PAR

[CRC]

Situation:
Operating to an airfield in a Middle Eastern FIR whose State's Civil Aviation Authority's sovereign right to manage its airspace has been usurped by a foreign military power.
The GP element of the ILS serving said airfield is U/S. There exists a published PAR approach but it is annotated "not for civil use" - the service is provided by military equipment and operators. Request to the ANS provider and the military to provide a one off exemption to the civil operator to be provided a PAR service is vetoed by a FAA field officer who claims civil pilots are not trained to fly PAR approaches!
Question 1:- Is there anyone out there who flies PAR approaches on commercial civil ops on a regular basis?
Question 2: - Does a State's aviation licensing authority mandate flight testing and subsequent aircrew license instrument rating with an endorsement to be able to fly PAR approaches?
Question 3: - Are there any mandated currency requirements to be met by civil aircrew prior to flying a PAR approach?

[SpringbokDreamer]

I quite regularly fly PAR approaches down to minima at a military airfield for a civil outfit carrying pax...
Bloody Good Fun!!!! There's no other inclusion in my log book or licence etc..

On G-**** reg Acft into EG** Airfields

ie, British Acft to British field

[yrvld]

You can fly a PAR with a regular Instrument rating on your license. Not a problem, PAR is no different that a cat I ILS, even regarding minimums, usually.. Can fly them commercially too, as long as the approach is published in your applicable co. route manual (OM-C, jepp charts, AIP, etc), of course.

[AirRabbit]

You can fly a PAR with a regular Instrument rating on your license. Not a problem, PAR is no different that a cat I ILS, even regarding minimums, usually. Can fly them commercially too, as long as the approach is published in your applicable co. route manual (OM-C, jepp charts, AIP, etc), of course.
…well, its not quite that simple, actually … in the US, the approaches you are authorized to fly have to be specified in your Operations Specifications (Ops Specs - issued by the FAA), you have to have the appropriate reference materials (Jepp charts, etc.) on board, and you have to have been trained to fly the approaches you are authorized to fly. There have been US certificated operators, operating under part 121, who regularly flew PAR approaches – but the PAR was in their Ops Specs, they carried the appropriate charts, and they trained on PARs. These operators were authorized because they did quite a bit of military charter work into and out of military-only airfields where PARs were regularly used.

[BelArgUSA]

Last one I flew was landing at Keflavik - BIKF... early 1980s..
Was with a 707-320B, under FAR 121, PAR was listed in our Ops. Specs...
Courtesy of US Navy... minimums were 200-1/2...
We saw the runway coming close to minimums, perfectly aligned and on glide path.
They claimed to be able to talk a plane down with zero/zero conditions...
xxx
If I recall well, "they" often offered to give you a PAR...
To give them practice, they too needed to stay current...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[CRC]

Thanks Guys and Gals.
Pretty much as I thought.
As an civil ATCO in the early 70's I regularily provided PAR approaches to civil operators into a civil field in Kiwiland/Downunder (prior to the installation of ILS) and also often sat rightside as saftey pilot to mates who were flying them whilst practicing IFR in VMC , and although never going for an IFR rating myself don't recall any of them having to have their IFR ratings endorsed for PAR ability. But then times may have changed. I suspect the the FAA regulations are at diiference to most other State regulators requirements (or in this case lack thereof).
Again. Thanks for your inputs...

[chevvron]

Shirley if you're not flying an 'N' registered aircraft, FAA regs don't apply? At my airfield, all commercial civil operators of all registrations used to fly PAR's even when we had LLZ/DME installed; we simply established them on the LLZ and gave them GP guidance from PAR. PAR was withdrawn when we had GP installed on the ILS.

[Dream Land]

Can you fly this plane and land it?
Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Dr. Rumack: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley
Sorry, couldn't resist. :}

[onehundred]

And yes, the PAR has to be flight tested periodically

100

[Dream Land]

And yes, the PAR has to be flight tested periodically
Really, please go on...

[onehundred]

here at our air force bases twice a year how it says in our regulations.
I don't know yours

100

[bfisk]

Did ask for one several times in during my CFI time in the US, at the one (military) airfield we happened to be close to. Were told that we would be allowed to do so until a missed approach, but we wouldn't be allowed to touch. However the PAR controller was unavailable at that time, but we were invited back. However at that point in time I was flying with a PPL student... and so on. Never did get to do one =(

(We did ASR approaches on a regular basis though, most controllers were happy to get the practice)

[Bobbsy]

Down here in Aus, we've had the "pleasure" of seeing that ancient "Airport" film on TV over the holidays.

If the FAA allows Dean Martin to fly a PAR approach, surely (or is it Shirley?) you professionals should be able to as well?

I'll get my coat.

Bobbsy

[chevvron]

The 'Discovery' satellite TV channel occasionally airs a programme about the ' N' reg Challenger 604 bizjet which does a PAR with a civil crew on board; refer the FAA field officer to this.

[Dream Land]

Chevvron, not sure why you think that's a problem, most operators have PAR in their OP SPECS. :hmm:

[chevvron]

S'not me that has a problem; it's the attitude of the FAA Field officer who says civil pilots are not trained to fly PARs.

[Dream Land]

Simulated PAR approaches standard in our training syllabus (121).

[Intruder]

Also in ours, because we fly military contract flights (747).

I've flown a few of them, mostly when USAF controllers ask if we will do it for their training/currency.

[411A]

The old(er) civil Westinghouse PAR equipment had superb accuracy, five feet up/down on the glidepath, same laterally.
However, as these had (according to one PAR operator I met at KLAX many years ago) 135 vacuum tubes (valves for you UK folks) it became very expensive to maintain...so away it went, west.

And yes, PAR was used during the Berlin airlift by USAF C-54 pilots...complete blind landings were possible, and I personally know one retired USAF Colonel/FAA inspector) who has done this many times...
Great fun, apparently.:}

[low n' slow]

Another interesting aspect seems to be which rules apply in this airspace. For sake of argument, lets say that it's the US air force that has taken over the skies, does that automatically say that the FAA regulates everything civil?
Point being that if it's not FAR and you don't have an N reg plane, I should think there's no problem. Like many others on this forum, I also fly PAR's on a regular basis and I don't have a special endorsement, it's an IFR procedure like all the others.
Perhaps it's the fact that the controllers are american and that it's their equipment that is the decisive factor in reality...

/LnS

[Spitoon]

N-reg, GA pilot license or whatever, in this case I guess if the controllers are told not to do it then you won't be doing a PAR

[henry crun]

I am struggling to understand why the FAA considers training is necessary to fly a PAR.

Do they believe that a pilot of a commercial aircraft would not be able to obey the simple instruction to "commence descent now to establish a 3 degree glidepath" or, "turn left/right x degrees" or, " slightly above/below glidepath, adjust rate of descent" ?

[ShotOver]

The issue concerns the issuing authority of the license, the registration of the aircraft, and the type of flying (135/121, etc), being conducted.

I have flown PARs for many years as military, and civilian. If the operations are conducted in a N registered aircraft, by a FAA licensed pilot, under Commercial operations, then Op Spec DO apply no matter what YOU think you can do. Under the FAA regs, to be PIC of an aircraft in commerical operations there are Instrument checkrides required every 6 months. The regs state that the PIC must demonstrate proficiency in EACH type of Precision Approach that will be authorized. So, evaluated must be annotated on the 1099 that they have demonstrated proficiency in flying an ILS and a PAR (if authorized in the Op Specs). A company even though authorized in the Op Specs can elect to not conduct a PAR, and therefore not train or check those. However, if the 1099 does not reflect the PAR each 6 months then the pilot is not authorized to conduct the PAR (unless of course applying Captain's emergency authority.).

So, it isn't an ATC issue. There is training involved as is required for any other type of procedure.

In a foreign country there is more than just training involved. Since the PAR is based on language, doing a PAR in a country where English is not the primary language needs to be evaluated. This is one reason my present company has elected to NOT do PARs, in addition to authorization issues.

[Dream Land]

I am struggling to understand why the FAA considers training is necessary to fly a PAR. Well I would expect it's pretty simple, most civil aviation pilots have no experience doing PAR approaches, phraseology and procedures are new to these individuals, when we train for PAR, we also do No Gyro and ASR approaches.

[Spitoon]

So, it isn't an ATC issue. Not strictly true.

And I maintain what I said earlierN-reg, GA pilot license or whatever, in this case I guess if the controllers are told not to do it then you won't be doing a PAR
Unlike some other procedures, it really doesn't matter how much the pilot insistes that it is legit for him/her to fly a PAR, it's wholly in the hands of ATC!

The part that may make it an ATC issue is if the equipment, procedure design or controller training doesn't meet civil standards then it will be appropriate to promulgate it as 'not available for civil use'. Of course, not all signatories to the Chicago convention - even some of the big ones - adhere to the standards as closely as others.

Equally, under ICAO rules, if the relevant aviation authority, for pretty much whatever reason they choose, elect to limit availability of certain procedures then they can do so. And I guess the local FAA Field Officer is the representative of the aviation authority so whatever he/she says may be the deciding factor.

And it doesn't take long in this business to learn that some representatives of aviation authorities can be out of touch, a little power-crazed, lacking experience, unprepared to listen to those who do the job for real, or just plain stupid...........

[ShotOver]

Spitoon,

Ok. If you want to say that ATC controlls whether a pilot does a PAR because they want to say, "No, it's U/S." Sure, I think that is obvious. If you read my post, the topic was "Operator, operation, and pilot approval". ATC DOES NOT CONTROL THIS. ANY approach that is U/S, has restrictions etc, is surely managed by ATC. I think that is an obvious point. It has nothing to do with whether a pilot can legally conduct a PAR that is functioning and authorized for use.

In otherwards, ATC will not ask, "ah, excuse me do your Op Specs allow this?", "ah, excuse me have you been evaluated on this approach IAW XXXXX?" That is the point. Just as a pilot is authorized, and trained to fly an ILS approach, if they arrive and it's U/S, ATC will restrict this. Obvious.

That is at least fourth in the line of requirements pertaining to the legality for one to fly a PAR approach.

1. Operator approval (Op Specs, if required)
2. Equipment certification (if required)
3. Pilot approval (training, and checking)
4. Approach servicability (U/S, ATC restrictions, airfield closuer, wx, other restrictions)