cockpit checks completed

[ComJam]

If you aren't checks complete at the point the controller says "cockpit checks, report complete" a reply of "limited checks complete" will suffice. In which case you can expect a final check for your gear as you're cleared to land. Seems to work well at every Military field i've visited.

[055166k]

Did a couple as a trainee controller about quarter of a century ago at an R&D unit. The aircraft would not be handed to the PAR controller until cockpit checks complete. Civvy pilots should not forget the complexity of a single seat fast jet compared to a multi-crew fully equipped modern luxurywagon. During the PAR talkdown there would be a transmission break to confirm gear and flaps, and intention. Consider also that earlier military jets needed real pilots....for example, the icing letdown in a Canberra.....or perhaps homing to the overhead [engine-out] to commence a spiral letdown and report passing cardinal points.
Remember what on-board navaids you had 25 years ago, the military pilot probably had less than half of that, and probably not much fuel either. For the controller, the kit is like something from the dark ages, and requires a high degree of technical knowledge to both set up and use....top respect to any PAR people out there!

[tescoapp]

As a matter of interest how often do mil controllers have to be signed off on PAR's. We quite often get asked to do one for controller currency. Which is not a problem although cheating a bit when we can see the runway.

[ComJam]

Mike, Replacement PAR (RPAR) has now replaced the old CR62 system at all of the UK's military bases. The problem of it locking on to other aircraft passing through its "beam" has been resolved. It now "locks" the a/c on approach and provides the controller with a similar, although digital, display to the old system. I believe it's less user friendly though due to the lack of the old style primary return trails...

It's certainly not as easy to calibrate!

[Hippy]

As a matter of interest how often do mil controllers have to be signed off on PAR's. We quite often get asked to do one for controller currency. Which is not a problem although cheating a bit when we can see the runway.

The main problem with Mil controllers is their insistance on moving about every 18 months. Given that it takes a year or so to get fully validated at a new unit, there is always someone training somewhere in the tower.

[normally right blank]

Been here since the 70'es. Have been to other places occasionally - and abroad. The controllers don't insist on moving. Why would we?

As a note having done quite a few now in anger down to mins and also in CAVOK for controller currency the voice and the tone of the talkdown makes a huge difference to the cockpit load.

Thanks! The damaged single pilot jet has been mentioned. Hope I can talk you down to ground level/your minima - and if you really trust me, there will be a runway below your wheels!
Now here is a new approach to avoid "controller training in progress" (In the Royal Danish Air Force). They don't train any!
(And no APP or TWR controllers either!)
So enjoy a good PAR for the next few years here - and then it's lost - forever?

[radarman]

Getting back to the thread title............
Just checked the JSP552, and it's only on PAR and SRA that the controller asks for checks. Why? I take the point of high workload single seat jets, military aircraft coming back shot up etc etc, but supposing our hero decides to do an ILS, or recover visually. He still has to carry out his approach and pre-landing checks, but now apparently nobody has to remind him. Where's the logic?
And how precisely does the request for landing checks act as a form of speed control? It has already been established that different types of aircraft require different types of checks at varying points on the approach (just look at a selection of pilots notes). So just because a Tornado might drop the gear and flaps and lose a few knots, doesn't automatically follow that the same applies to a C130.
I rather suspect that it's the old military system - we teach it because it's in the book, and it has to be in the book because we teach it.

[normally right blank]

You are right! On no other approach would we ask the pilot his minima, write it down, and remind him at the end of the approach. They could be anything from 100 feet AGL and upwards. For many years we have used the GCA/PAR's technical minima: 100 feet/ 1/3 NM (2.75 degrees). "Radar's minima. I will continue advisory." And by the way some operators specifically ask us to "stop talking" on the very last part, as they are busy with either landing or going around!

[normally right blank]

Come to think of it, why would a shot up warplane pilot be especially interested in his "minima for this approach". Here is the day he probably would say, very fairly, "make this a good one, I'm not going around!"