PAR Approaches

[Baron rouge]

As an ex-airforce I have flown a numerous number of PAR approaches both in military and civilian french airlines.
I now find that some anglo-saxon companies ban those approaches .

The question is: does your company allow you to fly PAR approaches, what kind of training, background or qualification is required from the crew, what is the attitude of CAA/IAA regarding these approaches.

Thank you for your answers.

[Dream Land]

PAR approaches were in our ops specs since we operate into military airports, our training consisted of doing a simulated approach, conducted by the instructor. The simulator display was changed to appear like a PAR scope(Azimuth and Glidepath), worked fine.

D.L.

[alexban]

we used to do PAR app in the past,flying older,non-FMS planes.These days we are not allowed anymore.

[Baron rouge]

Thanks for your replies but it would help me if you were to name the airlines you are working for.

And how does the fact that your A/C is FMS equipped interfere with that ? If an Airfield is just providing PAR approaches how do you do, apart from avoiding going there.

[enicalyth]

yeah?

As far as I know anglo-saxon has nothing to do with it. Nor even frankly some previous experience in the military.

Suppose that an unexpected chain of events led an aircraft to a PAR-only military airfield with neither pilot "qualified". Further suppose one to be a low hour pilot but with some military PAR experience. Suppose the other to be a gifted captain of 12,000+ hrs but no previous direct experience of PAR. Good CRM helps provide the best solution. "Mine's Bigger than Yours" attitudes from either pilot do not.

Wherever there is PAR there is almost always VORTAC. Hopefully, but don't bank on it, there is also a radio altimeter operating area laid out in conformity with ICAO Annex 14 Vol 1 Attachment A Section 4.3 and hate it... a PAPI. Add INS, GPS, VNAV feeding into the FMS and where weather is predictable and/or island reserve is carried there are consequently quite a few military bases with no ILS. I can even think of at least one military airfield where bad weather is far from unknown and it has PAR plus localiser but not full blown ILS.

I think Mike has it about right. I began as a military pilot and retired as a civilian one. A good transport pilot is not distinguishable by the colour of the uniform. "But" doesn't come into it. Airmanship does. Airbus and Boeing are alike to me, if I had to fly either they provide me with the tools I need and if I have a preference I keep it to myself. And I prefer pprune for its immunity.

Best rgds

the "E"

[Baron rouge]

Why are people so touchy and speak defensively rather than answer simply to a question?

My company prevent us to fly PAR and I am just trying to understand why, as personaly I think it is a very safe approach, anyway much better than a visual in marginal conditions on an unknown airfield.

[Diabolo]

Salut Baron,

Laisse tomber. C'est le style des Anglais.
Chez moi nous n'avons aucune limitations à ce niveaux.

APP PAR où SSR nous faisons de tous.

A+

[head_girl]

read again diabolo

Ooooh!

You just called my favourite Dutch West Indian "un anglais".

It is not his style, can't speak for Mike, but if ever the odour of sanctity of M. Cafe Rouge, his self-righteous mock surprise and the hint of superiority in his original missive, (particularly the use of pejorative "anglo saxon"), deserved a put down, that did.

Cafe Rouge and Diabolo. A word please. The term "anglo saxon" from francophone lips has the same connotations as "frog" from an anglophone. And never, ever call an Aussie, particularly one who declares himself non anglo-saxon "un anglais".

You pair have put on an impressive display of conforming to stereotype. Implications of superiority versus "anglo-saxon". Inability to distinguish Aussie from English. Protestation of injured innocence. Recourse to kissy-kissy hug-hug and more self-congratulatory remarks confirming superiority in your own eyes.

Mike, you sound like an Old Woman. Enicalyth, you obviously didn't get the top job at Airbus you brown-nosed for. Deal with it.

Subject closed, let's move on.


head_girl

[Baron rouge]

The term "anglo saxon" from francophone lips has the same connotations as "frog" from an anglophone. And never, ever call an Aussie, particularly one who declares himself non anglo-saxon "un anglais".

Miss Head - Girl, you should know that anglo-saxon is in no way a derogatery word, it was used just not to call Irish, Welsh and Scottish people English,, and for your benefit know that the french equivalent of Frog for the English is Rostbeef .

now thanks again for poluting this topic, go and play somewhere else.

[Big Tudor]

Baron
There was quite a debate on the merits (or otherwise) of PAR on the Mil Forum HERE
with link to similar discussion on the ATC forum. It would appear from the RAF chaps that the new PAR equipment isn't all it is cracked up to be. Could be a possible reason as to why your company does not allow it.
Going back a few years, PAR approaches for Civ aircraft were permitted. although I don't know whether the crews had to be checked out on it. I'm talking DanAir HS748's diverting from Inverness to Kinloss so it was a few years ago!

[sikeano]

baron says


Thanks for your replies but it would help me if you were to name the airlines you are working for.

then adds

My company prevent us to fly PAR and I am just trying to understand why, as personaly I think it is a very safe approach, anyway much better than a visual in marginal conditions on an unknown airfield.

hmm i wonder who is he working for le monde so he can name and shame those ,maybe i am just being cynical here

[BOAC]

the french equivalent of Frog for the English is Rostbeef

- hate to query one apparently resident in France, but should it not be rosbif?

PAR excellence

[chevvron]

PARs

The CR62 PAR now phased out of service was an excellent aid. We were authorised to carry out talkdowns to touchdown provided the equipment set up allowed you to see this far. When we had a localiser installed, it had the same FAT as the PAR and the same touchdown point, so the pilot could follow the LLZ while carrying out your instructions to maintain the correct glidepath; much less workload for both pilot and controller!

[AirRabbit]

I was always under the impression that PAR approaches were known to have the “built-in” problems of delay: 1) delay in the radar sweep (both laterally and vertically; 2) delay in the scope presentation; 3) delay in the approach controller seeing, interpreting, deciding, and issuing corrective instructions; and 4) delay in the pilot hearing the instructions, interpreting, making a control input, and having the airplane respond accordingly. The cycle then repeated itself – over and over. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that compounding these delays can be injurious to one’s health. It was strenuous enough when final approach speeds were in the range of 100 mph. Today, modern machines come down final at somewhat higher rates of speed and significantly higher inertias (much, much higher gross weights), and, even with the increase in technological capability, the human “see/hear-interpret-respond time” has not had any similar increase in technological or psycho-motor capability. Compounding fractions of seconds throughout a final approach can still add up to unwanted consequences.

I can see why some might consider this “better” than “a visual (approach) in marginal conditions on an unknown airfield.” However, I would submit that we’re fooling ourselves into believing that, since “marginal visual conditions” are, or should be, acceptable, anything better is OK. Why do we want to believe that a 3-mile visibility is acceptable “visual” conditions in the first place? Again, when the 3-mile distance was established, airplanes were flying around the traffic pattern at that same 100 mph. Today, at the 160 to 200 knot maneuver-to-landing speeds, airplanes chew up that 3-mile distance in a big hurry! And pilots still don’t see any better than they did “back then.” Why do we continue to “shoe-horn” bigger and faster 21st-century operations into an established mid-20th-century mind set?
_______
AirRabbit

[tournesol]

Back to the question.
Do companies that allow their pilots to conduct PAR have to have some sort of an approved training kit ?

[henry crun]

AirRabbit: I believe some of your impressions are misguided, and others could well apply to ILS as well as PAR.

Both the azimuth and elevation beams sweep over a narrow arc at high speed so delay is negligible.

Delay in scope presentation ? sorry I cannot see what you are referring to unless it is measured in milliseconds.

Delay in passing, receiving, and acting on instruction, the answer to that is yes there must be some: but from my experience of giving countless PAR approaches to touchdown it is not significant.

tournesol: I cannot see why any company should require an approved training kit.
The big advantage of PAR is that it requires no experience or particular skill to fly one.
Provided the pilot can fly his aircraft accurately and obey the instructions passed, he/she will have no trouble.

[AirRabbit]

henry crun wrote:

AirRabbit: I believe some of your impressions are misguided, and others could well apply to ILS as well as PAR. Both the azimuth and elevation beams sweep over a narrow arc at high speed so delay is negligible.
Delay in scope presentation ? sorry I cannot see what you are referring to unless it is measured in milliseconds.
Delay in passing, receiving, and acting on instruction, the answer to that is yes there must be some: but from my experience of giving countless PAR approaches to touchdown it is not significant.

Mike Jenvey wrote:

I've flown numerous PARs in antiquated aircraft & also very swept-up modern aircraft. The ground equipment has also been of vintage background or 21st Century swept-up magic. I can't say I have ever thought that there has been a "delay" of any sorts - even taking into account how quickly I respond to the talkdown instructions!
Equally, I have had great fun (under strict supervision of course) of carrying out "live" PARs; I found the hardest bit to be coping with the "standard" RTF patter. This included high-speed swept-wing approaches at speeds up to about 160 kts!!
Anyway, if the sh*t had hit the fan, & even if "no compass, no gyro," (a real fun PAR to fly - speechless!!), I would have every faith in a PAR, probably to the runway touchdown point if needed!!
henry crun has it spot on in all respects!! No special training needed IMHO.

Each of you gentlemen is certainly free to disagree with me and, if you choose, believe that a PAR is a “no-brainer.” Perhaps your experiences include no problems with PARs – either flying them, or, as in Mr. Crun’s case additionally, providing the guidance. However, with no hard feelings intended, that is not my experience. Admittedly, I have never provided PAR guidance outside of what I would consider futile attempts in a simulator - even though the instructor’s display was altered to provide azimuth and elevation – which goes to the following:

tournesol wrote:

Do companies that allow their pilots to conduct PAR have to have some sort of an approved training kit ?

Yes, there are requirements for training for all the approaches authorized for a certificated operator as listed in the Operations Specifications – including PARs and ASRs. But, as I indicated, while there may be more modern versions available today (although I believe fewer and fewer commercial operators are including them in their Ops Specs, unless they serve exclusively military installations without other approach navigation aids) my experience is that the ASR/PAR simulator “training” was conducted as more of a “square filler” than real training; which, in my view, was the real “blind trust” of aviation operations.

However, I have flown more than my fair share of PAR approaches (if you consider hundreds more than a fair share) “live,” as described by Mr. Jenvey. I’ve flown them in a reasonably wide variance of aircraft, from military fighters and transports to commercial jets, from smaller ones to the largest; meaning final approach airspeeds and inertias that were all over the map. The most comfortable PAR was really what used to be called an “ILS approach with a GCA follow.” This was where the pilot flew the displayed ILS indications in the cockpit and heard the comforting voice of the GCA controller giving “corrections” when necessary – hopefully after the flight path adjustment had already been made. When there was a difference in what was seen and heard, the prudent course of action was a missed approach. However, and truthfully, in each of those approaches, the “correction” instructions were, unavoidably, following the flight path corrections. Many of those approaches were in places and under weather conditions that would have meant a completely different conclusion (i.e., a “nylon approach” in well over half of them) had there not been an ILS. While I have a different view from yours –it is my view, from my experiences.

Having said all that, please know that I am not a “prude.” I know what some operations require. I’ve flown into airports in many, aah, shall I say less “economically advantaged” societies because someone else decided that it was economically advantageous to the operation or was politically demonstrative for the mission. Having a PAR available in such circumstances (all that was available in some cases) didn’t necessarily fill my gut with confidence and, therefore, was almost always flown with a considerably higher level of awareness and personally increased minimums. I’d like to think that I always exercised this level of concern and caution – but, as you might guess – there was a time when I was young and invincible. I did, however and fortunately, have the luxury of very good instructors, pretty decent equipment (except for the dang UHF and HF radios!), and very competent mentors throughout my career. And I’d like to think that I learned something from each flight.

The primary reason I’m on these forums is to “share” some of that history with those who may be interested. There are some things about which I am absolutely “hard over;” and other things about which I’m reasonably swayed. My comment questioning our continuing to “shoe-horn” bigger and faster 21st-century operations into an established mid-20th-century mind set” is the kind of sharing I mean. I don’t necessarily believe my opinion here is “hard over,” but I don’t believe that flying PARs to precision minima are something that we should be content with today. Its like my questioning what we trying to do by having a B747 down at 500 – 700 feet above the ground, in bare minimum visibility, flying a circling approach. There are some things that just don’t make a lot of sense in today’s environments – just because something can be done, doesn't necessarily mean we should be content doing it. I happen to believe that PARs fall into that category.

Sorry to prattle on so, but, as you will note if you hang around these forums long enough, I do have a bit of a habit of doing so. Thanks for staying with this to get to this point.
________
AirRabbit

[chevvron]

The problem with pilots who are unfamiliar with PAR is that they tend to try and fly the approach using autopilot inputs rather than manually. The delay in the AP system means slow reactions when giving corrections, plus some AP's don't seem to 'react' to 2 deg heading corrections, so it 'stores up' the heading inputs and suddenly applies them all in one go! This suddenly gives the aircraft a (for example) 6 deg change instead of 2 deg, so the controller has to then try to stop the aircraft darting through the centreline!
A good controller with a pilot flying it manually will be able to anticipate what is the aircraft is likely to do, so he/she can be ready with an instruction. One of our regulars with military experience always advised other pilots fly the approach manually with yaw - dampers cancelled.

[Semaphore Sam]

To me, the PAR, and the ASR, were legitimate approaches; talking in the military context of the early '70's, when we had to do them for currency. We also had to do ADF and other esoteric approaches. Given that PAR, ASR, ADF, Adcock Range, and these other archaic approaches are unneeded, and unpracticed, why deal with them? Sure, I'd love to try and ASR, or PAR...and I was challenged on an ADF in recurrent training after 11 years after having shot one, with terrible results. In all these approaches, practice makes perfect. Is it worth the resources to keep nav aids, radar controllers, and pilot skills current on approach procedures that will probably never be required in the real world again? Should I actually have to fly an ADF, or an Adcock Range, approach anymore? Sounds like a Guild mentality...keep the outmoded, to eliminate the uninitiated. (I've been flying since 1970, and remember people swearing by the "N"'s and "A"'s, although nobody ever flew these anymore in the context of the '70's). Remember these old things with nostalga, but, operationally, they're old hat, and have been superceded.

[Dan Winterland]

My company flys to Japan where a few civil airfields have PARs. Nagoya's only precision approach is a PAR.

We are allowed to fly PARs but don't train for them.

As for flying them, they are the same as a SRA except they are approaches with electronic glidespope information and therefore precision approaches with lower minima than non precision approaches.

As for flying them with autopilot, it depends on the aircraft. The newer Airbusses handle them with the autopilot just fine. However, you can't use the Track/Flight Path Angle function as you rely on the controller giving you headings which you must fly - just as in a SRA.

My company's latest Sim detail is based in Japan. Opting to divert to an airfield with a PAR is a great plan as the sim operator is so busy doing the PAR, he is too busy to give you the landing gear fault on finals!