Replacement PAR could damage your health
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Replacement PAR could damage your health
An interesting thread over on the ATC Issues forum has some repercussions for us here and concerns the new GCA radar that has been rolled out to the entire air force (I think). [I have submitted my reply as the starter here]
Has anyone else considered the wider implications other than a few frustrated practice GCAs? I believe that this may be a complete showstopper for the widespread use of GCAs as an 'in anger' recovery aid. Or am I being a drama queen?!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...54#post1170254
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 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.
Has anyone else considered the wider implications other than a few frustrated practice GCAs? I believe that this may be a complete showstopper for the widespread use of GCAs as an 'in anger' recovery aid. Or am I being a drama queen?!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...54#post1170254
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 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.
Last edited by Briney; 5th Feb 2004 at 06:19.
Why on earth is the military still farting about with GCA? The rest of the country learned how to fly pilot-interpreted approaches years ago - or accept SRAs if there was nothing better. But World War 2 era PARs? Why??
I've always assumed (perhaps somebody once told me) that the military persisted with ground interpreted aids because, unlike Perf A certified civvy a/c, they might be damaged / wounded crew, etc. In other words because they are warplanes.
This new RPAR sounds apalling, I'm quite shocked to learn about it!
This new RPAR sounds apalling, I'm quite shocked to learn about it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently I was ever so slightly wrong when I said the entire air force had gone over to this new white elephant, Valley are currently in the throes of installing it when this blew up and they are now refusing to decomission their old PAR until the issues have been resolved. They'll be hanging on to that for a while then!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get rid of the PAR completely, put an ILS on both ends of the runway and sack a huge number of the Flight Prevention Branch! PARs are awful anyway, constant blabbering while trying to sort out the endless reams of checks, much better to fly a nice quiet ILS.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooray for the PAR (the OLD PAR)
I like PARs coz they're easy! You just have to do what you're told and look and the altimeter now and then. None of this digging out TAPS, fiddling with the electrickery equipment, doing TITS or STINT or whatever.
Now the TAC to TAC approach - there's a ball ache!
Now the TAC to TAC approach - there's a ball ache!
Another factor here is that many of our aircraft still have non FM-Immune ILS boxes installed which means that we cannot do an ILS in IMC either! How many of these problems are caused by "Smart Procurement" (a euphemism for not testing new equipment in an effort to save money).
How does the UK military get away with such blatant non-compliance with FM-immunity requirements, yet I had to pay Ł17000 to re-equip 4 light ac to comply?
The UK military is the minority user of UK airspace. They have no excuse whatsoever for non-compliance with FMI requirements.
I've also heard that some think that they can get round the ILS FMI requirements by flying a 'radar monitored ILS' in IMC. OK if it's a PAR, but with SRA only, surely the approach must be terminated and a go-around executed in such a manner that at no time does the ac descend below the associated MDH unless the approach can be completed visually before MDH is reached.
Penny-pinching bean counters - bŁoody well comply with the law of the land and stop hiding behind 'exemptions' beacuse you can't afford to re-equip your few aeroplanes to the same standard as every other ac is required to meet.
The UK military is the minority user of UK airspace. They have no excuse whatsoever for non-compliance with FMI requirements.
I've also heard that some think that they can get round the ILS FMI requirements by flying a 'radar monitored ILS' in IMC. OK if it's a PAR, but with SRA only, surely the approach must be terminated and a go-around executed in such a manner that at no time does the ac descend below the associated MDH unless the approach can be completed visually before MDH is reached.
Penny-pinching bean counters - bŁoody well comply with the law of the land and stop hiding behind 'exemptions' beacuse you can't afford to re-equip your few aeroplanes to the same standard as every other ac is required to meet.
With PAR, the controller can silently monitor an ILS, and only chip in if a discrepancy is noticed, but how does an SRA monitored ILS work? Wouldn't the controller still have to give all the standard spiel and patter, in which case why not just fly the SRA?
Trusting a non-precision radar to monitor (what should be!) a precision approach aid seems a bit ar$e about face.
Trusting a non-precision radar to monitor (what should be!) a precision approach aid seems a bit ar$e about face.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Stirring again I see. Yes you had to pay Ł17000 for 4 light aircraft. Can you imagine what the tax payer would have said to multiplying that by 200 or what ever the figure is now.
As to no PAR as the way ahead. What about some of the small pointy aircraft that either have never been fitted with or wouldn't have the room or weight alowance to have ILS systems fitted. Then add the extra cost of having ILS installed at all of our airfields compared to one PAR which can be turned for the runway in use. What then about deployed ops? Think of the cost and time involved in fitting and calibrating a full ILS system to places like Kabul and Basra after we have just destroyed the one that was fitted there. Much easier to deploy a mobile PAR system. Therefore we have to train and operate with it in peacetime as in war.
Stirring again I see. Yes you had to pay Ł17000 for 4 light aircraft. Can you imagine what the tax payer would have said to multiplying that by 200 or what ever the figure is now.
As to no PAR as the way ahead. What about some of the small pointy aircraft that either have never been fitted with or wouldn't have the room or weight alowance to have ILS systems fitted. Then add the extra cost of having ILS installed at all of our airfields compared to one PAR which can be turned for the runway in use. What then about deployed ops? Think of the cost and time involved in fitting and calibrating a full ILS system to places like Kabul and Basra after we have just destroyed the one that was fitted there. Much easier to deploy a mobile PAR system. Therefore we have to train and operate with it in peacetime as in war.
The figure would have been considerably less than however much was pi$$ed down the BWoS sink on MRA4 and TypHoon...
The fact that some military aerodromes don't have ILS is a reflection of a direct failure to invest in adequate infrastructure in the past. If it's now coming home to bite, then tough. How many front line aerodromes does the RAF have left which don't have ILS in any case?
Bearing in mind that it's only the VHF (localiser) element of ILS which is allegedly susceptible to FM interference, azimuth monitoring should be OK as the glideslope is UHF. But the azimuth monitoring cannot be provided below MDH, hence ac must either level at MDH or go-around in sufficient time to avoid descent below MDH.
Which small pointy things couldn't afford the weight of an ILS receiver? The ones which can carry several thousands of pounds weight of bombs? The ones which haven't had to use Kabul, Baghdad or Basra?
The fact that some military aerodromes don't have ILS is a reflection of a direct failure to invest in adequate infrastructure in the past. If it's now coming home to bite, then tough. How many front line aerodromes does the RAF have left which don't have ILS in any case?
Bearing in mind that it's only the VHF (localiser) element of ILS which is allegedly susceptible to FM interference, azimuth monitoring should be OK as the glideslope is UHF. But the azimuth monitoring cannot be provided below MDH, hence ac must either level at MDH or go-around in sufficient time to avoid descent below MDH.
Which small pointy things couldn't afford the weight of an ILS receiver? The ones which can carry several thousands of pounds weight of bombs? The ones which haven't had to use Kabul, Baghdad or Basra?
nav attacking,
Surely the real issue here is the tax payers' money that has already been wasted on equipment (ILS & RPAR) that can only be used in fine weather!
BEags,
Thanks for the explanation, and I do see what you're getting at, but I'm still not convinced that you can even apply the SRA MDH, if you are not actually being given a full SRA.
Put another way, if it all went wrong, I bet the BOI report would make interesting reading!
Surely the real issue here is the tax payers' money that has already been wasted on equipment (ILS & RPAR) that can only be used in fine weather!
BEags,
Thanks for the explanation, and I do see what you're getting at, but I'm still not convinced that you can even apply the SRA MDH, if you are not actually being given a full SRA.
Put another way, if it all went wrong, I bet the BOI report would make interesting reading!
Last edited by spekesoftly; 6th Feb 2004 at 18:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent a bit of time in research mode with the red book, you may be interested to know that of 26 military airfields with precision approach facilities, there are 58 PAR equipped runways against only 25 with ILS. Only 3 airfileds have dual ILS's; Brize Norton, Linton On Ouse and Llanbedr. There are 5 airfileds with PAR only; St Athan, Culdrose, Topcliffe, Wittering and Yeovilton.
So which bill do you want to pick up:
a. Trash this new piece of pooh and either repair (if possible) or replace with another PAR.
OR
b. Buy 33 new ILS installations and pay the bill to sort out the FMI issue (if possible) on the aircraft fleet.
So which bill do you want to pick up:
a. Trash this new piece of pooh and either repair (if possible) or replace with another PAR.
OR
b. Buy 33 new ILS installations and pay the bill to sort out the FMI issue (if possible) on the aircraft fleet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PAR
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: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then there's Harrier / SHar with no ILS at all. D'oh.
How did we not see this coming? Was it not tested before deciding to pull the plug on every PAR out there (Valhalla / Cranditz excepted)?
<screams, then shrugs and exits stage right to wait for the next mind-bogglingly short-sighted idea from above>
How did we not see this coming? Was it not tested before deciding to pull the plug on every PAR out there (Valhalla / Cranditz excepted)?
<screams, then shrugs and exits stage right to wait for the next mind-bogglingly short-sighted idea from above>
Thread Starter
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