• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

What is the deal with PARs?

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
This is why I'd rather shoot an ILS in wx. It might be more work for me, but there's no controller deciphering a radar scope telling me "above glideslope, above glideslope, above glideslope, below glideslope going further below" :icon_rage ....just me figuring out if i spun my CDI in backwards :D
 

TheBubba

I Can Has Leadership!
None
This is why I'd rather shoot an ILS in wx. It might be more work for me, but there's no controller deciphering a radar scope telling me "above glideslope, above glideslope, above glideslope, below glideslope going further below" :icon_rage ....just me figuring out if i spun my CDI in backwards :D

Yeah... or the classic "right of course, turn right heading XXX" that I got on my last PAR.

Or the standard NPA "Well belove glide slope, going further belove"
 

Boomhower

Shoot, man, it's that dang ol' internet
None
For those of you that do a Hummer Controlled Approach in the fleet, just remember that the Hawkeye RADAR sucks for doing such a job. We only got an update every 6 seconds and we don't have your position down to the gnat's ass. Hummer Moles are pretty much making an educated guess on your exact position. So, I would recommend you use every backup NAVAID you've got and spot the deck like a mother fu#ker. And, God help you if you bolter. I had a Prowler nugget bolter on me 4 times before the ships controller finally took over, I was very glad that he did. He was much better at approaches than I was. We just didn't do it that often and it took a hell of a lot of planning, rehearsal and gouge to do it right.

I will say this, though. I thought that our pilots ran a much better Marshall than the ship did. "On the ball" calls and everything.
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
This is why I'd rather shoot an ILS in wx. It might be more work for me, but there's no controller deciphering a radar scope telling me "above glideslope, above glideslope, above glideslope, below glideslope going further below" :icon_rage ....just me figuring out if i spun my CDI in backwards :D

Right, I agree... until you read my story above, and then you fly a perfectly tracked localizer on said-ILS, and are actually 500 yards parallel to the runway centerline the whole way down.... NOT good.

And get an HSI... spin that bitch any which way, and still no reverse sensing! :D
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Right, I agree... until you read my story above, and then you fly a perfectly tracked localizer on said-ILS, and are actually 500 yards parallel to the runway centerline the whole way down.... NOT good.

And get an HSI... spin that bitch any which way, and still no reverse sensing! :D

Or your only method of shooting a precision approach IS a PAR. Don't worry though, there's higher priorities to worry about, no matter what the fleet says.
 

HuggyU2

Well-Known Member
None
...if you are going somewhere that only has a PAR and you know the weather is gonna be bad..., should you just assume the PAR might not work,...?
In the USAF, we are required to file an alternate (and have the fuel to do it), when "radar is required for the only suitable approach". So, if there is only the PAR, then we'd have an alt.
 

TheBubba

I Can Has Leadership!
None
In the USAF, we are required to file an alternate (and have the fuel to do it), when "radar is required for the only suitable approach". So, if there is only the PAR, then we'd have an alt.


We are supposed to as well. Even if its forecasted to be a CAVU day and the ILS is working 4.0, plan the gas to a divert. You never know when a C-17 is gonna land gear up.
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
We are supposed to as well. Even if its forecasted to be a CAVU day and the ILS is working 4.0, plan the gas to a divert. You never know when a C-17 is gonna land gear up.

That's when we cancel IFR and land on the taxiway next to the C-17 to get front row seats to the action. :D
 

fc2spyguy

loving my warm and comfy 214 blanket
pilot
Contributor
According to an email our OPS-O sent us, the PAR here at NASP is down every Monday for maintenance. What exactly goes into maintaining a PAR?

Maintenance of a PAR.

*disclaimer* again, I worked on a different radar, but the theories still remain true.

Many of the parts in a radar have to be adjusted from time to time. These parts include various amplifiers of the signal. Amplifiers, as they continue to age, will start creeping in frequency. They also will not amplify as well. Both of these things, as you can imagine, are bad. If the signal to noise ratio on the receiver becomes to small then the radar will have a difficult time distinguishing between real returns, and the ambient noise generated in processing a signal. This is essentially how some jammers work. They simply try to overpower the return signals, and raise the noise floor. So, if the radar is not being properly maintained, it becomes a lead weight sucking huge amounts of energy.

So, there is a maintenance cycle created depending on the radar. The older ones will have more frequent maintenance cycles, this is mainly due to a lot of older tube technology in the amplifiers. Tubes are notorious for getting off frequency. The newer ones use more solid state technology, however, when it comes to creating large amounts of power, tubes is still where it's at. Nominally maintenance schedules will be set on a not-to-interfere basis, however, this isn't always the case.
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Maintenance of a PAR.

*disclaimer* again, I worked on a different radar, but the theories still remain true.

Many of the parts in a radar have to be adjusted from time to time. These parts include various amplifiers of the signal. Amplifiers, as they continue to age, will start creeping in frequency. They also will not amplify as well. Both of these things, as you can imagine, are bad. If the signal to noise ratio on the receiver becomes to small then the radar will have a difficult time distinguishing between real returns, and the ambient noise generated in processing a signal. This is essentially how some jammers work. They simply try to overpower the return signals, and raise the noise floor. So, if the radar is not being properly maintained, it becomes a lead weight sucking huge amounts of energy.

So, there is a maintenance cycle created depending on the radar. The older ones will have more frequent maintenance cycles, this is mainly due to a lot of older tube technology in the amplifiers. Tubes are notorious for getting off frequency. The newer ones use more solid state technology, however, when it comes to creating large amounts of power, tubes is still where it's at. Nominally maintenance schedules will be set on a not-to-interfere basis, however, this isn't always the case.

The only thing I know of that tubes are great for is guitar amplification...


mmmm....
marshall_1959SLP_plexi_amp.jpg
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
By the time we were at DA, we were lined up with the parallel runway at North field, and completeley side-stepped from our desired runway.....
And with this statement, everyone one of your IPs just face-palmed...

And don't give me typo - H is WAY too far away from A. Say it with me: "Non precision = MDA, Precision = DH"
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
And with this statement, everyone one of your IPs just face-palmed...

And don't give me typo - H is WAY too far away from A. Say it with me: "Non precision = MDA, Precision = DH"


That was intentional, and accurate. A long time ago, while in some part of an instrument syllabus, someone made the point that "decision height", while an accepted term, isn't exactly accurate.

"Decision height" is referenced to the threshold elevation, while "decision altitude" is referenced to MSL. When I'm shooting an approach, I'm executing the missed at the DA based on the baralt, not the DH on the radalt, for obvious reasons (obstacles in the approach path can give an inaccurate AGL reading, slant range, etc, etc).

Decision Altitude is clearly defined in the FAR-AIM. You should check it out sometime. It's a good pub. ;)

far-aim.jpg


EDIT: At least one person agrees, as this article addresses the "obsolete term "DH". And don't tell me you use your RADALT for approaches and go missed at DH. Not all aircraft (as in... non-helo) have Radalts...

http://www.altairva-fs.com/training/ava_training_ifr_miss.htm
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
That was intentional, and accurate.
Whiting Field's Radar Instrument Approach Minimums (attached below) disagree. I don't see DA at all, just DH and HAT...

A long time ago, while in some part of an instrument syllabus, someone made the point that "decision height", while an accepted term, isn't exactly accurate.

"Decision height" is referenced to the threshold elevation, while "decision altitude" is referenced to MSL. When I'm shooting an approach, I'm executing the missed at the DA based on the baralt, not the DH on the radalt, for obvious reasons (obstacles in the approach path can give an inaccurate AGL reading, slant range, etc, etc).
Check your DOD approach plates. What you are arguing as DH is HAT.

Decision Altitude is clearly defined in the FAR-AIM. You should check it out sometime. It's a good pub. ;)
Maybe you should follow your own advice. DA is an ICAO term, unless the FAR/AIM forgot to consult you before defining it. When you're shooting a PAR into South Whiting Field, CANADA... THEN you can tell me you were at DA. That link is straight from the pilot controller glossary, rather than some guy's VIRTUAL AIRLINE SITE!
 

Attachments

  • SE3RAD.pdf
    85.1 KB · Views: 8

teabag53

Registered User
pilot
...and helos don't have all the RADALTs...as in the powers that be decided to let other a/c have them too!!! Even the KC-130F's have 'em.
 
Top