ATC can't waive the 200 KIAS speed limit in Class D (§ 91.117 Aircraft speed); see, e.g., the Duncan Letter (2015) which deals with a question about speeds around Class B airspace. But if you have a waiver from your local FSDO to operate as described, then you're legal.

The only part above I'd question is the 500' AGL. I typically fly the break (at a non airshow airport) at 800' or so, and pitch into around a 60 degree bank to bleed off speed before dropping the gear and flaps in a T28.

Legal at 800' AGL and 60 degree bank? Absolutely. My home drome is under the Bravo so I do keep it at 200kts indicated or below.

500' and more than 60 degrees? Legal, sure, but someone might ding you for careless and reckless just for altitude.

The overhead break is by far the most efficient and safest way to get a formation of planes on the deck. I also believe - and teach - that it's a safe maneuver for warbirds since it keeps you close to the airport and is close to "high key". However, if you're flying it at 500' then it becomes harder to win the later argument.

Frankly, I don't really want to be flying the 45 degree pattern entry chasing a pile of students in 172s. I can fit into the pattern easier/better by flying the break.

Robert

ATC at TYS allows it when the local P51 makes its approach. Also, if you ask for the "option" in the pattern you can do a touch and go, low approach, stop and go, full stop ect; I do not see the overhead break as any different than a low approach.

Our DVT EAA chapter designed an LOA approach for our folks which gives us a local numbered individual callsign and specific arrival procedure (The “Whiskey One Arrival”) with an Overhead break to land.

So i can call in “Rat21 10 North Whiskey One” and the Atis, runway, flow is all pre-agreed.

Tower loves it. Usually they offer back: “Rat21 cleared WhiskeyOne, Altitude your discretion, early turn approved… keep it tight you’re #1- CTL”.

It’s fun seeing them take pictures from the tower as you round the corner.

Tj

The biggest issue I’ve found with the overhead pattern at civil airports is unfamiliar ATC. Last winter I went VFR down to PBI on a local, I entered their airspace doing 250 KIAS and accelerated to 300 when approved for the overhead. The tower controller clearly didn’t expect that pacing and cleared an Airbus for takeoff as I was in the break, causing a go-around for me.

For any Fed reading this, this was not in a civil aircraft.

I’m curious what prompts the question.

Was there a “Situation”?

When I went for my ride in a P-51 out of Livermore in May of 1986, Bob Love informed the tower that he would do an overhead break while on a straight-in approach. His signature arrival. Pulled plenty of Gs (guessing 4 or so). I have a video of it.

Dan

The definition of aerobatic flight does not include specific bank or pitch values. The 60 degrees of bank number, for example, is in the regulation about parachutes.

As noted earlier in this thread, aerobatic flight is defined in 91.303 and “…means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

It's THE safest and most expeditious way to enter the traffic pattern. I'm not surprised the FAA is wary of endorsing it, but no, it is not illegal. It is basically a glorified upwind entry that, by its very nature, provides altitude deconfliction of entering aircraft from pattern aircraft (on a descending base leg) during entry, provides maximum opportunity for identification of interval on downwind and allows for a departure and re-entry if the pattern is too strung-out. There is no pattern entry that is more safe or efficient - certainly not this "right teardrop for a left downwind" nonsense.

Curious what type of aircraft

The OP made reference to a "carrier break". In my ATC experience, military pilots requesting such wanted fast and low, much lower than 500' for the pitch up/out. The other overhead requests **I** made sure to specify an altitude, direction of break, and where to break. (approach end, midfield, departure end.) I worked a lot of military early in my career, so was quite used to making things work. There was a recent incident at AUS where I *suspect*, but do not know, that the controller was NOT all that familiar, and the inbound F18 descended on top of a Citation below on final causing a problem.

Civilian overheads were pretty rare when/where I worked. But they DO cause issues at non-towered fields where the somewhat busy fly-in BBQ pattern gets blown up by a couple of RVs deciding to do their own thing, and no one else knows what that is.

Just don't.

If the pattern is empty, no one cares, and I've seen plenty of Pitts/Extras/etc fly a nice, tight 180 curve from downwind and land just fine, we did it in the Starduster. Besides, I've worked Marine F4s doing overheads so, anything less than 500 kts and 140 decibels is unimpressive.

I think the overhead is much safer (and expeditious) than a straight in approach. I can break to follow anyone on downwind, or if the pattern is empty, break at the numbers and be on deck quick. I use it all the time at my home airport in the A36. Luckily we are right next to the west coast navy jet base, so everyone on CTAF understands what you are doing.

The OA also provides a clear view of the wind sock - traffic circle. It "was' the preferred entry in Canada. Not sure if thats still true.

I learned in a moderate traffic airport and the instructors were off duty Navy; so there's no telling how many bad habits I picked up . I will say, its the best way to enter, slow and descend at the same time.

All I know is they all get out of my way when I use it --Cpt. Ron

===

"Abrupt" and similar such adjectives are in the eye of the beholder.

Is that the RV pilot's fault? Or the other pilots?



Doing them over land and breaking after the numbers is unimpressive. It's still the best way to enter the pattern.

Yep. One RV is fine. Two or more is almost always a cluster f*. The contortions these guys go thru to do an overhead because everybody knows an overhead is more efficient and safer is comical.