well practiced, but I still find them more useless than a really useless thing in terms of situational awareness. Sequencing traffic onto downwind has always made more sense to me and the 45 degree angle allows a check for conflict with crosswind traffic.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8