BeechTalk - BT - Is the overhead break an illegal maneuver?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 17:03

How much safer and expeditious the overhead break might be is irrelevant to the original question and actual situation. How the FAA would look upon the maneuver is the question, and I don't think that we'll really know until and unless someone gets violated while doing one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 17:50

There is one other reason to do the overhead break. In the combat zone it allowed us to keep speed up and a bit higher altitude until we were over the air base. There were lots of bad guys right outside the fence who would love to have a slow-moving target flying a downwind.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 17:54

Username Protected wrote:

There is one other reason to do the overhead break. In the combat zone it allowed us to keep speed up and a bit higher altitude until we were over the air base. There were lots of bad guys right outside the fence who would love to have a slow-moving target flying a downwind.

Like Chicago or Atlanta?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 19:07

Overheads have been going on for years and years and years. There's precedent and it's honestly a better way to manage energy than what most flight schools do. Most people knocking it have never done it in a formation or in anything fast - or energy management doesn't normally concern them.

On the speed restriction, there are more than a few aircraft (military and ex-military type) that call for higher speeds (such as 300, 330, 350, etc) as normal, safe flying airspeeds. 99% of the controllers I've ever dealt with have been exceptionally accommodating.

As far as safety goes at say an un-towered field, it's imperative the flight lead understands where any conflicts could be for his formation in the pattern. Most of the time, it's easy to delay a break until abeam the downwind traffic or simply carry straight through. It is unacceptable to break without situational awareness on downwind conflicts.

If GA did overheads as the standard (including the tight base to final turn), the pattern would be very efficient and departures would not have to wait so long.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 19:28

Username Protected wrote:

In my ATC experience, military pilots requesting such wanted fast and low, much lower than 500' for the pitch up/out.

The 'carrier break' would usually be a 5 mile initial, 800' AGL, differing speeds, level break to downwind, descending to a 600' AGL pattern before coming off the 180 deg point for the final. None of that pop-up break stuff.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 19:33

Username Protected wrote:

There is one other reason to do the overhead break. In the combat zone it allowed us to keep speed up and a bit higher altitude until we were over the air base. There were lots of bad guys right outside the fence who would love to have a slow-moving target flying a downwind.

Like Chicago or Atlanta?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2023, 20:43

local Fight school likes 360s for spacing. So picture two trainers with students coming into the pattern to enter downwind behind another established in the pattern on downwind (slow). The other two announce and perform independent right 360s for spacing while all losing sight of each other and the slower traffic during their 360. I figure this is much worse than any overhead breaks.

If I'm coming into a busy pattern I just extend my normal downwind a bit with the Kingair staying a bit wide of the slower pattern trainers. Then turn base when it's a clear shot announcing my intentions all the way.

Keeps traffic in sight and keeps me stable and predictable not cutting across belly to traffic established on the downwind.

Towered airport formation break is cool. Especially if it's military fighters / Fighter type warbirds.
Uncontrolled airport with light piston GA airplanes. not really needed. Just reason to yank and bank low for all to see. Same as the local acro guys belt check before heading to the box. Low inverted is not really a place to find out the belts are loose. Just an excuse to fly low inverted over the airport.

I get it, It's fun.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 01:05

Fly into class D airports all the time, radio call goes something like this.

Tower, flight of 2 L-39s requesting the initial at two five zero knots, with information.

Report the initial, approved as requested.

Works great, tower enjoys the show.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 02:01

Username Protected wrote:

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

One of these days I’d love to go for a ride. :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 11:08

Username Protected wrote:

I’d love to see a single example of someone being violated - or even questioned by the FAA -for performing the overhead break as described in the AIM or their squadron SOP. :coffee:

Flying into Tyndall AFB for a missile shoot with my wingman, the Air Force tower cleared us for “cleared for the overhead, airspeed and altitude your discretion.”

“Ummm… what do you mean by that?” Since I was a young junior officer, and I’d never heard that before.

“Don’t hit anything.”

We did not hit anything, but, as my CO later “explained,” apparently “airspeed your discretion” did not include the transonic thump. :hide:

You do know I’m obviously not talking about government workers flying right ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 13:48

Username Protected wrote:

You do know I’m obviously not talking about government workers flying right ?

Sure. That's why I referenced the Airman's Information Manual AND Squadron SOP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 13:52

Username Protected wrote:

You do know I’m obviously not talking about government workers flying right ?

Sure. That's why I referenced the Airman's Information Manual AND Squadron SOP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 13:57

Username Protected wrote:

AIM isn’t regulatory, nor would the SOPs, not that I’d wager most of the folks doing the overhead breaks have a squad SOP :scratch:

I’d wager it’s just a matter of if the ASI feels like 91.13ing you

As I said, please find me one person who has EVER been hassled by the FAA for performing an overhead break IAW the AIM.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 15:32

Username Protected wrote:

AIM isn’t regulatory, nor would the SOPs, not that I’d wager most of the folks doing the overhead breaks have a squad SOP :scratch:

I’d wager it’s just a matter of if the ASI feels like 91.13ing you

As I said, please find me one person who has EVER been hassled by the FAA for performing an overhead break IAW the AIM.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2023, 15:34

Back to the original question…. Is the overhead break illegal?

I hope not. Otherwise I’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Any time I’m flying something fun (T-6, Marchetti 260, or L39) the tower at our Class C airport prompts us and they ask us if we want it.

I always thought we could operate in the Class C at 250 KIAS if we had their permission. However, a prior post in this thread has me reconsidering that. Too bad.

Z.