Radio Range Instrument Approaches in the 1930's.
 

I am reading "Ernest K. Gann's Flying Circus." And it has me spellbound, for want of a corny word. In his description of flying instrument approaches using the radio range and marker beacons, I was surprised to read that the legal minimum descent altitude (MDA in modern terminology) for a radio range let-down was as low as 300 feet. Not only that, but the pilot could get down to that altitude and then using timing to reach the missed approach point. Sculling along at 300 feet at night in IMC in a DC2 or a Trimotored Ford is scary stuff indeed epecially when the landing area could be a field and not necessarily a runway. This sounds like extraordinary risky flying and I wondered how many accidents occured.

Gann says: "In the tight little world of professional flying there are in the whole nation less than a thousand pilots who fly instruments regularly, and fewer still who shoot 300-foot approaches in blowing snow at night."

Ernest Gann was a fine writer with thousands of hours as an airline pilot. Yet dare I wonder if some of his flying stories that thrilled his readers were a tiny bit embellished? In particular, radio ranges in the 1930's were nowhere near as reliable as todays VOR navigation aids, yet the very low altitude to which pilots could legally descend according to Gann, were often lower than some of today's ILS minima and certainly lower than the later VOR MDA's.

Of course radio range MDA's of 300 feet above field level would surely take into account obstacles such as chimneys or masts on the final approach course. But how much tolerance was designed into the radio range instrument approach chart to allow a MDA in blowing snow of a mere 300 feet. Frightening stuff but yet compelling reading. I want to believe Ernest Gann's wonderful stories but as a former military and airline pilot I still have uneasy doubts in my mind. Can someone put my mind at ease?

Todays airline pilots probably wouldn't have a clue of the books by Ernest Gann. More's the pity because those were the days of real airmen rather than the flight deck automation managers of today...

If you ever get to/through Denver, go visit the Capt Jeppesen archive. There is a facsimile of his 'Little Black Book'. I'm sure if you ctc the Jepp office in the ACT on 261 202 999 they'll let you have (or loan you) a copy of the Capt. Jepp story on vid or DVD. This does give a great insight to the early days in the US.:ok:

Let me know how you get on:ok:

Here's a range approach chart. The limits were 600 and 1 for a straight in approach at this airport. This, by the way, is at the same airport where McGuire did the approach in a C-87 with two engines out on the same side in Fate Is The Hunter. In his case, beggars could not be choosers. He drove it down until he picked up some lights, not HIAL either, but flarepots.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m.../RNGAPPYVP.jpg

I used to recommend a copy of Fate Is The Hunter to every pilot I trained - many friends have Ernie Gann on their shelves. I've recently bought a first edition Flying Circus and have read some of his seaborne adventures in the past.

Anyone remember an article in the American 'Flying' magazine some years ago about him (published shortly after his death I believe). Included pictures of his study in an old chicken shed behind his home if I recall. Would like to get hold of that again.

Is this the one?

SD

Well this "flight deck automation manager" has done one, admittedly not in a big jet and not down to 300ft, and many others have also.
Does this make us Real Airmen - whatever that is?

And of course today's airline pilots read Ernest K Gann.

Think a little harder about conditions in those days. Few airports, no radar, few navigation aids, unreliable weather forecasts, unreliable aircraft - and if you needed to get in somewhere with nowhere else to go and radio range was all there was, as pigboat says of course you would go down to whatever was necessary. What alternative was there?

I'm sure Gann tells it exactly the way it was.

.........It just wasn't like that every day!

Albert Driver. I think you are dead right. As we grow older and our log books pile up on the shelf, inbuilt caution tainted with a regrettable dose of cynicism when reading flying stories of derring-do, sometimes overide the sheer enjoyment of the subject at hand. I for one, need to watch that at times.
Pigboat: Thank you for the radio range chart and your explanation.

Try also David Beattie's "Cone of silence" - Good desciption of a radio range let down in that - the cone of silence denoting the overhead of the beacon

My old man used to operate a mobile GCA van for the then MTCA (UK), I watched as a 5 year old a couple of 'talk downs' amazing to a sprog:O I wish I'd been able to keep his logs, got trashed afore I came into the industry:{

Here is the procedure as written in the Halifax Pilot's Notes. Combine this with pigboat's post and you get a good idea of what went on. The beam approach was a radio range letdown with an additional inner marker.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/e...r/scan0003.jpg

We used to do these down to 300 feet in Provost T1s during basic training in 1960.

Tootles

I think I have the original article somewhere - PM me and I will search it out and send you a photo copy

arem

A37575

I disagree with a couple of your comments. First of all it is probably quite rare to find a pilot of any significant experience who is not well versed with the writings of Ernie Gann. The mere title of his classic Fate is the Hunter evokes the uncertaintly and almost cruel whimsicalness with which fate can play a hand in any type of flying.

I had excerpts read to me during a morning briefing in military flight school and I can assure you that almost every member of the class ran out to buy a copy that very weekend.

However the main point with which I disagree with you is your statement of
Naturally I cannot pretend to speak for Gann, but I think he would be sorely disappointed that the subtilty of his writing seems to have been missed. Fate is a never tiring hunter. He knew it had always been so and he well knew that it would continue to be. I believe that he would not have been surprised of the recent events discussed in these fora--the A320 landing in the Hudson, the Emirates' incident in Melbourne, and tragically the Air France loss over the Atlantic.

Just as one had to put on the game face to guide a DC-2 or 3 down to mins in blowing snow, so I am certain that Gann would have recognized the two professional and well trained aviators in the cockpit of the Air France A330 trying everything in their skill set to salvage a viciously deteriorating situation near the Equator. I beleive Gann would recognize that while the equipment has changed and safety is light years ahead of what it was, that the cat and mouse game of the hunter and hunted is very much the same. If anything, Gann would probably say that his masterpiece is unfortunately one that will never be finished.

The last point is one that while we do much more "button pushing" today than the early pioneers and when I fly the 777 into London or Beijing or beyond that I am normally parked out on the ILS and I will freely admit that is not nearly as difficult as approaches that I flew in the military into places around Africa years ago but the changes from the pilots of the DC-2 trying to find the flarepots in the fog have been what the industry needs to maintain a level of safety. This is not, nor was it ever really, a story of self-actualization for who can be the lead-dog in the race to find out who the dude of all flying is by shooting the fixed card NDB with an engine out into 30K crosswinds etc. Remember, Gann started out many of those chapters with mention of aviators who had fallen in service. It was a risky business back then and there were many losses. I am sure those early pioneers would appreciate the changes that make it safer today to fly. For those need adventure in flying there are still a lot of avenues to take in one's free time. If you wish to fly the fixed-card NDB to blowing snow mins at the end of a 16 hour day I am sure you can do so!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif Unless it is the only approach available however, I prefer that you just do it in your own airplane please ;)

In 1960 I was a student in the Royal Air Force at RAF Ternhill (on Piston Provosts). We had the last SBA system in the RAF. (The aircraft system was known as a TBA).

So, what on earth was that?

Well, it consisted of a radio range consitsing of "A" and "N" audio sectors but with the addition of an "Outer Marker " (audio "Oink, Oink, Oink") through to the Middle Marker to the Inner Marker ("Peep, Peep, Peep").

It was a difficult system to get your head around as a student but once you got the hang of which (audio) sector you were in when approaching the airfield then the rest was relatively easy.

I seem to remember that we came down to 400 feet or less.

I don't think you should doubt Ernest Gann.

He did lots of things that I could relate with and any youngster who is even thinking about taking up our wonderful career should read "Fate is the Hunter".

I became an instructor in 1963 and I am still instructing. I have loaned "Fate is the Hunter" to all of my really promising pupils.

They usually fail to return the book but I don't really mind that.

One good operator is worth one good book!

There's a substantial account of the use of Radio Range, and other navigation aids of the period, in the book "The Golden Years of Flying", by Tex Searle, published 1998 and still in print, which is an account by various pilots of times at Frontier Airlines, Denver, principally from the 1950s in DC3s, but stretching back through their WW2 experiences to pre-war days. Well worth a read if you have an interest in this priod.

I recall that Fort Chimo, Quebec, Cranbrook, B.C., and perhaps Castlegar, B.C., Canada, tied for North America's last LF four-course range certified IFR approaches. Juneau, Alaska also had a LF four-course approach, but I believe it was decommissioned before Canada's four-course range approaches. The reason: The LF ranges were all located in mountainous terrain in areas prone to marginal weather, and the LF courses were oriented over the least hazardous terrain, i.e. valleys, lakes and fjords.
I'll vote for Castlegar, B.C., for the last aerodrome having a certified LF four-course range approach in North America. I await rebuttal.

I think you are being too sensitive and even unfair. I too, went through the military ropes with posting to Mustangs on graduation with 200 hours. Later I instructed on Lincolns where Sod's Law ensured sudden failure of the one and only artificial horizon would occur at night in IMC. Limited panel competency was essential. AT CFS one underwent instrument rating renewals in Dakota which included single engine, limited panel aural null instrument approaches. Useless stuff in retrospect but that was the requirement then..Fast forward 20 years or more and flying 737's. and the introduction to glass cockpit goodies and the irresistable lure of the beauty of automatics. Suddenly a new breed of pilots with 500 hours total time become trained on automatics and hand flying actively discouraged. The Use it or Lose it principle comes into play. Whereas the flight director was designed as an aid to flying it has now seen as absolutely essential. Faces go white if the FD is switched off in a VMC climb or descent and believe me I don't exaggerate. The fear of flying once a passenger problem becomes a real thing to some pilots when the automatics fail or switched off.

And now we read that Loss of Control has overtaken CFIT as the major cause of aircraft disasters. This has been coming for years. Like fire, automatics can be a good servant but a bad master.

Well, I retired three years ago and during my last year I got an aeroplane one night with no flight directors and no autopilot. Neither of these items were required by the MEL so we did five sectors in that configuration (over two nights).

The weather was not exactly wonderful either and I did wonder at the time how some of our automatic young whiz kids would manage to cope.

Well I was not flying in the '30s, but in 1962 on squadron we still had to do a range approach under the hood from the back seat of the T-33 for our annual ticket ride. It was probably the only one done in the year and you can imagine most of them were not pretty. We were not allowed to put the receiver on to ADF to get an idea of closing on the leg. After a while reality prevailed and the range approach became seen as a bit unrealistic given that the receiver was also an ADF.
Once we got the CF-100 replaced with the CF-101B, (TACAN equipped), the range approach was dropped and not missed by anyone.

A37575,

My intent is not to be unfair but I do seem to notice quite often on PPrune comments very similar to yours of

Which implies to me that a number of posters consider the airmen and women of today as being mere automation managers.

I would maintain that while flight deck automation is seductive that a good aviator strives to find a healthy balance. I notice a certain strain that seems to repetitively arise of the "my copilot (read these youngsters of today) cannot fly without a flight director etc." I would certainly agree that any pilot that does not have basic enough flying skills to fly without a flight director should not be in line operations. That goes without saying and may indeed reflect dependency on technology that needs to be adressed. (under fair disclosure I did not see one until I had already logged over 3000 hours so I find them interesting with their quirks.)

Yet my point is that never within the context of these sometimes didactically patronizing remarks (and I did not find yours in the category btw:) ) a COMPLETE lack of the idea of mentoring. We were all young aviatiors once and even after 22 years at hacking at this game I marvel at how much more there is to learn and practice and try to hone. Yet I look back and am grateful for those who took the time to mentor and teach and discuss and ask questions (for as we know the best teachers ask questions first to determine what you know and what experiences you have had) and try to make ourselves better than we were yesterday.

If these young aviators are such a callow corps of crapulous layabouts when it comes to the rigour of actually manipulating the controls then why not mentor? Why do posters repair to this forum to tell breathlessly relate how a copilot could not do this or that?

No matter how good a training department is (and believe me I bemoan with you the frightening pressures that the financial situation of airlines puts on adequate training), a product of this process is a newly die cut product that will really start to learn when once on the line.

All these words to say that if we have flight deck automation dependent wonders, then perhaps we did not do our job to mentor those who are following in how to be a well rounded aviator.

JMHO
:)

Ernie Gann
 

I rather like his comment about the C-87 (The cargo version of the Liberator) "Bastard would'nt carry enough ice to chill a Martini!":)

If you have FS 2004 you can download, free a radio range equipped DC-3