X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:39:13 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [204.13.112.10] (HELO mail1.hometel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7f) with ESMTPS id 957142 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:08:17 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.13.112.10; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: (qmail 60402 invoked by uid 90); 28 Jan 2006 14:20:29 -0000 Received: from dsl-stj-204-13-118-2.stj.hometel.com (HELO MARKNLISA) (204.13.118.2) by mail.hometel.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2006 14:20:29 -0000 From: "Mark & Lisa" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" , "Barry Hancock" Subject: RE: Runway checks, passes, flybys X-Original-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:55 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01C623E1.F1B14C20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C623E1.F1B14C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Listers, The overhead approach isn't inherently unsafe. It's a tool; like all tools, it's only unsafe when improperly used, or without taking proper precautions. In my mind, the major concern when considering the use of an overhead is this: MOST "non-military" pilots (not controllers) have no idea what it is. To me, the unexpected is dangerous in many situations--around other people, other cars on the highway and most certainly around other aircraft. If an individual (non-military type) approaching a non-towered airport is flying an aircraft not equipped with a radio he/she will "know" just where to look for other traffic so they can fit in--unless the other traffic is doing something unexpected. Pilots in other radio-equipped aircraft (that aren't equipped with an ex-military pilot) will be very confused by the terminology and procedures of the overhead; consider the recent story posted here about the CFI that chastised one Lister for executing an overhead. I've long since given up on my 20-15 vision as my only savior in the pattern. Too many times have I completely missed seeing other aircraft--even aircraft reporting their position on the radio. Instead, in addition to my eyes, I rely on other pilots utilizing a good traffic scan, the radio to advise similarly-equipped aircraft and following a known and accepted procedure designed to help me fit in to the expected traffic flow as much as possible. Eliminating any of these elements increases the likelihood of an uplanned encounter of the worst kind. I've done overhead approaches at my own (3K6) airport and I can tell you they are FUN! It IS a great way to get the aircraft slowed and on the ground as quickly as possible (and as a bonus you can avoid any manpad-equipped enemy in the area, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). On the other hand, I live at this particular airport and I'm intimately familiar with traffic flows in the area. Even still, I've never attempted an overhead without an advisory from Unicom and a circuit around the pattern to look for other traffic. The chance of descending into another aircraft is very real with a low-wing aircraft -- especially when you're overtaking. Perhaps those who wish to regularly fly overhead approaches should contact AOPA and see if they are willing to develop an on-line training program to educate pilots about overhead approaches (maybe as part of a larger refresher lesson on non-towered airport operations). You might attend your local airport safety meeting and brief pilots on overhead pattern operations--be sure to discuss advantages and disadvantages. Talk about overheads with others when you're hanging around the FBO. AOPA's Air Safety Foundation offers kits for anyone wishing to conduct a safety seminar. Schedule a seminar in your area and be sure to discuss overheads. Incidently, my Legacy FG isn't airborne yet, I'm still using my Grumman Traveler to terrorize the skies. I'm sure it's much easier to "fit in" to the pattern with the Traveler that it will be with the Legacy. But when the time comes, I'll accept that my aircraft has very different operating parameters from most others in the pattern, and take responsibility to avoid interfering with the "normal" flow. I don't think the overhead approach is inherently unsafe, but like everything else, there are tradeoffs. Conduct your operations with a risk vs reward attitude, and always know "why" you're doing what you're doing. Fly safely, Mark & Lisa Sletten Legacy FG N828LM http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com -----Original Message----- From: Barry Hancock [mailto:sportform@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 23:09 Subject: Runway checks, passes, flybys I'm not trying to instigate debate...just pointing out that to characterize the "overhead" as somehow unrecognized, unsafe, or reckless is not between the foul poles.... ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C623E1.F1B14C20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Listers,
 
The = overhead=20 approach isn't inherently unsafe.  It's a tool; like all tools, = it's only=20 unsafe when improperly used, or without taking proper precautions.  = In my=20 mind, the major concern when considering the use of an overhead is = this:=20 MOST "non-military" pilots (not controllers) have no idea what it=20 is.
 
To me, = the=20 unexpected is dangerous in many situations--around other people, other = cars on=20 the highway and most certainly around other aircraft.  If an = individual=20 (non-military type) approaching a non-towered airport is flying an = aircraft not=20 equipped with a radio he/she will "know" just where to look for other = traffic so=20 they can fit in--unless the other traffic is doing something = unexpected. =20 Pilots in other radio-equipped aircraft (that aren't equipped with an=20 ex-military pilot) will be very confused by the terminology and = procedures of=20 the overhead; consider the recent story posted here about the CFI that = chastised=20 one Lister for executing an overhead.
 
I've = long since=20 given up on my 20-15 vision as my only savior in the pattern.  Too = many=20 times have I completely missed seeing other aircraft--even aircraft = reporting=20 their position on the radio.  Instead, in addition to my eyes, I = rely on=20 other pilots utilizing a good traffic scan, the radio to advise=20 similarly-equipped aircraft and following a known and accepted procedure = designed to help me fit in to the expected traffic flow as much as=20 possible.  Eliminating any of these elements increases the = likelihood of an=20 uplanned encounter of the worst kind.
 
I've = done overhead=20 approaches at my own (3K6) airport and I can tell you they are = FUN!  It IS=20 a great way to get the aircraft slowed and on the ground as quickly as = possible=20 (and as a bonus you can avoid any manpad-equipped enemy in the = area,=20 wink-wink, nudge-nudge). On the other hand, I live at this = particular=20 airport and I'm intimately familiar with traffic flows in the = area.  Even=20 still, I've never attempted an overhead without an advisory from Unicom = and a=20 circuit around the pattern to look for other traffic.  The chance = of=20 descending into another aircraft is very real with a low-wing aircraft = --=20 especially when you're overtaking.
 
Perhaps those who=20 wish to regularly fly overhead approaches should contact AOPA and see if = they=20 are willing to develop an on-line training program to educate pilots = about=20 overhead approaches (maybe as part of a larger refresher lesson on = non-towered=20 airport operations).  You might attend your local airport safety = meeting=20 and brief pilots on overhead pattern operations--be sure to discuss = advantages and disadvantages.  Talk about overheads with others = when you're=20 hanging around the FBO.  AOPA's Air Safety Foundation offers kits = for=20 anyone wishing to conduct a safety seminar.  Schedule a seminar in = your=20 area and be sure to discuss overheads.
 
Incidently, my=20 Legacy FG isn't airborne yet, I'm still using my Grumman Traveler to = terrorize=20 the skies.  I'm sure it's much easier to "fit in" to the pattern = with the=20 Traveler that it will be with the Legacy.  But when the time comes, = I'll=20 accept that my aircraft has very different operating parameters from = most others=20 in the pattern, and take responsibility to avoid interfering with the = "normal"=20 flow. 
 
I = don't think the=20 overhead approach is inherently unsafe, but like everything else, there = are=20 tradeoffs.  Conduct your operations with a risk vs reward attitude, = and=20 always know "why" you're doing what you're doing.
 
Fly=20 safely,

Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com =

 
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Barry Hancock [mailto:sportform@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, January = 27,=20 2006 23:09
Subject: Runway checks, passes,=20 flybys

I'm=20 not trying to instigate debate...just pointing out that to = characterize the=20 "overhead" as somehow unrecognized, unsafe, or reckless is not between = the=20 foul poles....
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C623E1.F1B14C20--