Precision approach radar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being on the periphery of this discussion, I firmly believe that there are a number of very credible and capable ATC staff officers who are desperately trying to resolve this problem that they have inherited. I am sure they would not have implemented "draconian" restrictions without just cause.
PS. Having seen a video of one of the "incidents", I personally would be VERY wary of using the equipment.
PS. Having seen a video of one of the "incidents", I personally would be VERY wary of using the equipment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To elaborate on what I said earlier the RPAR does not give you 2 contacts with only 1 set of information. It drops the first completely and then locks up the second, I agree that in severe cases any "chimp" could tell this has happened however consider this; a pair do an approach and at 2 miles one of them breaks off, the RPAR follows that one and drops the one actually carrying out the approach. Both ac are IMC, the second ac executes a missed approach and you say to the ac that you can see "Well above glidepath acknowledge" he acknowledges and sticks his nose towards the floor. All of a sudden, another track appears on the RPAR well below the glidepath. The powers that be knew this could happen but did nothing about it. The restrictions in place make it almost impossible to do a PAR in the open FIR they also open up a can of worms regarding ac doing instrument approaches in VFR rather than IFR. It is interesting to note that civil and foreign Mil ac are considered to be flying IFR irrespective of met conditions whilst carrying out an instrument approach yet Brit Mil ac are not. This has brought the full glare of all flying units and their commands upon ATC and the manufacturers of RPAR. This is undoubtedly deliberate and will hopefully ensure a rapid solution.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPAR
I believe that it is little short of a complete disgrace that RPAR was installed and introduced into service without clear guidelines being promulgated to the units concerned. Such a radical change should have been trialled in this country by a group of experienced controllers, instructors and examiners, who should then have produced a complete users guide - IN ADVANCE of the equipment being installed and introduced into service anywhere else.
All the experience gained by MPA in the use of RPAR appears to have been 'lost' in the move of MATO from Hillingdon House to HQSTC. As I understand it, RPAR was then introduced into service with little or no guidance from HQSTC because it was just another PAR system. Had a serious incident occured, I dread to think what a subsequent BOI would have made of the whole sorry shambles. And who would have been 'stiffed' - why the controller and SATCO of course!!
We shouldn't forget that RPAR is essentially a component of a complete system, which should have a search radar element - essentially RPAR is the full system but with the search radar element missing. We replaced a dedicated PAR system, the SLA3C, with another dedicated PAR system, the CR62. Both systems were essentially 'dim' systems where the controller determined exactly what was displayed. Now we've ended up with a bit of a bodge job, which is supposedly 'intelligent', yet makes stupid decisions, and nobody has much faith in. Isn't progress a wonderful thing!
All the experience gained by MPA in the use of RPAR appears to have been 'lost' in the move of MATO from Hillingdon House to HQSTC. As I understand it, RPAR was then introduced into service with little or no guidance from HQSTC because it was just another PAR system. Had a serious incident occured, I dread to think what a subsequent BOI would have made of the whole sorry shambles. And who would have been 'stiffed' - why the controller and SATCO of course!!
We shouldn't forget that RPAR is essentially a component of a complete system, which should have a search radar element - essentially RPAR is the full system but with the search radar element missing. We replaced a dedicated PAR system, the SLA3C, with another dedicated PAR system, the CR62. Both systems were essentially 'dim' systems where the controller determined exactly what was displayed. Now we've ended up with a bit of a bodge job, which is supposedly 'intelligent', yet makes stupid decisions, and nobody has much faith in. Isn't progress a wonderful thing!
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a Controller who has used RPAR for over 2 years at 3 stations without any problems, I feel I must respond to some of the wild comments. RPAR replaced the CR-62. The CR-62 was either continually defective or when it worked could see nothing but clutter.
The RPAR is a fantastic PAR will a superb availability record nearly 100% for all stations. It sees things we never ever saw on the CR 62. It makes my life so easy with it auto-tracking, clear display and status reporting.
Where we (the RAF) fall down is we haven't updated our 40 year old procedures to deal with this 21st century PAR. Come on Strike pull your finger out and bring us up to date.
On the few occasions that I have had a defect the ITT folks in Basingstoke have responded very professionally and fast - how refreshing when you have to deal with AMS and Brit Aerospace on other equipment.
Stop whinging and be thankful we have this wonderful piece of reliable kit. Strike Command get your SATCO's together and bring our procedures up to date.
The RPAR is a fantastic PAR will a superb availability record nearly 100% for all stations. It sees things we never ever saw on the CR 62. It makes my life so easy with it auto-tracking, clear display and status reporting.
Where we (the RAF) fall down is we haven't updated our 40 year old procedures to deal with this 21st century PAR. Come on Strike pull your finger out and bring us up to date.
On the few occasions that I have had a defect the ITT folks in Basingstoke have responded very professionally and fast - how refreshing when you have to deal with AMS and Brit Aerospace on other equipment.
Stop whinging and be thankful we have this wonderful piece of reliable kit. Strike Command get your SATCO's together and bring our procedures up to date.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
used RPAR for over 2 years at 3 stations
superb availability record
we haven't updated our 40 year old procedures to deal with this 21st century PAR
Stop whinging and be thankful we have this wonderful piece of reliable kit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Karup, Denmark
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spekesoftly
"A complete system" - like CPN4/MPN11? (Ex lease/lend) - time to dust them off again? "
They still work fine over here! Terma updated them about 15 years ago. They never fail. So ask them, if they are not too busy selling death and destruction.
The new ITT PAR, if it worked as advertised!, is an old PAR-controller's dream. No "weather" to bother about. Much easier to work with.
FWA
Sadly USAF PAR controllers became something of a joke in the 70'ies/ 80'ies - at least here in Europe. Pilots didn't trust them, and avoided them when possible. In fairness one in Germany saved a Danish two-seater Draken once. It was snowing and the pilot(s) couldn't believe that the white! in front of them at minima was the runway. They believed him the second time around!
Best regards
"A complete system" - like CPN4/MPN11? (Ex lease/lend) - time to dust them off again? "
They still work fine over here! Terma updated them about 15 years ago. They never fail. So ask them, if they are not too busy selling death and destruction.
The new ITT PAR, if it worked as advertised!, is an old PAR-controller's dream. No "weather" to bother about. Much easier to work with.
FWA
Sadly USAF PAR controllers became something of a joke in the 70'ies/ 80'ies - at least here in Europe. Pilots didn't trust them, and avoided them when possible. In fairness one in Germany saved a Danish two-seater Draken once. It was snowing and the pilot(s) couldn't believe that the white! in front of them at minima was the runway. They believed him the second time around!
Best regards
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Ops 1, you are of course, mostly correct. The kit doesn't break down, no more servo/gain and you don't see much in the way of weather. Only one minor snag, it appears to be able to completely dump your ac (including the "primary" return) in preference to another that, up until the transfer of label, hasn't even appeared on the screen! Now I call that a technical problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bird Radar
Another farce the "Bird" radar at Kinloss. Wouldn't see a bird if it landed on the antenna.
Over 18 months late and still not delivered.
In meantime using CR62 as bird radar, don't make me laugh.
Another AOS cock-up assisted by Strike and BG.
Over 18 months late and still not delivered.
In meantime using CR62 as bird radar, don't make me laugh.
Another AOS cock-up assisted by Strike and BG.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, the RPAR works to specification. However, no one quite knew what that specification was. It apparently works by creating a box around the tracked ac, this box of airspace is quite big and if anything fly’s through it there is a possibility that the system will be corrupted, hence the present restrictions. The questions that need answering now are: How big is this box? Can we make it smaller? If we can make it smaller will this still mean that the system can be corrupted? If the answer to that is yes, what is the probability of this happening? Would the controller viewing this data be unaware that a problem existed?
As far as I can determine on every occasion there has been a severe problem the controller was aware. Obviously, this does not mean that serious problems have occurred and the controller wasn't aware. There are known unknowns and things we don’t know about, as Donald Rumsfeld would say.
However, 20 reported incidents out of countless thousands of approaches aren't bad odds when you consider the amount of times you had to reset CR62 or lost the contact in radar clutter. Nothing in life is a dead cert and I do get the feeling that RPAR has been shunned by the Ludities and these incidents have been blown out of perspective. However, a problem does exist but will any fix cure the problem totally. It certainly won’t make the system a primary radar, and therefore some form of tracking "BOX" will still be required. If restrictions still exist after all due process then it is not worth keeping. At the moment, it effectively means that PARs cannot be provided when you actually want one. If this is to remain then we need to think fast about a Replacement-to-Replacement PAR.
As far as I can determine on every occasion there has been a severe problem the controller was aware. Obviously, this does not mean that serious problems have occurred and the controller wasn't aware. There are known unknowns and things we don’t know about, as Donald Rumsfeld would say.
However, 20 reported incidents out of countless thousands of approaches aren't bad odds when you consider the amount of times you had to reset CR62 or lost the contact in radar clutter. Nothing in life is a dead cert and I do get the feeling that RPAR has been shunned by the Ludities and these incidents have been blown out of perspective. However, a problem does exist but will any fix cure the problem totally. It certainly won’t make the system a primary radar, and therefore some form of tracking "BOX" will still be required. If restrictions still exist after all due process then it is not worth keeping. At the moment, it effectively means that PARs cannot be provided when you actually want one. If this is to remain then we need to think fast about a Replacement-to-Replacement PAR.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It certainly won’t make the system a primary radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is a primary radar in that it sends out a radio pulse that is returned to the radar head. However, it is then processed and synthetically displayed. What you see as a radar controller is an abstract picture not a true reflection as was the case with CR62 or MPN23V. In this way weather returns may be displayed but not impinge on the clarity of the picture you are looking at. To have a true primary picture you get it warts and all. This would not work with RPAR as all weather returns would then be displayed as * rather like aircraft, the system would then be infathomable. In a previous life I worked with a lot of missile tracking radars which had a very small field of vision to prevent the possibility of loosing lock. However they had a limited range and very narrow beam. To modify RPAR to that level would cost alot of sheckles, if any other defence contract can be used as an indication. My point is, if after months of trials and boffins scratching their heads and money men rubbing their hands we end up with something that is so restricted that it is practically unusable, we should attempt to identify an alternative that works and could be installed quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, 'only 20 reported instances' adds up to a very big and bad sense of distrust. If this equipment was in the early stages of its' development then issues like this may be expected and allow time for the faults to be cured. But after the entire(ish) RAF has rolled it out and the fact that it is already in service with USAF and the Brazillians does not inspire confidence that the issues can be resolved.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who has engineering or in-depth project knowledge (if there is such a person!) to find out if this situation is recoverable with the current kit. The current depth of aircrew feeling is running against this system that seems only to promise an very uncertain future.
PARs are great for aircrew, especially single seat, when recovering a jet in emergency but I want to know that it is actually me being talked down and not the mate who's been sheperding me back and breaks off approaching DH - "well above grlide path"!
It would be interesting to hear from someone who has engineering or in-depth project knowledge (if there is such a person!) to find out if this situation is recoverable with the current kit. The current depth of aircrew feeling is running against this system that seems only to promise an very uncertain future.
PARs are great for aircrew, especially single seat, when recovering a jet in emergency but I want to know that it is actually me being talked down and not the mate who's been sheperding me back and breaks off approaching DH - "well above grlide path"!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not on a boat, thankfully.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is rational about having to break an a/c off his PAR approach when another a/c, which Director has just co-ordinated with his mate on Zone, infringes the 2000ft/5nm rules.
I would like to see this amount reduced and an element of the 'operators discretion' in certain cases. After all, even with CR62 you could loose the landing aircraft and see only the overshooter sometimes.
SRE is being used but of course being a non-precision approach the MDH is alot higher, therefore precluding arrivals on the more grotty days.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on base
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!!!
I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING!!! but in answer to some of the points raised earlier.....
changing procedures... yes, a possibility, but in some airspace this will prove incredibly difficult. Think of a certian Lincolnshire station that has a low level corridor crossing at 10 miles finals and three other airfields within 15.
Pairs Approaches.... Now this has been known about for some time.. and yes on an actual diversion, short of fuel etc etc it could prove a problem... but any decent director should manage to split a pair and provide 4 miles track distance between them to land.. and if an extra 4 miles results in an incident, perhaps we should be looking at a problem in the flight planning department?
The fix.... there are many suggestions being bounced around, and I'm sure every crewroom in the country is talking about this one... perhaps a realistic, but possibly expensive resolution would be to reintroduce the software to allow SSR data as well, which would hopefully stop the target jump problem.
From talking to the contractor at my unit, he pointed out that the contractor have supplied what was asked for, a fully functioning ICAO approved radar. It would seem, sadly, that the fault lies on the procurement side. Perhaps time will tell!!!!
and now I wait to be blasted by just about every other PPruner out there!!
I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING!!! but in answer to some of the points raised earlier.....
changing procedures... yes, a possibility, but in some airspace this will prove incredibly difficult. Think of a certian Lincolnshire station that has a low level corridor crossing at 10 miles finals and three other airfields within 15.
Pairs Approaches.... Now this has been known about for some time.. and yes on an actual diversion, short of fuel etc etc it could prove a problem... but any decent director should manage to split a pair and provide 4 miles track distance between them to land.. and if an extra 4 miles results in an incident, perhaps we should be looking at a problem in the flight planning department?
The fix.... there are many suggestions being bounced around, and I'm sure every crewroom in the country is talking about this one... perhaps a realistic, but possibly expensive resolution would be to reintroduce the software to allow SSR data as well, which would hopefully stop the target jump problem.
From talking to the contractor at my unit, he pointed out that the contractor have supplied what was asked for, a fully functioning ICAO approved radar. It would seem, sadly, that the fault lies on the procurement side. Perhaps time will tell!!!!
and now I wait to be blasted by just about every other PPruner out there!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Briney's point about sheperding another aircraft back, bit difficult to do that with 4-5 miles separation.
And please, please tell me that the procurement process is a little more than, "Can I have a fully functioning ICAO approved radar please"!
And please, please tell me that the procurement process is a little more than, "Can I have a fully functioning ICAO approved radar please"!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on base
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Briney,
the shepherding point is certainly valid, and one I overlooked in my earlier post.......
the ICAO bit I should have made clearer in my first post.
Obviously, we didn't go and say "we want an ICAO radar" in the procurement process. We said what we wanted in a more detailed fashion, and this list of requirements has been met by the contractor, in a manner that uses a radar that is not new technology, but happens to be a product that has been used elsewhere succesfully and is ICAO approved.
Where it would seem we might have gone wrong, is in our specification of requirements, not actually thinking about the other "factors" that affect our PARs, such as proximity of other traffic and pairs etc.
The sad thing is the system now installed had the option of also using SSR (apparently a software issue) and being a full radar with a range of 35 miles ( a hardware issue), but we stated we only want a PAR replacement so dont bother with the other stuff.
It is a shame that the replacement of the CR62 didnt involve a look at all the ATC kit now in use, because I believe the watchman system is coming up for replacement, our comms system is quite dated and surely there is a better system to replace ET.
As it is, being the cynic I am, the MOD will prob pay for a costly fix to the RPAR, thus using the money that might have been earmarked for comms or radar replacement..
oh well, the glorious history of defence procurement continues!!
the shepherding point is certainly valid, and one I overlooked in my earlier post.......
the ICAO bit I should have made clearer in my first post.
Obviously, we didn't go and say "we want an ICAO radar" in the procurement process. We said what we wanted in a more detailed fashion, and this list of requirements has been met by the contractor, in a manner that uses a radar that is not new technology, but happens to be a product that has been used elsewhere succesfully and is ICAO approved.
Where it would seem we might have gone wrong, is in our specification of requirements, not actually thinking about the other "factors" that affect our PARs, such as proximity of other traffic and pairs etc.
The sad thing is the system now installed had the option of also using SSR (apparently a software issue) and being a full radar with a range of 35 miles ( a hardware issue), but we stated we only want a PAR replacement so dont bother with the other stuff.
It is a shame that the replacement of the CR62 didnt involve a look at all the ATC kit now in use, because I believe the watchman system is coming up for replacement, our comms system is quite dated and surely there is a better system to replace ET.
As it is, being the cynic I am, the MOD will prob pay for a costly fix to the RPAR, thus using the money that might have been earmarked for comms or radar replacement..
oh well, the glorious history of defence procurement continues!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of those involved in the 20 incidents, I think the inject from STC is fully justified. Why should we operate a piece of kit with little confidence (in the kit - not our abilities) when pilots need to have 100 % confidence in it? I can honestly say that in my current post I see a lot of PARs . The CR62, although not the best peice of kit in bad weather (although the knobs and tits , if used correctly could sort that out), never caused as many break-offs due to equipment failure as iI've seen with RPAR. On some days it's been like a PAR exercise in Advanced at JATCC!!!
ATC-OPS 1, I look forward to discussing, over a brew, why you do not seem to share the same views as most at the secret Wiltshire airbase. Yes RPAR does see things the CR62 did not (like GAT on L9!!!!) - is that a good thing?
How many out there are fed up with MTI failures, data tag jump, target split, etc. Lets get the kit working so that we can move on.
ATC-OPS 1, I look forward to discussing, over a brew, why you do not seem to share the same views as most at the secret Wiltshire airbase. Yes RPAR does see things the CR62 did not (like GAT on L9!!!!) - is that a good thing?
How many out there are fed up with MTI failures, data tag jump, target split, etc. Lets get the kit working so that we can move on.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karup, Denmark
Age: 71
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the RAF ask something to be "deleted" from RPAR?
What was saved - moneywise?
Glad they (ITT) are hard at work!
Still som "Gilfillan" name plates in our equipment
Best regards
What was saved - moneywise?
Glad they (ITT) are hard at work!
Still som "Gilfillan" name plates in our equipment
Best regards
At Lyneham they ask aircrew ' do you want a VFR or IFR PAR' if VFR they ask them some questions and then carry on with the talkdown. Class D what a wonderful thing. Must make Lyneham the obvious place to go for training.