lots of warbirds do the carrier break when landing at airports.

for the discussion, assume you are approaching the airport at 500 AGL or greater, and speeds </= 250kts.

is it a legal maneuver?

I believe the term is "overhead break".

Legal? I don't recall anything in the FAR which specifically prohibits it.

Smart? Safe? That's a whole different questions with lots of "it depends".

The military has waivers for speeds in the civilian airport environment. Don't know that those apply to a private operator absent Airshow airspace if someone chose to make your life difficult.

Uncontrolled airport is just that, uncontrolled.

You *can* do any pattern entry or approach you feel like doing.
Doesn't mean you should, but you can, traffic dependent IMO

As long as It's not busy I say have fun with it. I love doing short approaches or an overhead or whatever else strikes my fancy at the time when no one is around. It makes you a better pilot to switch up the usual boring old pattern from time to time.

There are certain places where your speed must be 200 Knots or less (Class C, or D airspace, below the shelf of class B within 4 NM, below 2,500', blah, blah, blah... 91.117) but I see nowhere that the maneuver itself is addressed any more or less than any other pattern entry. It is not the canned, FAA recommended 45º entry, but AFAIK it's as valid as a straight in. Don't cause a problem that invokes 91.13 and all's good.

I get the speeds- that's obvious.

i was asking more from the standpoint of the dynamics of it (ie., if you exceed 60' angle of bank in the turn, high rate of turn, etc). could it ever be called "careless and reckless?"

Ohhhh...

Maybe.

The long ago bank and pitch limits that defined aerobatic flight have been replaced with the generic "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

This leaves violation of 91.303 up to the observer. 91.13 almost always follows another violation, so that's the order that I'd expect it to occur.

If I had an axe to grind with the pilot I'd say that the break involved an abrupt change in the aircraft's attitude, as well as an attitude itself that was not necessary for normal flight. At that point unless you are in Class G airspace above 1500' with a parachute on you're busted.

The overhead approach is described in AC 90-66C Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations.



The overhead maneuver is also an option at towered airports; see 3−10−12. OVERHEAD MANEUVER in Air Traffic Control (JO 7110.65).

As others have noted, absent waivers, the usual airspeed restrictions apply. And § 91.303 Aerobatic flight may also be a consideration. That rule defines aerobatic flight as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

The overhead approach doesn't require an abrupt, aggressive break. You can fly from the initial point and make the 180-degree turn using a normal, smooth bank. The procedure is especially useful when bringing a formation flight into an airport, and it can be a good option when flying aerobatic aircraft such as an Extra or Pitts.

Here's what AC-90-66C has to say about legality:

Para 8.2.1: The FAA does not regulate traffic pattern entry, only traffic pattern flow.


So... legal? It's not illegal. But it also doesn't fit with the recommended traffic pattern entries.



...which is discouraged.

Further, to mitigate the risk of a midair collision at a non-towered airport in other than instrument conditions, the FAA does not recommend that the pilot execute a straight-in approach for landing, when there are other aircraft in the traffic pattern.


https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 90-66C.pdf

That label used to ruffle the feathers of one of our Ops Inspectors. “The heck it’s uncontrolled. It’s controlled by the regulations! It’s non-towered!” It’s kind of like the “pilot license” vs “pilot certificate” thing.

Administrative law and

It’s the FAA so they have unconstitutional “rules” like 91.13

So the question isn’t about if it’s “legal”, there is no such thing with administrative law, it all depends on that day with the mood of the fed it gets seen or reported to, if they FEEL like it was legal it was legal, if not it wasn’t

That label used to ruffle the feathers of one of our Ops Inspectors. “The heck it’s uncontrolled. It’s controlled by the regulations! It’s non-towered!” It’s kind of like the “pilot license” vs “pilot certificate” thing.

FAR 91.13 = "Because I said so."

Remember when we fought a war over that?

In 1776 as I recall.

Don't get me started.

I’m curious what prompts the question.

Was there a “Situation”?

We (LJ35/36) regularly fly formation missions and weather permitting will do an overhead break returning to land at both civilian and military airports.

Basically we run in at 250 IAS and 1500’ or 2000’ , at the point assigned by tower lead pulls power to idle and cranks in a 45-60 degree bank (left or right as specified) configuring as speed bleeds off. #2 does same 5 seconds after lead. Done right, #2 ends up in trail of lead spaced right for landing.
After touch down and slowed lead leaves centerline for cold (exit) side of runway.
If #2 needed to go around, this keeps lead out of the way.

They are fun to do and minimize the airport time required to get multiple airplanes on the ground.

When lead checks in with approach we request an overhead and tower gives permission as well as where and in which direction the break will occur.

I assume we are legal, as ATC gives approval for the maneuver. If other traffic is an issue we sometimes get an extended downwind and occasionally ATC requests a go around for #2.