RPAR...lol

[Shagster]

When the situation was required, PAR 2000 at MPA was used without labels employing the WTI for GP position information, does anyone have an answer as to why we can't employ RPAR this way?....Is it just label jump that is the problem?......Can we have CR62 back please:D

[Lon More]

?????

Might be better in the NATS forum

[LXGB]

Why the NATS forum? It's M.O.D. kit.

I recently resurrected a thread on the Mil Aircrew forum about it.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117808&perpage=15&pagenumber=1


Any chance PPRUNE Mods could merge the 2 threads?


Cheers,
LXGB

[Shagster]

Maybe it answers the question to the thread on creating a Mil ATC topic !! One of our major issues at the mo and nobody appears to have a view :confused:

[jack-oh]

As far as I am aware, the RPAR fix will be rolled out this summer and therefore hopefully the problem will go away. However, the reason that you have to select the ac contact that you are going to provide a talkdown to is fairly simple. When you select the ac the system allocates extra beams from the surveillance side of its workings to track the ac that you are interested in (13 I believe) this enables the system to obtain the level of accuracy required in order to provide a talkdown.
As for going back to CR62, I think the problems with RPAR have made you nostalgic for a past that never existed. If you want: excessive clutter, contacts the size of mars bars, survoing, utter confusion when doing 2 talkdowns at once, a system that you had to physically lock down in high winds, mechanically turning gears that took 10 mins to change runway (if they didn’t stop halfway through), as system that spent half it’s life on maintenance, a DH cursor that you had to be a safe cracker to set right and endless knobs switches and buttons to press in an attempt to make the picture work then you are welcome to it. As far as I can see RPAR is a welcome step forward, yes, it has had its problems but half of them were our own bloody fault. Who trials a new system in the Falkland Islands and then never goes down to see it, or appreciate what it will do in a busy environment. What company gives you a multi-million pound piece of kit but then doesn’t tell you how to operate it until it has been installed for over a month.
The introduction of RPAR has seen its fair share of problems, but has exposed us in ATC to the big bad world of procurement, and we have looked a little naive to its ways to say the least.

Go back to your CR62 Luddite, but I guarantee that within 2 years you will be sitting in front of a blank screen, because no company on Earth will be manufacturing the wiggly bits inside it.

[Flobadob]

Here you go Mr Prunney:*

Here we have a typical example of a Mil 'ATC' thread which should be on the a Mil 'ATC' forum. As is the norm, I anticipate it will shortly be hijacked by civvy controllers who used to be in Mil blah blah etc or control the occasional PAR at Farnborough, Wattisham or Gib.

As I highlighted earlier on another thread, we need a Mil ATC forum so we don't get interjections from Mr 'Heathrow Director', who has little experience of Mil ATC matters but can line up my VSxxx/BAWxxx from BGI very well, and give me a nice view of Windsor Castle where Auntie Betty lives on the way in!


Light blue paper,stand well back.

Give me your best Mr 'Heathrow Director' "Closing the localiser from the left, QNH 1023 report decending with Heathrow Twr".......:zzz:

I am waiting.......:E

[RPMcMurphy]

Why not start your own website and BBS especially for the Mil ATC branch? At least then we won't be subjected to your whining.

[Shagster]

My comment on CR62 was tongue in cheek, I totally agree that RPAR is far more superior and has great potential...once the software is sorted.
My real dig was that we used PAR 2000 without labels and height charts, talking down the ac response much in the same way as CR62. I take your point that without hooking the label the signal may not be so strong but it did not cause us a problem. So if label jump is the problem....can we not just deselect labels...til the kit is sorted.
Secondly, I can't understand the decision barring us from using WTI. It was particularily useful in anticipation commencement of descent.
Lastly, the whole procurement/testing process was typically
:mad: amateurish.

[ADIS5000]

Flobadob,

Go on then, I'll bite! Please tell me that you're not hijacking this thread to pursue your own ends! Your Mil ATC Forum thread was certainly worth discussing. However, you were comprehensively outvoted and (I think) your rationale for a Mil only ATC Forum was shown to be invalid. Please let it go!!

Resurrect your original thread if you must, but please leave other threads out of your quest for the smallest forum on PPrune!! The rest of us like a civvy input on our debates, for both an alternative view and a bit of banter. If you want a Mil ATC only Forum, set up a BB yourself. If you get a lot of takers come back (with a big smile on your face!) and try your argument again.

Regards, ADIS

[Flobadob]

Only two civvy bites and no sign of Heathrow Director? Bugger I'm losing me touch.:(

Anyway back to the real debate, who decided to test the kit down the FI with all those conflictors and overlapping patterns to affect?

Come on own up, someone out there must know.

[Pierre Argh]

According to a friendly ITT engineer... one of the reasons why the PAR (I refuse to call it RPAR, else what am I going to call its replacement...RRPAR?) is that the software was designed to use an aircraft SSR response to assist tracking, especially in a multi-primary contact situation.

Then the RAF decided there it was pointless having SSR on PAR kit... and they might be able to save a few bob if they cut it out!!!

Saved a bloody fortune... not!

As to the testing... I believe the kit was bought as a functioning system "Off-the-shelf" and had been used by the Americans(?).

The so called "testing" in the FI was, I believe, an earlier generation radar (PAR2000) that was bought to replace the CR62... which was rotting away. Not sure many engineers would call that a test.

[norvenmunky]

Anyway back to the real debate, who decided to test the kit down the FI with all those conflictors and overlapping patterns to affect?

Whoever it was, I bet they were promoted next tour!