Replacement PAR could damage your health
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Karup, Denmark
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a comment of mine on the ATC forum:
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!
As said you can still have a PAR over here: Aalborg, Karup, Skrydstrup. And ILS to five of the six runways. This is not because we are very clever or rich, but as joint user airfields the civil part put in the ILS'es. When they asked the air force to pay some of the running costs, they got the answer: "Oh no, we don't use the ILS as primary aid, but our own PAR." So I guess it stays.
For some reason the HAT is 100´for the PAR, and 200´ for the ILS, (some pilots/aircraft combination), which is also significant.
Best regards
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!
As said you can still have a PAR over here: Aalborg, Karup, Skrydstrup. And ILS to five of the six runways. This is not because we are very clever or rich, but as joint user airfields the civil part put in the ILS'es. When they asked the air force to pay some of the running costs, they got the answer: "Oh no, we don't use the ILS as primary aid, but our own PAR." So I guess it stays.
For some reason the HAT is 100´for the PAR, and 200´ for the ILS, (some pilots/aircraft combination), which is also significant.
Best regards
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you could go the way that we in Oz did some years ago - decommission ALL PAR installations in favour of ILS.
I was trained to fly PAR approaches as a young sprog on pilot course, and some years later trained others to do the same. Can't speak highly enough of the PAR as an approach aid (except the piece of kit that's been described above - sounds dodgy!
) mostly because (as mentioned above) it's NOT a pilot interpreted procedure. Got to be a plus when trying to land an aircraft with an emergency in c**p weather. Just do as I'm told by the friendly controller and hey presto - out I pop at 100FT above the runway on centreline.
Our ILSs' are only CAT 1 - ie 200FT DA, and their serviceability is just as good (or bad, whichever way you look at it) as the PAR installations were.
All in the name of saving money though..................
I was trained to fly PAR approaches as a young sprog on pilot course, and some years later trained others to do the same. Can't speak highly enough of the PAR as an approach aid (except the piece of kit that's been described above - sounds dodgy!
) mostly because (as mentioned above) it's NOT a pilot interpreted procedure. Got to be a plus when trying to land an aircraft with an emergency in c**p weather. Just do as I'm told by the friendly controller and hey presto - out I pop at 100FT above the runway on centreline.Our ILSs' are only CAT 1 - ie 200FT DA, and their serviceability is just as good (or bad, whichever way you look at it) as the PAR installations were.
All in the name of saving money though..................
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chester
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all those interested:
Valley and LLanbedr (and cranditz?) still have the old PAR and will have for a year (thats how long they are letting them keep it) until they sort the new one out.
Local orders now state that there are to be no appraoches to land, in IMC, unless you have sufficient fuel for an alternative approach.
Anyone form Linton care to shed light on the problems you are having seeing as you have to have PAR monitoring for your ILS's?!!
Valley and LLanbedr (and cranditz?) still have the old PAR and will have for a year (thats how long they are letting them keep it) until they sort the new one out.
Local orders now state that there are to be no appraoches to land, in IMC, unless you have sufficient fuel for an alternative approach.
Anyone form Linton care to shed light on the problems you are having seeing as you have to have PAR monitoring for your ILS's?!!
Slightly off-thread admittedly, but why haven't we fitted TCAS to ALL our ac-it is PROVEN to save ac and crews, and how many more Hawks need CFIT before they are allowed a rad-alt despite goodness knows how many BOI's have recommended it. It can only be cash can't it-but just ONE ac saved will pay for both the above.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a driver's point of view, I much prefer ILS as an approach aid - everything I need is right in front of me - much better SA. I'm no fan of PARs in general, however, RPAR is a royal pain in the arse. You can go from "Well above glideslope" to "Well below glideslope" in a matter of seconds, with a perfectly acceptable ROD on. It appears to be WAY too sensitive.
There is little point in having an instrument approach aid that has restrictions in IMC. Come the day of sh!te weather and an emergency / limited fuel, RPAR would be my LAST choice, every time.
16B
There is little point in having an instrument approach aid that has restrictions in IMC. Come the day of sh!te weather and an emergency / limited fuel, RPAR would be my LAST choice, every time.
16B
With you 100% on that one 16 Blades.
We have to call slightly above/below when your data-block indicates more than 20 feet from the glidepath. Begs the question, what's the height of a C130 from nose wheel to top of tail?
Not really sure why we don't use the old CR62 criteria which are still published in JSP552. As you say the numbers do leap wildly up and down the GP at times. By watching the blip rather than the data-block you get a much better feel for the true profile of the aircraft.
Here's another can of worms. How would you feel being constantly told you were slightly above or below glidepath on an RPAR monitored ILS?
Cheers,
LXGB
We have to call slightly above/below when your data-block indicates more than 20 feet from the glidepath. Begs the question, what's the height of a C130 from nose wheel to top of tail?
Not really sure why we don't use the old CR62 criteria which are still published in JSP552. As you say the numbers do leap wildly up and down the GP at times. By watching the blip rather than the data-block you get a much better feel for the true profile of the aircraft.
Here's another can of worms. How would you feel being constantly told you were slightly above or below glidepath on an RPAR monitored ILS?
Cheers,
LXGB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: RAF Lossiemouth
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should hope that an ILS is easier when there are two of you flying the thing, plus two others to help you read the TAPs, mop your brow and wipe your arse and you only do 100 knots anyway.
Try flying an ILS with any (major) emergency in the Tonka and you'll wish you had the extra help...
Try flying an ILS with any (major) emergency in the Tonka and you'll wish you had the extra help...
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of us 'flying'? 100kts?
Never flown in Albert then, Eric? All the P2 does is call "200 above", "100 above", and "decision", and monitor. Am I missing something, or aren't there supposed to be 2 of you in a Tonka? Eng plays no part in the approach, Nav gives you a ROD to fly, but otherwise plays no part in a precision approach, except in the event of an overshoot. And sh!t weather is sh!t weather, whatever type you fly. Same for emergencies.
Our approach speeds vary according to AUW, but you can hang your hat on 150kts with 50% flap and 130kts with 100% (or 165kts with no flap - considered an emergency)
LXGB
I'd tell the controller to shut the f**k up, whilst I was flying a pilot-interpreted aid - politely of course! I've always found radar monitoring of an ILS rather curious - it is (in my experience) obvious when something is amiss with an ILS, at either end. A quick bit of mental arithmetic will tell you whether a GS needle is telling you the truth, and good SA will do similar for the localiser. Radar monitoring is just a waste of controller's time, IMHO.
16B
Never flown in Albert then, Eric? All the P2 does is call "200 above", "100 above", and "decision", and monitor. Am I missing something, or aren't there supposed to be 2 of you in a Tonka? Eng plays no part in the approach, Nav gives you a ROD to fly, but otherwise plays no part in a precision approach, except in the event of an overshoot. And sh!t weather is sh!t weather, whatever type you fly. Same for emergencies.
Our approach speeds vary according to AUW, but you can hang your hat on 150kts with 50% flap and 130kts with 100% (or 165kts with no flap - considered an emergency)
LXGB
I'd tell the controller to shut the f**k up, whilst I was flying a pilot-interpreted aid - politely of course! I've always found radar monitoring of an ILS rather curious - it is (in my experience) obvious when something is amiss with an ILS, at either end. A quick bit of mental arithmetic will tell you whether a GS needle is telling you the truth, and good SA will do similar for the localiser. Radar monitoring is just a waste of controller's time, IMHO.
16B
Last edited by 16 blades; 8th Jun 2005 at 22:41.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: People's Rep of N Yorks
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While controlling at Bruggen during the Kosovo campaign late '91, i wondered why all og the Tonka crews would ask for a PAR at the end of the sortie but the VC10's would normally ask for an ILS, esp when the skys were gin clear with 40km vis. So, one morning at around 6am when we had all retired to the bar after a successful mission, i asked the pilot of a GR1 and the answer was quite simple. After an 7/12 - 8 hour sortie which included 2 refuellings in thunderstorms interspersed with a bombing run with some light flack, they were absolutely knackered and numb (physically and mentally) so when in contact with home ATC they would ask for a PAR because all they had to do was respond to up/down, left/right and look out approaching DH. They also trusted the Controllers to give them a good service
Of course, the VC10 crews had a slightly easier time of it and so still had a bit more in reserve.
So i guess there is a good reason for PAR. But while RPAR might be great on paper, it does occasionally jump from one ac to another and that needs sorted pronto. Problem is that the company say there is nothing wrong and that we got what we asked for. also while it has not been commissioned/fitted at Valley etc, we have already paid for them so tough accoding to one engineer!
Of course, the VC10 crews had a slightly easier time of it and so still had a bit more in reserve. So i guess there is a good reason for PAR. But while RPAR might be great on paper, it does occasionally jump from one ac to another and that needs sorted pronto. Problem is that the company say there is nothing wrong and that we got what we asked for. also while it has not been commissioned/fitted at Valley etc, we have already paid for them so tough accoding to one engineer!
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would actually say the opposite is true - an ILS requires much less capacity and concentration to fly. It's all laid out in front of you - all you have to do is chase the needles (not that I would do that of course - I would use the correct techniques as taught to me during training!!). With a PAR you have to listen to the controller, interpret their instructions, translate them into actions, and guess at exactly what rate you were closing on the GS / centreline. I suppose an ILS is a bit trickier in an ac without a flt director, but it's been a long time since I've flown one. Do any FJs have them?
16B
16B
Wish someone would tell our trappers 
I’ve delivered a few talk downs in the last 20+ years of controlling, to all manner of aircraft types. I’ve done plenty ‘in anger’ to guys with emergencies and/or fuel shortages in p*ss poor weather. In my experience (mainly on CR62) the PAR approach was the favoured way of getting back to the runway. I was always left with a warm feeling of satisfaction when the approach was successful (ie the guy was able to land) and that satisfaction was often underlined with a subsequent phone call from a happy customer, (mind, I learnt quite a lot from the phone calls after my not-so-good talk downs!) Our problem is not so much with the new RPAR kit, as the manner in which (new) controllers are taught to use it. Gone are the days of having a conversation with the pilot with an ability to stamp one’s own persona on the way the approach was controlled. I always tried to picture myself on the receiving end – what would I like to hear? It seemed to work…
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone posed the quesion of ILS in the Tin-Can with no PAR monitoring/SRA only monitoring....
You simply have to treat the ILS as a LLZ only procedure and apply the appropriate MDH.
We have a problem with sticking G/S needles (nice!) so you have to constantly refer to the DME vs Ht data on the TAP even on a monitored ILS for that warm and fuzzy feeling.
Basically I don't ever use the PAR, since if it's cr@p there's the monitored ILS and if it's better than that you're practically obliged to use SRA to steer clear of the limitations.
The current RPAR is a fantastic piece of kit for sanitised class D airspace operations, but for the humble MATZ with all it's various traffic it is a waste of space.
Tin-Can due for TCAS which I believe may also provide non-sticking needles - might avoid need of monitoring, lets hope.
You simply have to treat the ILS as a LLZ only procedure and apply the appropriate MDH.
We have a problem with sticking G/S needles (nice!) so you have to constantly refer to the DME vs Ht data on the TAP even on a monitored ILS for that warm and fuzzy feeling.
Basically I don't ever use the PAR, since if it's cr@p there's the monitored ILS and if it's better than that you're practically obliged to use SRA to steer clear of the limitations.
The current RPAR is a fantastic piece of kit for sanitised class D airspace operations, but for the humble MATZ with all it's various traffic it is a waste of space.
Tin-Can due for TCAS which I believe may also provide non-sticking needles - might avoid need of monitoring, lets hope.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our problem is not so much with the new RPAR kit, as the manner in which (new).......
That is a very contentious comment. The training of RPAR controllers is exactly the same as it was for CR62. The problems occur because of the extra restrictions put on the kit because of it's unreliability, and the changes made to passing information on the ac's relation to the GP based on a height/Alt chart rather than the ac's radar/digital response.
WTI can gives good indication of how an ac is correcting to the GP but, we're not allowed to use it! Sensitivity of the equipment leads to a variation in ralation to the GP for high tailed ac ( 1 reading from the tail, 1 from the UC) leading to controllers having to judge a mean. If they don't then the pilot is flooded with GP correction info.
I'd say that RPAR has the potential to be very good...it is accurate and unaffected by weather/clutter. But there is no doubt that software glitches need to be dealt with AND confidence restored in its use both by controllers and aircrew.
WTI can gives good indication of how an ac is correcting to the GP but, we're not allowed to use it! Sensitivity of the equipment leads to a variation in ralation to the GP for high tailed ac ( 1 reading from the tail, 1 from the UC) leading to controllers having to judge a mean. If they don't then the pilot is flooded with GP correction info.
I'd say that RPAR has the potential to be very good...it is accurate and unaffected by weather/clutter. But there is no doubt that software glitches need to be dealt with AND confidence restored in its use both by controllers and aircrew.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just posted this on the ATC forum, but its about the same subject so I will copy it here as well.
As far as I am aware, the RPAR fix will be rolled out this summer and therefore hopefully the problem will go away. However, the reason that you have to select the ac contact that you are going to provide a talkdown to is fairly simple. When you select the ac the system allocates extra beams from the surveillance side of its workings to track the ac that you are interested in (13 I believe) this enables the system to obtain the level of accuracy required in order to provide a talkdown.
As for going back to CR62, I think the problems with RPAR have made you nostalgic for a past that never existed. If you want: excessive clutter, contacts the size of mars bars, survoing, utter confusion when doing 2 talkdowns at once, a system that you had to physically lock down in high winds, mechanically turning gears that took 10 mins to change runway (if they didn’t stop halfway through), a system that spent half it’s life on maintenance, a DH cursor that you had to be a safe cracker to set right and endless knobs switches and buttons to press in an attempt to make the picture work then you are welcome to it. As far as I can see RPAR is a welcome step forward, yes, it has had its problems but half of them were our own bloody fault. Who trials a new system in the Falkland Islands and then never goes down to see it, or appreciate what it will do in a busy environment. What company gives you a multi-million pound piece of kit but then doesn’t tell you how to operate it until it has been installed for over a month.
The introduction of RPAR has seen its fair share of problems, but has exposed us in ATC to the big bad world of procurement, and we have looked a little naive to its ways to say the least.
Go back to your CR62 Luddite, but I guarantee that within 2 years you will be sitting in front of a blank screen, because no company on Earth will be manufacturing the wiggly bits inside it.
As far as I am aware, the RPAR fix will be rolled out this summer and therefore hopefully the problem will go away. However, the reason that you have to select the ac contact that you are going to provide a talkdown to is fairly simple. When you select the ac the system allocates extra beams from the surveillance side of its workings to track the ac that you are interested in (13 I believe) this enables the system to obtain the level of accuracy required in order to provide a talkdown.
As for going back to CR62, I think the problems with RPAR have made you nostalgic for a past that never existed. If you want: excessive clutter, contacts the size of mars bars, survoing, utter confusion when doing 2 talkdowns at once, a system that you had to physically lock down in high winds, mechanically turning gears that took 10 mins to change runway (if they didn’t stop halfway through), a system that spent half it’s life on maintenance, a DH cursor that you had to be a safe cracker to set right and endless knobs switches and buttons to press in an attempt to make the picture work then you are welcome to it. As far as I can see RPAR is a welcome step forward, yes, it has had its problems but half of them were our own bloody fault. Who trials a new system in the Falkland Islands and then never goes down to see it, or appreciate what it will do in a busy environment. What company gives you a multi-million pound piece of kit but then doesn’t tell you how to operate it until it has been installed for over a month.
The introduction of RPAR has seen its fair share of problems, but has exposed us in ATC to the big bad world of procurement, and we have looked a little naive to its ways to say the least.
Go back to your CR62 Luddite, but I guarantee that within 2 years you will be sitting in front of a blank screen, because no company on Earth will be manufacturing the wiggly bits inside it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear Jack-oh.
You hit the nail on the head. Which @**%~ ordered the kit to be trailed down the FI? Come on own up!
Probably retired now on full pay and won't ever have to worry about flying his jet back on a dark january Lincolnshire night, fuel priority, hyd fail, and the weather going YLO/AMB, ILS tits up and a No1 div of VLY.
You hit the nail on the head. Which @**%~ ordered the kit to be trailed down the FI? Come on own up!
Probably retired now on full pay and won't ever have to worry about flying his jet back on a dark january Lincolnshire night, fuel priority, hyd fail, and the weather going YLO/AMB, ILS tits up and a No1 div of VLY.
PAR monitored ILS I would only tell you if you were below/well below the Gp. At EGDL we offer IFR/VFR PAR's. Another option that would be easy to initiate is to turn the labels off and control the 'blip'. The C130 appears to jump up and down through the GP and it is often best to give an average, not easy for the new controller. Overall it is much better than the CR62 and when they sort the 'Sim' mode out that will be a great help also.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vertical at the merge
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Beagle
Save yourself the cost of the dial-up for your useless posts and then the 17000 quid you spent on fm immunity gizzers wont feel so bad.
Mil ac fly PARs because the moneys not there to fit ILS everywhere and anywhere we go. Plus, a nice female voice on talkdown is a welcome sound after a crappy night.
Maybe Ive got this wrong but it appears you are the ultimate, self professed knowledge on everything.
Frankly Im a bit bored.
Save yourself the cost of the dial-up for your useless posts and then the 17000 quid you spent on fm immunity gizzers wont feel so bad.
Mil ac fly PARs because the moneys not there to fit ILS everywhere and anywhere we go. Plus, a nice female voice on talkdown is a welcome sound after a crappy night.
Maybe Ive got this wrong but it appears you are the ultimate, self professed knowledge on everything.
Frankly Im a bit bored.