Precision approach radar
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
I can tell you that RPAR stands for Replacement PAR (and is therefore presumably not a typo) but I have no idea what the "ridiculous situation" is.
I understood that it was being rolled out to RAF airfields and that ITT is the prime contractor, but presumably something has happened as happens to every other defence contract and surprises us afresh every time
Bit like Homer Simpson being surprised every time a bad thing happens, but continuing to go back for more
Timothy
I can tell you that RPAR stands for Replacement PAR (and is therefore presumably not a typo) but I have no idea what the "ridiculous situation" is.
I understood that it was being rolled out to RAF airfields and that ITT is the prime contractor, but presumably something has happened as happens to every other defence contract and surprises us afresh every time
Bit like Homer Simpson being surprised every time a bad thing happens, but continuing to go back for more
Timothy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit like Homer Simpson being surprised every time a bad thing happens, but continuing to go back for more
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 4th Feb 2004 at 17:16.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack O,
We use to have a military GCA unit here at FWA, and believe me we threw a party when they finally left. You would give them a flight on base or final, tower would tell them cleared to land ONLY, and more than half the time they did something else, thus causing all kinds of havoc.
We do Survelliance approaches to three of our runways, but having to do one in an actual emergency is rare.
Mike
We use to have a military GCA unit here at FWA, and believe me we threw a party when they finally left. You would give them a flight on base or final, tower would tell them cleared to land ONLY, and more than half the time they did something else, thus causing all kinds of havoc.
We do Survelliance approaches to three of our runways, but having to do one in an actual emergency is rare.
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ridiculous situation to which jack-oh refers is indeed quite remarkable, even for a defence procurement issue! The RPAR being all swept up and fancy has replaced the need for controllers to 'aim' the radar at the aircraft under control by working it out for itself. One of the problems that has been identified is that if you happen to be on a pairs approach and your wingman overshoots, the RPAR is likely to stay focussed on that aircraft and not the one continuing the approach to land. This could be quite easily spoil your day. In addition, other aircraft approaching the airfield could attract the atention of the RPAR and decide not to pay any further attention to you!
Recent instructions to military airfields have laid down criteria that must be applied for RPAR approaches under IFR conditions:
No other aircraft within 5 miles of the aircraft on GCA
No other aircraft within 2000 ft vertically above
No other aircraft to pass underneath RPAR traffic
Singleton approaches only
If these critieria are infringed by any track (known or unknown) the RPAR ac is to be broken off the approach. If these conditions cannot be met, units will offer SRAs instead.
So, Lincolnshire/Vale of York airfields, how are you going to get any successful talkdowns?
Of course this is equally a problem when looking at airfields as diversions. How would you like to be on a pairs actual diversion, short of fuel and trying to decide who is going to take the delay of a split for singleton GCAs. Perhaps you decide not to rely on PAR and choose the SRA option instead - Leuchars RW09 procedure minima 890', can't go there in Green or worse.
A quality, quality situation especially when you consider that this is only coming to light when the whole of the airforce has now gone over to this useless POS.
Recent instructions to military airfields have laid down criteria that must be applied for RPAR approaches under IFR conditions:
No other aircraft within 5 miles of the aircraft on GCA
No other aircraft within 2000 ft vertically above
No other aircraft to pass underneath RPAR traffic
Singleton approaches only
If these critieria are infringed by any track (known or unknown) the RPAR ac is to be broken off the approach. If these conditions cannot be met, units will offer SRAs instead.
So, Lincolnshire/Vale of York airfields, how are you going to get any successful talkdowns?
Of course this is equally a problem when looking at airfields as diversions. How would you like to be on a pairs actual diversion, short of fuel and trying to decide who is going to take the delay of a split for singleton GCAs. Perhaps you decide not to rely on PAR and choose the SRA option instead - Leuchars RW09 procedure minima 890', can't go there in Green or worse.
A quality, quality situation especially when you consider that this is only coming to light when the whole of the airforce has now gone over to this useless POS.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one with rotating nozzles don't, and they don't like the fact that the RoNAF binned the GCA 2 years ago when they are here on deployment. And yes, I belive a party was thrown the day they hauled it away here as well! 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spekesoftly said
No, I'm afraid they aren't. Of 27 military airfields with precision approach facilities, there are 58 PAR equipped runways against only 27 with ILS. Only 4 airfileds have dual ILS's; Aldergrove, Brize Norton, Linton On Ouse and Llanbedr. Equally, there are 5 airfileds with PAR only; St Athan, Culdrose, Topcliffe, Wittering and Yeovilton.
Aren't the majority of operational Brit mil a/c and airfields now equipped with ILS, rendering RPAR an unnecessary/expensive/labour intensive luxury (if it worked!) ?
Last edited by Briney; 4th Feb 2004 at 23:04.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ho Ho! Yet another MoD cock up. I first joined in 1964 and had my first experience of military procurement when Their Airships bought some Beagle light aircraft (can't remeber the exact type) to ferry V-bomber crews about. By the time they had mucked about with the basic aeroplane it couldn't carry a full Victor crew. And so it has continued - Cossor 787, Argosy, Linesman/Mediator to name a few.
What alarms me is who dreamt up the idea of automatic aircraft tracking? If it was ITT, what idiot at MoD accepted the idea? If it was part of the MoD specification, what clown came up with such a cock-eyed scheme? Probably some jumped-up, over-promoted brown-noser who never got the hang of the servos. I bet a hundred smackers nobody took the trouble of asking the guys and gals at the coal face who have to use the kit. Yawn !!!! Nothing ever changes.
What alarms me is who dreamt up the idea of automatic aircraft tracking? If it was ITT, what idiot at MoD accepted the idea? If it was part of the MoD specification, what clown came up with such a cock-eyed scheme? Probably some jumped-up, over-promoted brown-noser who never got the hang of the servos. I bet a hundred smackers nobody took the trouble of asking the guys and gals at the coal face who have to use the kit. Yawn !!!! Nothing ever changes.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPAR - Good or Bad?
RPAR was a welcome replacement to the old CR62 - at least we can see the aircraft through the wx now - no more guesswork and fidling with MTI (must try imagination).
New rules out today for use of RPAR are a joke! Briney gives the basic details, but the signal from STC gave Units the power to set up our own rules. Strike command leading from the front again!
Now we have neighbouring units doing different things, because they have to, to make sure their a/c carry on flying.
After Ben McDhui - STC have found another (knee) JERK to make our lives a pleasure.
Roll on retirement!
New rules out today for use of RPAR are a joke! Briney gives the basic details, but the signal from STC gave Units the power to set up our own rules. Strike command leading from the front again!
Now we have neighbouring units doing different things, because they have to, to make sure their a/c carry on flying.
After Ben McDhui - STC have found another (knee) JERK to make our lives a pleasure.
Roll on retirement!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Briney has already described, the restrictions in force are fairly droconian. I have just spent all day trying to come up with a workable solution to 2 airfields with overlapping instrument and visual approach profiles. The pairs incident described is not the only occurance, I belive the one that tiped the scale was a Nimrod inbound to Kinloss RW26 with VFR departures underneath out of Lossie. The RPAR ditched the Nimrod track in favor of the Tonker and left the talkdown controller issuing instructions to an ac going 300kts in the wrong direction. The fact the kit was trialed in the Falklands may have something to do with all the problems not being ironed out well in advance of acceptance. These things are sent to try us.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To jack-oh
Question is - how many incidents like the one you describe, have happened?
As to the controller issuing instructions to the wrong a/c - then he's an arse! Even a chimp can see which way the talkdown a/c is going.
If the powers that be are worried about the data block going with another a/c, then why not terminate service at that point and use the good old "radar contact lost - are you visual with the airfield?" procedure that worked perfectly well with the old kit?
It really deosn't take the brains of a genius to solve the problem - instead of which, the whole military ATC system has spent the last day working out a series of differing and riduculous procedures to make the new STC rules work.
Milatary ATC has shot itself in the foot again, and made itself look a right bunch of Tw&*#s to the flying fraternity.
To Mike Jenvey
At my airfield we won't accept you or foreign a/c for PARs - you will have to do with SRAs and hope the cloudbase is not too low for you to get in
Question is - how many incidents like the one you describe, have happened?
As to the controller issuing instructions to the wrong a/c - then he's an arse! Even a chimp can see which way the talkdown a/c is going.
If the powers that be are worried about the data block going with another a/c, then why not terminate service at that point and use the good old "radar contact lost - are you visual with the airfield?" procedure that worked perfectly well with the old kit?
It really deosn't take the brains of a genius to solve the problem - instead of which, the whole military ATC system has spent the last day working out a series of differing and riduculous procedures to make the new STC rules work.
Milatary ATC has shot itself in the foot again, and made itself look a right bunch of Tw&*#s to the flying fraternity.
To Mike Jenvey
At my airfield we won't accept you or foreign a/c for PARs - you will have to do with SRAs and hope the cloudbase is not too low for you to get in
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that "radar contact lost, are you visual with the airfield?" is fine if the answer is yes but if you happen to be on an actual diversion, IMC, with enough fuel for one IFR approach then that is not what you want to hear!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not on a boat, thankfully.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the AVO,
IIRC 20 incidents since RPAR was introduced (about 3 and a bit years ago).
It seems that the 'take avoiding action separation on all traffic, known or unknown' is the knee jerk reaction to the fact that your data label may transfer to another aircraft in close proximity AND the aircraft you are talking to dissapear from radar.
The 'radar contact lost, are you visual' would seem the most appropriate action, however, this is a knee jerk reaction and not rational thinking!
I don't think that you can go finger pointing that the MoD is at fault on a whole (for once). From what I have seen the system is proven by the yanks and although maybe not the 'best of the best' it is by far adequate for the job with today's reduced budgets. I am no wiggly-amp type, but I am sure the boffins at RPAR HQ are checking their computer codes for a solution.
IIRC 20 incidents since RPAR was introduced (about 3 and a bit years ago).
It seems that the 'take avoiding action separation on all traffic, known or unknown' is the knee jerk reaction to the fact that your data label may transfer to another aircraft in close proximity AND the aircraft you are talking to dissapear from radar.
The 'radar contact lost, are you visual' would seem the most appropriate action, however, this is a knee jerk reaction and not rational thinking!
I don't think that you can go finger pointing that the MoD is at fault on a whole (for once). From what I have seen the system is proven by the yanks and although maybe not the 'best of the best' it is by far adequate for the job with today's reduced budgets. I am no wiggly-amp type, but I am sure the boffins at RPAR HQ are checking their computer codes for a solution.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have seen the system is proven by the yanks
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ratt
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.
Seems that 500ft/3nm co-ordination in RAS conditions is OK on SRE but not on RPAR - where's the logic in that?
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.
Seems that 500ft/3nm co-ordination in RAS conditions is OK on SRE but not on RPAR - where's the logic in that?