PAR approach qualification

[Klauss]

Hi,
I have come across the PAR, and the fact that controllers providing this service need
a qualification and must have some currency/recency. Don´t know the details.

My question: Does anyone know about pilot´s qualification / experience requrirements
to fly PAR down to EU-OPS minima (200ft - 550m RVR) ? Where can I read up on it ?

Best,

[B737-pilot]

You can't read on that.
Do u training for SRA? In my humble opinion no. Some might argue : you need a procedure in OMb ; they might be right.

For PAR things go like this : they talk you down to the runway they give headings to keep the a/c on track and indications on how to ajust you V/S . The controler playes an important part in this kind of approach. The bigger the aircraft the more difficult it is. At minima if you - land otherwise go around.

[BOAC]

Klauss - I am not aware of any 'requirements' but it would probably be a good idea to talk to someone who knows about them - they are incredibly simple - you basically do exactly as the controller tells you and stay silent during the approach (he will be on continuous transmit anyway and won't hear you). What could be easier? All you need to know is the rate of descent you need for the glidepath you are flying - and set it when told.

[Type1106]

I'm beginning to feel very old - but maybe I am at 65.

Klauss, Precision Approach Radar was, at one time, common almost everywhere, but for a long time now it is usually only found at military airfields or joint/military fields (Norway is a good example).

As BOAC says, you basically do what the controller tells you and say nothing - unless he/she specifically asks you to respond. I don't know what a/c type(s) you are current on but if it is any of the types that rely on a high level of automation in normal operation ( such as the Airbus series) you may well find a PAR a little challenging.

For example, when the controller says 'commence descent for a 3 degree glidepath' do you know the rate of descent you need to maintain for your configuration? Good, successful, PAR approaches down to 200' DH require practice on both the part of the controller and the pilot.

Hope you get to do one sometime with a good controller - it can be a much more satisfying experience that the same old - yawn - coupled auto ILS!

Cheers

1106

[clunckdriver]

Why would one need an endorsment to fly a PAR/GCA? Any pilot should be able to {a} Fly a heading{b} Fly a sink rate. Most GCAs will suggest an initial rate of descent based on your IAS, if not then you should have a fair clue as to what you will need to maintain the glidepath. When on an All Weather Squadron this was our prime method of getting down when it was cruddy, great NCO controllers, talk you right to touch down, even in a four plane and would give you the "Cut" to chop the power, no bloody Apch Bans or any of that stuff, as to doing it in a "Bus", did a few at a USAF destination, piece of cake.

[Denti]

We did PAR-training during our initial IFR training, most of those approaches in Yuma. At that time flying a cheap and simple to operate training aircraft (Beech F33) it was much easier and more relaxed than flying a normal ILS, the controllers were a real pleasure to work with, a very nice experience. However over here in Europe it is quite hard to find any place that offers them on our commercial route network.

[Klauss]

Thanks for all the comments.

I fly a 744, and haven´t done a PAR for as long as i can remember. Maybe during basic
training 30+ years ago, but certainly not with a jet.

Asking about PAR crossed my mind when I thought about landing minima the other day.
Have to demonstrate successful, hand flown CAT 1 to minimums on every Sim-Check...
and do so. An ILS is the most flown app. there is - so, no problem. 200-550 = ok. Instrument
scan and flying are trained.

On the other hand, you have the PAR. No requirements, no experience, but the
same minmum as an ILS. Doesn´t make sense.

A disturbing link: Flying a PAR approach to oceana NAS believing it was to norfolk NAS ends in great confusion and incu... - NASA ASRS (http://www.37000feet.com/report/582241)

Any thoughts ?

[BOAC]

Klauss - I think you are making this over-complicated - as you will see (we actually all agree! - is this a PPRUne record?) - it is the simplest form of instrument approach you can fly. As long as our Magenta line/FD fed youth can actually fly pitch and power, you just do as you are told. No interpretation of needles -all done for you.

When you arrive at 200/550 there is no difference to you as a pilot to 200/550 on an ILS.

My thoughts on your link? Lack of 'spatial awareness' aka airmanship - the same thing that makes people fly into mountains and land in BRU instead of FFT or was it the other way round?

[fireflybob]

PAR - very straightforward just fly the a/c accurately as requested by the controller.

Recall doing a PAR into Frankfurt in the B707 early 1970s. Also at that time places like LHR, MAN and (I think) LGW had PAR monitoring when flying an ILS below certain minima.

[Type1106]

Fireflybob,

Yes, that's correct but I cannot remember when this was withdrawn at LHR - I seem to recall it was still there in the early '80s. All PARs, as opposed to monitored ILS, were also hand flown, so I have a question for the modern high tech operator:

How would you fly a PAR if that was the only option? How late in the approach can you (i.e. what are the limitations on the equipment) continue on autopilot/autothrottle when not coupled to an ILS? Given that your FD will not have any electronic centreline or glideslope inputs, can you still accept the minimum of 550 RVR? Not a trick question just a request for information.

1106

[Welle]

I have some PAR experience with my previous employer - we did a lot of scheduled flights to small eastern european cities, some of those airports only with NDB and PAR facilities (like Baja Mare in Romania)
Flight Ops decided to implement PAR procedures into the OM-B and all pilots on the fleet were trained on the Sim during OPCs

No big deal to actually fly the Approach, but you need some trust to the controller on the other side of the radio...

fly safe
welle

[BOAC]

Type1106 - yes - on the 737 you would simply engage A/Throttle, Heading Mode and Vert Speed (if you needed to). I guess on the Airbus something very clever (that a lot of AB pilots probably will not understand) - or open another packet of biscuits for the dog:)

[clunckdriver]

BOAC, The PAR/GCA Apchs I flew on the bus were hand flown , manual thrust, just like any basic aircraft, did have one F/O tried to be clever and use the magic, scewed it up into a mess, next week we should be going to a destination with GCA,flying the little 421B, am looking forward to a return to my youth,! {If only my body could return to its previous condition!}

[Capn Bloggs]

BOAC, having done hundreds at 190KIAS in a previous life, I can assure you there is no way I'd do a GCA to 200ft using the automatics of a modern jet. And I very much doubt any regulatory authority would allow a crew to do one during normal ops without being trained and tested.

[captjns]

Operations Specifications issued to airlines include the type of approaches approved to be conducted. If the airlines' Ops Specs include PAR approaches, then the crew must be trained and checked out for such procedure in accordance with their Flight Training Operations Manual.

Back in the day... after the Radio Range had gone extinct, and before GPS, when getting my IFR rating some military facilities allowed us to fly practice PAR approaches. Really good stuff

[BOAC]

Likewise Capn Bloggs, hence if you needed to

Captjns - I have never seen anything like that, nor have I ever had to decline a 'short-notice' SRA approach after ILS failure and divert because I have not done the sim exercise. Given it may be the rules now (gawd bless'em) , but.................................

[Intruder]

I've recently flown several PARs in the 747 Classic. Our requirements are "training" in PAR approaches (which is taken care of in initial and recurrent training), but they are restricted to Captains only for some reason.

OTOH, an FO could fly an ILS or visual approach while the PAR controller is conducting a PAR for currency/practice...

[Denti]

Somewhat weird, on one hand we have tons of complaint about babblespeak checklists, the loss of airmanship and too much use of automation and on the othe hand now we har requests for even more regulation, training and probably certification for the most simple type of approach to fly. Thank god i am allowed to fly any kind of approach to the minima set in my licence, it does not really matter if its a PAR, GLS or ILS. I have never received any simulator training for the GLS and yet we are certified to fly it to the usual CAT I limits with CAT III certification in process if the aircraft is equipped for it. Same for the PAR, since you do not need any equipment we are allways certified to use it if need be.

[clunckdriver]

Thank you Denti, you just saved me launching into another rant! Whats so bloody difficult about flying headings and sink rate as instructed?Looking in my logbook I flew my first GCA in the early fifties, Moose Jaw went flat in ice fog so a bunch of us on our first night solo flights {about 100 hours or lesss total time} bogged of to Saskatoon, were picked of by GCA and all landed in about a three hundred foot ceiling, {Sorry about the hero story, but again I just cant belive how complex some posters want to make flying an aircraft }By the way, we were flying Harvards, one six freq VHF and if you ere lucky you might have an ADF/LF Range reciever.The corporate aircraft I now fly is in private catorgary one of the main reasons I keep it that way is to avoid those who feel that if they write enough regs they will keep things safe, it just doesnt work that way.

[p51guy]

Back in the twin engine charter days my first PAR was into a Navy Base at San Nicolas Island off LA. It was about minimums and worked quite well for the first one. We did a few more after that but just listening to the controller worked quite well.

[PA-28-180]

It was awhile ago (early 90's), however during my IR training I did PAR approaches before doing my first ILS. The approaches (practice - down to the MAP) were done at Travis AFB (KSUU??), and were no problem in both a single and a light twin.

As for qualifications needed to shoot a PAR approach, my instructor briefed me on the ground as to what to expect and how to do it. Once vectored to the approach, we just followed the instructions of the controllers down to the MAP and then went missed. The KSUU controllers were always great (my training was mostly done at KCCR). Between my base and Napa, they were constantly dealing with a LOT of training activity around their airspace, and always handled it with patience and professionalism. I was able to visit Travis approach once....but this TOO has probably gone away now! :(

I remember reading an article in Flying a long time back about a student pilot on a night solo flight, who became lost. He ended up flying into marginal VFR wx. He got himself out by requesting a practice PAR (somewhere back east), and once back into solid VFR, AND re-oriented, he toodled off back to base without incident.

[galaxy flyer]

That's correct, KSUU. But probably gone now, few USAF bases in the US have PAR capability anymore. USN and CAF bases still do, for the most part. CFB Trenton has given me any number of them on training flights.

GF

[PA-28-180]

Thanks for the confirmation GF! Actually, I'm really sorry to hear about the PAR facilities going away. I thought, and still believe, that it was a great part of my training back then, and a great alternative to an ILS. I guess GPS/RNAV is taking over....?

[Klauss]

ok, i hear nothing but´: it´s easy, don´t worry, fly to 200ft...

I´ll ask for a PAR with the visibility, rain, and some crosswind/bumpiness
dialled in at my nex sim opportunity. Have to see for myself.


Thanks a lot for the input,
Klauss

[Brian Abraham]

Is it legal for civilian aircraft these days to use GCA/PAR in the normal course of events? Of course in an emergency anything goes. Ask because I was under the impression, wrongly maybe, that it had been given the thumbs down because it was not a pilot interpreted aid.

[fireflybob]

Is it legal for civilian aircraft these days to use GCA/PAR in the normal course of events?

Yes so long as it's approved by the company.

[clunckdriver]

Klauss, you will need a sim instructor who can give a realistic "Patter", there are some tapes still on the internet of the Berlin Airlift controllers talk downs, these will give you the very best examples of how it should sound, these guys were the very best! Also would suggest you skip the X wind and bumps till you have flown one, hand fly, manual thrust, and have fun!

[tweentown]

There's a decent video of a PAR approach into Enchede by a Boeing 737 on the internet. If interested, Google PAR approach Enchede and you will easily find it.

[Checkboard]

In Australia, the instrument rating required each individual approach to be certified in the licence. You had to complete the NDB, but the rest were optional - ILS, LLZ, VOR, DME (the DME approach an Australian thing, now discontinued).

When I came to the UK, I asked about SRA approaches, and certification, and discovered that individual approaches aren't certified in Europe, which I found a bit surprising. My first (and subsequent) SRAs where therefore completed with no training whatsoever - never even seen a chart for one, until I flew it. :cool:

[heavy.airbourne]

Checkboard:

:ok: And you did it, did you not? You can do a PAR if you know how to fly an a/c; you might need practice to do it well manually, though. An SRE is more difficult IMHO.

[Basil]

Commencing conditions e.g. Callsign M52 level at 2500ft AAL 30deg intercept from left most configuring done and it goes something like this:

ATC: M52 Turn left heading 270
M52: M52 Left heading 270
ATC: M52 slightly left of the centreline turn right 2deg heading 272
M52: M52 Heading 272
ATC: M52 approaching the glidepath do not acknowledge further instructions.
ATC: M52 Commence descent now for a 3 degree glidepath.
ATC: On the centreline turn left 2deg heading 270.
ATC: On centreline, slightly above the glidepath, adjust your rate of descent.
ATC: M52 on the glidepath on the centreline at 5 miles from touchdown, check your gear down and locked.
ATC: Slightly right of the centreline turn left heading 268
ATC (on tx & patch to tower): M52 at 3 miles to land TWR: Clear to land
ATC: Slightly below the glidepath adjust your rate of descent
ATC: On glidepath on centreline turn right heading 270
ATC: Approaching decision height, look up and take over visually, talkdown continues (that's the good slightly cheaty bit)

Leavesden used to do a good talkdown which I used when LHR weren't taking air taxis.

However, doing a talkdown on say, a Phantom with the lift augmentation u/s or a Lightning you wouldn't have time to get all that chatter in at a normal relaxed pace :)

[b737NGyyc]

ATC: M52 Turn left heading 270
M52: M52 Left heading 270
ATC: M52 slightly left of the centreline turn right 2deg heading 272
M52: M52 Heading 272
ATC: M52 approaching the glidepath do not acknowledge further instructions.
ATC: M52 Commence descent now for a 3 degree glidepath.
ATC: On the centreline turn left 2deg heading 270.
ATC: On centreline, slightly above the glidepath, adjust your rate of descent.
ATC: M52 on the glidepath on the centreline at 5 miles from touchdown, check your gear down and locked.
ATC: Slightly right of the centreline turn left heading 268
ATC (on tx & patch to tower): M52 at 3 miles to land TWR: Clear to land
ATC: Slightly below the glidepath adjust your rate of descent
ATC: On glidepath on centreline turn right heading 270
ATC: Approaching decision height, look up and take over visually, talkdown continues (that's the good slightly cheaty bit)

From my experience with the CAF controllers this was hopefully followed by a "Welcome to XXXX, exit left and contact ground control." If you didn't get the "Welcome" part and only got the "contact ground" part then you had usually made the PAR controller work a little too hard to keep you 'in the box".

They used to say "Nice approach" but that was done away with in the interests of political correctness.

[Zoner]

If you are flying for an airline (US) the PAR must be in your ops specs. My outfit has both captains and F/Os demonstrate proficiency in the sim. We see them mostly at USN bases now a days but a certified controller is not always available. An interesting side note is that you can initiate the approach even if the field is below minimums if the PAR is flown with an ILS tuned. (FAR 121) Watch the movie "Strategic Air Command" to see Jimmy Stewart fly the GCA (old guys name for the PAR) into Kadena in a B47. Great fun.

[BOAC]

However, doing a talkdown on say, a Phantom with the lift augmentation u/s or a Lightning you wouldn't have time to get all that chatter in at a normal relaxed pace - like "commence descent now for a 2.5 degree glidepath and approaching minimums........" Contact tower 121.5":D

There once (allegedly) was a Harrier that came to the hover during a PAR and then backed up the glidepath. I understand the controller spent several months in a Sanatorium:)

[Basil]

I was never given any civil aviation PAR training.

BOAC - you got it! :)
When I was on a ground tour in ATC at Wyton I flew a Chipmunk in one day and did all my intermediate approach turns at considerably more than Rate 1 to wind up my unsuspecting ATC colleagues :E

[Capn Bloggs]

GCA (old guys name for the PAR)
I always wondered why they are called PARs. An SRA is flown using a SAR and a PRA is flown with a PAR. :confused:

[heavy.airbourne]

I always wondered why they are called PARs. An SRA is flown using a SAR and a PRA is flown with a PAR.

That works like the rest of them, app being omitted most of times: ILS (app), VOR (app), PAR (app), SRE (app). But I don't know about the UK and the USA; you guys have funny words for many things we level 4 members never heard. :{

[Checkboard]

A PRA is conducted with precision approach radar, a separate radar with a scanning vertical and separate horizontal beam, it has a short range and is only used for precision approaches:

http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/pic/img8011.jpg

An SRA is conducted using Secondary Surveillance Radar (ie. your transponder return on ATC's standard traffic radar), it is a non-precision approach (so has a much higher minima).

[NorthSouth]

Can't speak for non-UK countries, but An SRA is conducted using Secondary Surveillance Radaris quite wrong - it can ONLY be conducted using primary surveillance radar.
NS

[Checkboard]

Ah well, learn something every day! ;)

[chevvron]

Catch up with a programme on 'Discovery' about the Challenger 604 bizjet. There's an excellent example of a PAR Talkdown towards the end.
It was filmed without my knowledge - it's me doing the talkdown!!

[bArt2]

the controller tells you and stay silent during the approach

That is after the controller tells you "From now on do not acknowledge any instructions".

Basically it is the same as flying the ILS raw data, but the final controller is figuring out the headings and vertical corrections for you.

As long as you fly the headings correctly, and you don't have a controller under training :} it works very nicely .

In the Air Force, where this is a common type of approach, a good controller will tell you exactly when you are passing the threshold. You would have been visual with the runway 150 feet before offcourse :E

[411A]

Told to me personally, by an FAA inspector ( a former USAAF Colonel), in the mid-1960's....

"When we operated C-54's during the Berlin Airlift, the GCA (PAR) approaches offered, allowed a nearly zero visibility landing...and I have made plenty where, after landing, I could not taxi, due to the reduced visibility'.

When I asked about the flare maneuver, he said...'when over the threshold, the radar controller mentioned "close the throttles and reduce the descent rate to zero."

Apparently it worked as advertised, as many aircraft did this type of radar approach.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

We operated into and out of RAF Northold, almost daily, (not Shell/ or NJE) and were offered practice PAR for controller training.

The game was afoot, our brief, from the SATCO, was to be good but not too good....(speed control ( lack of) being his request). The PAR was to 0/0. The controller asked out type, (wheels to radar blob distance). The controllers were all good, and placed us on the numbers every time.
We for our training, conducted SE.

In return we were able to sit in the Radar room drinking RAF issue tea and biscuits, watching the work load, and chat to the PAR guy.

Them were the days.

Also did one or two for real in RAF Little Rissington, in very bad WX, but both engines fully operational.

glf

[Gulfstreamaviator]

SRA were the norm at Farnborough until the ILS was operational a few years ago.

Luton on 09(?), with the offset CL.

Surveillance Radar Approach, or sometimes Element, were very very common in Europe.


Still are in CIS.


Now what about BC ILS........

Chevron: exact name of programme please, and out of interest which airport.????

glf