PAR approeach

[MachFly]

Does anyone have or know the document number of an official US military publication that describes procedures to a PAR approach?

Thanks

 

[Velocity173]

Does anyone have or know the document number of an official US military publication that describes procedures to a PAR approach?

Thanks

Not sure what exactly you're looking for. The AIM has basic information on how a PAR is done. In FM 3-04.240 there is a basic overview of PARs. In 5-12-1 of the 7110.65 there are some requirements for the controllers. Of course the Radar Instrument Approach Mins at the beginning of the IAP FLIP has info as well.

Basically look up the mins for the approach and listen to the controller. They'll take care of everything.

Also, I think I have a phraseology sheet that they gave us I the instrument examiner course that I can send you if you want. It's just an example of what you can expect to hear from GCA.

 

[MarkZ]

From the pilots side, it's a snap. ATC will give you applicable information. When you switch to the final controller he will tell you to not transmit, and will also issue your landing clearance.

All you need to do is listen and do what ATC says so they can "fly" the plane for you.

 

[AggieMike88]

From the pilots side, it's a snap. ATC will give you applicable information. When you switch to the final controller he will tell you to not transmit, and will also issue your landing clearance.

All you need to do is listen and do what ATC says so they can "fly" the plane for you.

Mark, is this something that most airports equipped with radar will provide?

 

[Velocity173]

Oh yeah I almost forgot. NAVAIR 00-80T-114 has information about PARs in the radar section of CH-7. Realize though that it pertains to Navy/Marine in particular. PAR equipment and procedures vary slightly from facility to facility.

 

[frfly172]

Did a par approach while practicing for my instrument ride. Having been in the military it was a lot of fun. The controller does a lot of the work you just fly the airplane.

 

[bobmrg]

Mark, is this something that most airports equipped with radar will provide?

No. The nearest equivalent would be a an ASR, which is azimuth-only...and because it is labor-intensive at a TRACON it would have to be a declared emergency (IMHO). PAR provides altitude information and there are darn few military installations providing them to civvies these days.

Bob Gardner

 

[MarkZ]

Mark, is this something that most airports equipped with radar will provide?

PAR approaches are a rarity. In fact, I don't know of any ATC facilities in the US that employs them as a primary approach procedure. There might be some, but it just haven't heard of them. They are inefficient. Only one aircraft can fly a PAR approach at a time. Because the PAR has a quicker than one second update time, the final controller can provide accurate azimuth and glide slope tracking to the runway threshold.

Most terminal ATC facilities can provide an ASR surveillance approach, which has higher minimums than a PAR approach and does not provide the vertical component of navigation. Unlike PAR systems, a typical ASR has a 3-6 second update. The newer FUSION systems use a 1 second update. Bob is absolutely correct in that ASR approaches still require the utmost surveillance. Because of that, approach controllers who have multiple aircraft in their control won't be able to provide the approach. Unless an emergency situation exists.

At my old facility (an enroute ARTCC), a controller provided quasi-ASR approach services to a twin engine aircraft that was experiencing severe icing and lost navigation capability. ARSR (Air route surveillance radar - Enroute radar) has a 12 second update. It was nothing short of amazing he talked the guy within 1/4 mile of the approach end of the runway.

 

[Perezhr]

I used to belong to the NAS Jacksonville flying club many years ago while I was getting my instrument rating. Got to shoot a couple of PARs to NAS JAX. Lots of fun!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Velocity173]

Mark the Navy, Marines and Army still use them heavily. With the advent of GPS approaches I wouldn't call them a "primary approach" but they're one of several that a military pilot can do.

As far as only one at a time, I believe that's mostly a civilian thing. I think there are a few smaller military facilities that only have one scope but most large facilities have more than one. In the Marines we used to have guys 3 miles in trail conducting multiple PARs at once. I believe at KNKX we could do three at a time and KNBC was two at a time. With a DA of 100 ft, PAR is the approach of choice at most Navy & Marine bases. Of course a lot of it has to do with how good the controller is.

You can do GCAs as a civilian but it's going to be based on traffic, manning and if it's a military base, facility rules. I did an ASR at KCHA a few months back and they had no problem accomadating me. I've done them at military bases in my off time as well but they'll usually allow only a low approach. Generally they'll make sure you realize that you are not allowed to touch down on the runway. Of course if it's a joint base then it's no problem.

As a controller, GCAs are fun. When you're sitting around doing nothing it breaks up the boredom. Sometimes you need them for currency as well. I stopped keeping track at 600 but I probably gave a couple thousand GCAs before I left the service. Actually did a PAR for AF1 a long time ago.

 

[Tom-D]

No. The nearest equivalent would be a an ASR, which is azimuth-only...and because it is labor-intensive at a TRACON it would have to be a declared emergency (IMHO). PAR provides altitude information and there are darn few military installations providing them to civvies these days.

Bob Gardner

NUW will do them to OKH for training of the ATC crew.

Simply tell them that you will run the circuit for them. at the end of the run they will ask how they did.

 

[MachFly]

Not sure what exactly you're looking for. The AIM has basic information on how a PAR is done. In FM 3-04.240 there is a basic overview of PARs. In 5-12-1 of the 7110.65 there are some requirements for the controllers. Of course the Radar Instrument Approach Mins at the beginning of the IAP FLIP has info as well.

Basically look up the mins for the approach and listen to the controller. They'll take care of everything.

Also, I think I have a phraseology sheet that they gave us I the instrument examiner course that I can send you if you want. It's just an example of what you can expect to hear from GCA.

Oh yeah I almost forgot. NAVAIR 00-80T-114 has information about PARs in the radar section of CH-7. Realize though that it pertains to Navy/Marine in particular. PAR equipment and procedures vary slightly from facility to facility.

Thanks! That's exactly the type of stuff I was looking for.

I am familiar with the PAR, but all my information (most of it anyways) comes from one person who taught me about me and I never actually read any official documents on it, so I figured it's probably a good idea.

 

[Piloto]

For PAR a special radar with vertical and horzontal high scan rate is required. A conventional surveillance radar is too slow. The PAR radar is common in Russia. First time I saw one was at Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow. PAR details at http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte923.en.html

José

 

[Fearless Tower]

Only one aircraft can fly a PAR approach at a time.

That is not entirely true. It depends on the equipment. We can do two simultaneous approaches (using independent radars and separate controllers) to the boat (LHD)...staggered of course. If we can do two, I would think that the air stations would be able as well.

 

[MarkZ]

Thanks for the correction guys. I never served, so that's one aspect of ATC I (regrettably) missed out on. I can see how the military would prefer PAR approaches, they seem to be more mobile (prior to GPS) and accurate than TACAN approaches.

I would have liked to run one aircraft through, just to see how I do.

 

[Velocity173]

Thanks for the correction guys. I never served, so that's one aspect of ATC I (regrettably) missed out on. I can see how the military would prefer PAR approaches, they seem to be more mobile (prior to GPS) and accurate than TACAN approaches.

I would have liked to run one aircraft through, just to see how I do.

You'd do fine. Approach is far more difficult. GCA is the first place people train when they get assigned to a radar facility in the military. Still, we probably had 1 in 4 controllers washout during GCA training.

 

[timwinters]

My primary instructor was ex-military and loved PARs and ASRs and after shooting a bunch of each, I thought they were a blast too.

We shot ASR approaches over at Fayetteville, AR numerous times and flew down to North Little Rock to shoot PARs two or three times. The controllers down at at Little Rock (the AFB IIRC) wanted civilians to come down and shoot them because they needed to maintain their currency/proficiency also. This was in 2002, not sure if they're still shooting PARs down there or not.

 

[35 AoA]

Mark the Navy, Marines and Army still use them heavily. With the advent of GPS approaches I wouldn't call them a "primary approach" but they're one of several that a military pilot can do.

Agree with everything else you said, but I would qualify this with the fact that USN and USMC Hornets/Super Hornets have no civilian ILS, and can't shoot GPS approaches (not certified, nor do we carry any of the waypoints). So the PAR is the only precision approach available to us anywhere other than the boat, hence why USN/USMC fighter bases do them so much.

And on the topic, once you get used to them, it is super easy, and with a good controller, very accurate as well. If the wx were below mins, I had no divert, and I knew my controller was solid, I would be willing to bet my life on taking one to touchdown....there are a number of folks who have over the years.

 

[Velocity173]

Agree with everything else you said, but I would qualify this with the fact that USN and USMC Hornets/Super Hornets have no civilian ILS, and can't shoot GPS approaches (not certified, nor do we carry any of the waypoints). So the PAR is the only precision approach available to us anywhere other than the boat, hence why USN/USMC fighter bases do them so much.

And on the topic, once you get used to them, it is super easy, and with a good controller, very accurate as well. If the wx were below mins, I had no divert, and I knew my controller was solid, I would be willing to bet my life on taking one to touchdown....there are a number of folks who have over the years.

Man I thought you guys would have upgraded to at least an IFR GPS by now. I'm wondering why KNKX got an ILS and GPS approaches when all the Hornets can't do them. There was talk of getting an ILS when I was there but I didn't think they'd ever get one.

Do you have anything in the HUD to backup the PAR? Reason I ask is that back in 99 one of the controllers at KNKX misidentified an F-18 on a PAR handoff. He took radar on some P-3 doing a TACAN who he thought was his F-18. The P-3 was high so he kept telling the F-18 that he was well above glidpath. All this time his F-18 guy was decending below glidpath because he was following the controllers instructions. Luckily the weather east of the field wasnt that bad and the F-18 popped out below the clouds and saw the hills below. I had to pull the tapes and help with the investigation. Approach Mag did an article on it as well. That situation is extremely rare but let it be a lesson, back it up with a radar altimeter or something.

I was fortunate in the UH-60 I had a choice of many approaches. We could do NDBs, VORs, ILSs, GPSs and of course GCAs. If I was doing a PAR and the airport also had an ILS, I had that tuned up so the pilot not on the controls could back up the pilot flying the PAR. Obviously that isn't always possible so you just have to trust the controller doing the PAR.

 

[35 AoA]

Man I thought you guys would have upgraded to at least an IFR GPS by now. I'm wondering why KNKX got an ILS and GPS approaches when all the Hornets can't do them. There was talk of getting an ILS when I was there but I didn't think they'd ever get one.

Do you have anything in the HUD to backup the PAR? Reason I ask is that back in 99 one of the controllers at KNKX misidentified an F-18 on a PAR handoff. He took radar on some P-3 doing a TACAN who he thought was his F-18. The P-3 was high so he kept telling the F-18 that he was well above glidpath. All this time his F-18 guy was decending below glidpath because he was following the controllers instructions. Luckily the weather east of the field wasnt that bad and the F-18 popped out below the clouds and saw the hills below. I had to pull the tapes and help with the investigation. Approach Mag did an article on it as well. That situation is extremely rare but let it be a lesson, back it up with a radar altimeter or something.

Wow, that is pretty scary! I know if you didn't keep your wits about you, flying into the mountains night VMC east of the field wouldn't be too difficult there if you went super deep off the 180. IIRC there was a story of at least one F-4 that had done it.

Anyway, yeah, we have GPS aided INS in higher lot Hornets (ie all fleet jets and the majority of FRS jets save the B's). You could theoretically hand jam the waypoints in and fly them sequentially, though there is no GPS approach functionality in the nav system. I've never shot a GPS approach in my life or in 13 years of flying, so I really can't comment on the specifics......but I know we aren't certified because we don't have RAIM or whatever the self test requirement is. We certainly do have the ability to determine if our mil grade GPS is working properly, but for whatever reason, our system doesn't meet FAA requirements. I use GPS waypoints all the time for navigation, though we would call it "INS direct" in that situation. It is sort of silly though, since we are capable of targeting, employing, and supporting GPS guided munitions in combat with little or no error whatsoever. Same deal for RVSM.....only certain Super Hornets, and no legacy Hornets are RVSM capable.

As for HUD info, if we were to punch in the coordinates for the runway approach end, and designate that coordinate, then we get a diamond in the HUD in roughly the position of that spot....and in our helmet as well. Both of those diamonds are subject to boresight errors inherent in the HUD display system......but they are essentially good enough for government work. If you put the diamond 3 degrees down in the HUD pitch ladder and fly to it, you are going to probably fly a pretty decent PAR. We can also shoot the "Hornet 1 approach" which is essentially designating the runway with a/g radar, and flying a self contained approach off that, but it's really only an emergency sort of capability, and I wouldn't personally trust it below normal precision mins.

I think NKX has GPS approaches because most everything else out there does have IFR GPS capability....tenant aircraft like the V-22, KC-130J, etc can all benefit from it.

The weirdest thing about NKX was shooting PARs on beautiful VMC evenings when the sun was setting right in your face and you couldn't see RWY 24 until about 1/2-1/4 mile.

 

[AmazonChitlin]

I'm rated in a few GCA facilities. I only know the military side. We could have one aircraft on the PAR at a time (multiple aircraft can BE on the PAR's scope, but only one can be on final at a time). ASR can control multiple aircraft, and can even be set up as an Army Radar Approach Control (ARAC)!

Here are some manuals if you're really bored, since you asked:
FM 3-04.303 - Specifically Chapter 5
JO 7110.65
FM 3-04.120 <- Won't really tell you what you want to know, but again, if you're bored...

 

[Velocity173]

Agree with everything else you said, but I would qualify this with the fact that USN and USMC Hornets/Super Hornets have no civilian ILS, and can't shoot GPS approaches (not certified, nor do we carry any of the waypoints). So the PAR is the only precision approach available to us anywhere other than the boat, hence why USN/USMC fighter bases do them so much.

And on the topic, once you get used to them, it is super easy, and with a good controller, very accurate as well. If the wx were below mins, I had no divert, and I knew my controller was solid, I would be willing to bet my life on taking one to touchdown....there are a number of folks who have over the years.

Wow, that is pretty scary! I know if you didn't keep your wits about you, flying into the mountains night VMC east of the field wouldn't be too difficult there if you went super deep off the 180. IIRC there was a story of at least one F-4 that had done it.

Anyway, yeah, we have GPS aided INS in higher lot Hornets (ie all fleet jets and the majority of FRS jets save the B's). You could theoretically hand jam the waypoints in and fly them sequentially, though there is no GPS approach functionality in the nav system. I've never shot a GPS approach in my life or in 13 years of flying, so I really can't comment on the specifics......but I know we aren't certified because we don't have RAIM or whatever the self test requirement is. We certainly do have the ability to determine if our mil grade GPS is working properly, but for whatever reason, our system doesn't meet FAA requirements. I use GPS waypoints all the time for navigation, though we would call it "INS direct" in that situation. It is sort of silly though, since we are capable of targeting, employing, and supporting GPS guided munitions in combat with little or no error whatsoever. Same deal for RVSM.....only certain Super Hornets, and no legacy Hornets are RVSM capable.

As for HUD info, if we were to punch in the coordinates for the runway approach end, and designate that coordinate, then we get a diamond in the HUD in roughly the position of that spot....and in our helmet as well. Both of those diamonds are subject to boresight errors inherent in the HUD display system......but they are essentially good enough for government work. If you put the diamond 3 degrees down in the HUD pitch ladder and fly to it, you are going to probably fly a pretty decent PAR. We can also shoot the "Hornet 1 approach" which is essentially designating the runway with a/g radar, and flying a self contained approach off that, but it's really only an emergency sort of capability, and I wouldn't personally trust it below normal precision mins.

I think NKX has GPS approaches because most everything else out there does have IFR GPS capability....tenant aircraft like the V-22, KC-130J, etc can all benefit from it.

The weirdest thing about NKX was shooting PARs on beautiful VMC evenings when the sun was setting right in your face and you couldn't see RWY 24 until about 1/2-1/4 mile.

Sounds like the same GPS I used in 60s. It was VFR only but we would hand jam waypoints or load a route via cartridge. In combat with a fill loaded you could do an emergency precision GPS approach with it. A few years ago the Army finally upgraded it to an IFR GPS with a non-corruptible database with RAIM capability. What made me laugh is it isn't precision capable and probably never will be. I really didn't mind though. Money was needed for basic combat upgrades like ASE instead of nice to have avionics.

I remember the "Hornet Approach" from NBC. Never saw a single aircraft have to do it though. We had portable ATC TADIL-C capability similar to ACLS but no one ever used that either.

 

[35 AoA]

Sounds like the same GPS I used in 60s. It was VFR only but we would hand jam waypoints or load a route via cartridge. In combat with a fill loaded you could do an emergency precision GPS approach with it. A few years ago the Army finally upgraded it to an IFR GPS with a non-corruptible database with RAIM capability. What made me laugh is it isn't precision capable and probably never will be. I really didn't mind though. Money was needed for basic combat upgrades like ASE instead of nice to have avionics.

I remember the "Hornet Approach" from NBC. Never saw a single aircraft have to do it though. We had portable ATC TADIL-C capability similar to ACLS but no one ever used that either.

Interesting.....have never heard of a portable ACLS......that could be cool. Yeah, specifically we have 59 waypoints that are user selectable in mission planning software (or in the jet), and can be used for things like sequences (to keep you in an area), for nav waypoints, or anything else. There are also 200 GPS points that are not user modifiable which are typically major tacans/vortacs, airports, and some more extensively used fixes. Those 200 are very locally oriented, so I can only load say for the socal area, or maybe DC or something, and they normally don't include most anything on a GPS approach. We have a related heartache when ATC wants to send us to some random fixes for routing, and we don't (unlike most of you all) have them in the system and can't just call them up, and have to first find them on some random low chart we were lucky enough to bring along (or more likely not), and then secondly (if we happened to have said chart) jam them into the jet. Otherwise I am going to ask for a steer, and then different routing to something that I do have on a high chart or a tacan.

 

[MarkZ]

I'm loving reading this thread. You guys are way above my pay grade on this stuff, but it's fascinating.

 

[jaybee]

I did a ASR into Daytona Beach a few years ago, didn't have to declare an emergency *shrug*

 

[Velocity173]

Interesting.....have never heard of a portable ACLS......that could be cool. Yeah, specifically we have 59 waypoints that are user selectable in mission planning software (or in the jet), and can be used for things like sequences (to keep you in an area), for nav waypoints, or anything else. There are also 200 GPS points that are not user modifiable which are typically major tacans/vortacs, airports, and some more extensively used fixes. Those 200 are very locally oriented, so I can only load say for the socal area, or maybe DC or something, and they normally don't include most anything on a GPS approach. We have a related heartache when ATC wants to send us to some random fixes for routing, and we don't (unlike most of you all) have them in the system and can't just call them up, and have to first find them on some random low chart we were lucky enough to bring along (or more likely not), and then secondly (if we happened to have said chart) jam them into the jet. Otherwise I am going to ask for a steer, and then different routing to something that I do have on a high chart or a tacan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-tpn-22.htm

It's part of the Marine Air Traffic Control Approach Landing System (MATCALS). If look at NKX on Google Earth you'll see their setup left of 24L. MATCALS used to be state of the art when it came out in the early 80s. Touch screen color displays, digital radios both secure and unsecure. The heart of the system is the TPN-22 PAR. If the aircraft is equipped, you can do fully automatic mode I approaches or mode II approaches where the pilot flys the PAR in the HUD. Of course regular mode III PARs are available as well.

We only did mode II & IIIs because of the red tape involved in getting the system approved for mode Is was extensive. On all the approaches you fly the aircraft through a gate that you move on the screen with your finger. They have to fly through both glidepath and azimuth gates. Once they pass through you get a "lock" on the aircraft. Once locked, you tap the target and get a tag just like on an ASR scope. Only this tag gives you exact altitudes above or below the GP and exact distance in feet left or right of centerline. If the pilot elects to do a mode II, tell him to report the "needles" and they fly the PAR like an ILS while the final controller monitors them.

MATCALS is really cool stuff when everything is working properly. Problem is there were a lot of flaws in the design and without good radar tech and knowledgeable controllers, it can really be a mess. Sometimes it seemed like it was a little too far ahead of it's time and some of the bugs hadn't been fully worked out yet before implementation. If you've ever seen the movie "Deal of the Century", there's a UAV in it that has some technical glitches. There were days in that radar room where I felt like those guys in that movie.

 

[Blackhawk]

I will normally have my instrument pilots do at least one PAR to see what it is like and even try to have my private pilots do a no-gyro PAR. I tell both groups that if there is an instrument failure or some other emergency (such as Inadvertant IMC for a non-instrument pilot), and a PAR is close by the no-gyro may be their best bet. In training we can only do the low approach, but I tell them if things are bad just declare, land, and sort it out on the ground.

 

[cirrusmx]

I did a par approach long ago in ft hood. I was flying by and requested a practice a approach and the controller was more than happy to hook me up. it was sweet!

 

[35 AoA]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-tpn-22.htm

It's part of the Marine Air Traffic Control Approach Landing System (MATCALS). If look at NKX on Google Earth you'll see their setup left of 24L. MATCALS used to be state of the art when it came out in the early 80s. Touch screen color displays, digital radios both secure and unsecure. The heart of the system is the TPN-22 PAR. If the aircraft is equipped, you can do fully automatic mode I approaches or mode II approaches where the pilot flys the PAR in the HUD. Of course regular mode III PARs are available as well.

We only did mode II & IIIs because of the red tape involved in getting the system approved for mode Is was extensive. On all the approaches you fly the aircraft through a gate that you move on the screen with your finger. They have to fly through both glidepath and azimuth gates. Once they pass through you get a "lock" on the aircraft. Once locked, you tap the target and get a tag just like on an ASR scope. Only this tag gives you exact altitudes above or below the GP and exact distance in feet left or right of centerline. If the pilot elects to do a mode II, tell him to report the "needles" and they fly the PAR like an ILS while the final controller monitors them.

MATCALS is really cool stuff when everything is working properly. Problem is there were a lot of flaws in the design and without good radar tech and knowledgeable controllers, it can really be a mess. Sometimes it seemed like it was a little too far ahead of it's time and some of the bugs hadn't been fully worked out yet before implementation. If you've ever seen the movie "Deal of the Century", there's a UAV in it that has some technical glitches. There were days in that radar room where I felt like those guys in that movie.

Wow, cool stuff....thanks for sharing. I had never heard of that before.

So I'm assuming that the symbology in the jet would be the same as ACLS since I would also guess it uses the same datalink and beacon gear? I'd think you could have done mode 1A's at least with minimal expense/certification. Same as flying a PAR to OPNAV mins, though I guess you'd have to certify that it could safely fly the aircraft down to those mins. Still, pretty cool.

 

[Velocity173]

Wow, cool stuff....thanks for sharing. I had never heard of that before.

So I'm assuming that the symbology in the jet would be the same as ACLS since I would also guess it uses the same datalink and beacon gear? I'd think you could have done mode 1A's at least with minimal expense/certification. Same as flying a PAR to OPNAV mins, though I guess you'd have to certify that it could safely fly the aircraft down to those mins. Still, pretty cool.

I believe the data link is similar to the ACLS setup but not sure. Pilot's seem to like the mode IIs because it was something new to do. I went out to the Stennis and looked at the SPN-46 that's used for ACLS. Looks archaic! They used to have it at NKX when it was Navy but I never got to use it though. Heard some of the older guys say you couldn't link up with an aircraft at a large intercept or it will slam the stick into the pilot's thigh.

Problem with the MATCALS is that is was designed for combat so it just isn't used much. We used it on big excercises but that was it. The one at NKX just sits there until they need to do a periodic flight check on it. My last PAR in the Marines happened to be a MATCALS one for an FAA flight check. I was the only one at the station with real world MATCALS PAR experience so they sent me over. Think I did two PARs. I switched the aircraft to SOCAL Approach and before he left said they were the best PARs he's ever gotten. It probably had more to do with the equipment than me though.

 

[Henning]

No. The nearest equivalent would be a an ASR, which is azimuth-only...and because it is labor-intensive at a TRACON it would have to be a declared emergency (IMHO). PAR provides altitude information and there are darn few military installations providing them to civvies these days.

Bob Gardner

It's been a while since I did my IR, but we did PARs at several and they appreciated the practice since they needed to do them for currency and apparently rarely did them for military aircraft.

 

[Captain]

When I was flight instructing I tried to get each of my instrument students a PAR and an ASR approach somewhere in the syllabus. I forget which airport I used but I think it was a civilian field. Regardless, the controllers were always appreciative for the practice / currency. Of course I would never expect it and would only ask if it seemed quiet. Good experience IMO.

 

[MachFly]

When I was flight instructing I tried to get each of my instrument students a PAR and an ASR approach somewhere in the syllabus.

Why?

It sounds like a great idea, I just never heard of a civilian instructor doing that, so just curious what your reasoning is.

 

[35 AoA]

I shot my first ASR and PAR as a civilian student in a 141 program when I first began flying.....I'd say it is a good thing for any instrument pilot to become somewhat familiar with. Could save your bacon if you have to shoot a no gyro approach some day, or just lose all that fancy nav gear in hard IMC.

 

[Henning]

Why?

It sounds like a great idea, I just never heard of a civilian instructor doing that, so just curious what your reasoning is.

I had to pull a no gyro approach for real once, I was glad to have the practice.

 

[Noah Werka]

Re: PAR approach

When I was an Instructor for the BPPP out of INT, I always had the Student file to FAY for their Instrument portion of the training. FAY has all of the instrument approaches necessary to do an IPC. Simmons AAF was right next door. After we had done all the approaches at FAY, we would request a PAR at Simmons. They were always glad to do one because the controllers always needed the training. I don't know how many other PAR's they the did, but we were never refused.

Most of the Students I worked with had never done one. It was a real eye-opener for most of them to realize how little control input was necessary to fly the approach, if the aircraft was set up properly. They would then apply that knowledge to an ILS back into INT. By using what they learned by doing a PAR to set up and fly an ILS, they realized how hard they had been working to fly a relatively easy approach. Every Instrument rated pilot should do a PAR at least once if the opportunity arises.

Noah W

 

[35 AoA]

Re: PAR approach

Most of the Students I worked with had never done one. It was a real eye-opener for most of them to realize how little control input was necessary to fly the approach, if the aircraft was set up properly. They would then apply that knowledge to an ILS back into INT. By using what they learned by doing a PAR to set up and fly an ILS, they realized how hard they had been working to fly a relatively approach. Every Instrument rated pilot should do a PAR at least once if the opportunity arises.

Noah W

Very good point.

 

[Velocity173]

Our usual no gyro simulation in the radar room was "smoke in the cockpit." I thought it was funny. If the smoke is that bad where the guy can't even see anything, I seriously doubt that my course and glidpath calls are going to help him keep the dirty side down. I think I'd eject if it came to that. But if they're have that bad of a day a PAR would be their best option.

Another fun simulation we'd do was to do a single engine C-12 and you're only allowed left turns towards the good engine. You basically would arc him through final and hope they arrive at DH on course.

Then when you're really bored you combine them all. You give the student a F-5 no flap, 250 kt approach, no gyro, smoke in the cockpit, left turns only and he requests the cable at the last minute. That'll definitely end with a crash. The student gets frustrated, you make fun of them for a little bit, then you get serious and go back to realistic sims.

 

[35 AoA]

Makes me wonder.....I know it is in NATOPS but I am too lazy to look right now.....what is the max engagement speed for an E28? I'm guessing that a flaps off approach for us would be near or above it, but 250 for an F-5 is a bit faster than that.

 

[Velocity173]

Makes me wonder.....I know it is in NATOPS but I am too lazy to look right now.....what is the max engagement speed for an E28? I'm guessing that a flaps off approach for us would be near or above it, but 250 for an F-5 is a bit faster than that.

Not sure. Usually you all took it around 130-140. I mentioned in another thread that I saw a T-2 take it and it ripped his hook out the back! Aircraft recovery was expecting a 30 something thousand pound Hornet and not a little Buckeye.

We had a D model have a problem on takeoff once (I think engine out) and tried to take the departure end E-28. Unfortunately it was derigged and they ended up taking the E-5. They ended up wiping out some of the approach lights and sinking into the ground a bit.