Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?
-
Read the docs already on this, but still unsure.
Example:
- Receive clearance for overhead approach for runway 36 at x airbase
- I am approaching from north of the airbase
If I were approaching from the south it would be natural to get aligned to runway heading and initiate overhead break, but I am confused how to properly perform the overhead approach when I essentially have to overfly the airport.
- Do I fly a backcourse heading (like 180 in my example) over the runway, or in an offset, or do I enter from somewhere else?
Anyway, I searched around for clues but I am seeing conflicting information. Any guidance on the “correct” pattern entry would be appreciated!
-
@jstnj You mean in BMS or in real life?
-
@lorikeolmin said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
@jstnj You mean in BMS or in real life?
I mean both, hopefully I’d be able to employ a semi-realistic way of doing this in BMS
-
@jstnj If im approaching from the opposite direction to the approach runway, i will make an offset and fly a ‘downwind’ course, to give me a 6 mile spacing when i pass the AB. This gives decent turning room to turn onto final, and setup for the overhead. It also keeps me clear of any traffic in the pattern. In RL, there will be approach plates defining how/where you will enter from different directions, but that a deep dive into navigation, and something like MSFS or xplane is a better platform to learn that.
-
@fish44 said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
@jstnj If im approaching from the opposite direction to the approach runway, i will make an offset and fly a ‘downwind’ course, to give me a 6 mile spacing when i pass the AB. This gives decent turning room to turn onto final, and setup for the overhead. It also keeps me clear of any traffic in the pattern. In RL, there will be approach plates defining how/where you will enter from different directions, but that a deep dive into navigation, and something like MSFS or xplane is a better platform to learn that.
(Un)fortunately I’m well aware of SIDs and STARs. I guess I did not realize that they’d come into play for an overhead approach.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just enter the regular pattern rather than initiating an overhead break?
I guess the fact that the package can land in formation an asset? Sounds like you would need a more complex ATC situation in BMS (which could handle vectors and spacing a little better) in order to have an overhead approach also incorporate specific approaches.
Anyway, thanks for the info!
-
I had asked this same question some days ago and got some straight answers.
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/21335/overhead-questions -
@mj3437 said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
I had asked this same question some days ago and got some straight answers.
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/21335/overhead-questionsah thank you sir…that thread is useful as well
-
I suggest using any of the 3 patterns entry procedures. teardrop parallel or direct. this is what I do
-
@victor031 said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
I suggest using any of the 3 patterns entry procedures. teardrop parallel or direct. this is what I do
But this is for IFR holding, right?
You should not join from downwind, base or final in a VFR situation?
-
@freedomlike The BMS Comms Nav Manual page 22 has a diagram of what would be the four corners of entry for a VFR landing and an extended downwind entry for opposite direction landing.
You are right in stating that the OHA is flown in VFR conditions and not really part of the published instrument approaches.
IRL, most squadrons with the home base have these entry points defined as an easily recognized landmarks (a bridge, bay of water etc.).Duke
-
@freedomlike you are right but I find it fastest and easiest regardless I approach base from anywhere. I know it is not RL procedure. it’s my lazy way to get on the ground. otherwise approach fix (both ends) may also be added in DTC instead of approaching standard stpt.
-
@victor031 said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
@freedomlike you are right but I find it fastest and easiest regardless I approach base from anywhere. I know it is not RL procedure. it’s my lazy way to get on the ground. otherwise approach fix (both ends) may also be added in DTC instead of approaching standard stpt.
would be cool if BMS included basic AIRAC data so that we could use IAFs like that…would make pattern entry a lot more immersive and possibly make it easier for AI traffic too. Only thing it would be harder on is the BMS dev team
-
@jstnj said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
would be cool if BMS included basic AIRAC data so that we could use IAFs like that…would make pattern entry a lot more immersive and possibly make it easier for AI traffic too. Only thing it would be harder on is the BMS dev team
As stated before, page 22 of nav-comm manual give you the entry points for visual approaches used by the ATC and can be used by human pilots also. As real life.
SID’s and STAR’s, are all instrument procedures, not applicable for visual patterns, as well as IAF, which is a specific point of an instrument approach.
So the correct way of doing the visual pattern is to proceed to the correct visual entry point, and join the initial for the rwy in use. For example Kunsan AB (there is a visual chart on the Korea AIP folder), if you are coming from north, and Rwy36 is in use, you either should join entry point E, or entry S, avoiding the overhead pattern area (let’s say 6 nm to the west).Cheers
MRO -
@mro and to add further on it the VFR entry points as outlined in the AFI11-2F-16V3_…
-
@t-c said in Correct Overhead approach pattern when you are entering from wrong direction?:
@mro and to add further on it the VFR entry points as outlined in the AFI11-2F-16V3_…
With VFR Entry points everything make more sense and it is more simple
-
@freedomlike @MRO this is some great context…thanks to you both