ASR anyone?

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
Working on my IR. And going to Asheville, NC for Christmas...looking at the approaches which include an ASR, pretty rare. Has anyone actually done one of these approaches, for real. What is it like? Seems kinda neat. The VOR/ILS approach requires an ADF for the MA. Does that requirement still apply for an ASR? It does not mention it in the approach plate.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did one at KRFD. Controllers were MORE than willing to assist. Guess they have to keep current.

It was really easy. It was one of my first IR flights under the hood. If I recall, they verbalized the heading I was to maintain and the altitudes, changing as necessary. For me, it was a lot of fun and really easy.
 
Did one ASR during my training, don't remember a lot about. Wasn't much to it. Given altitudes to descend to and turns to make.
 
the asr approach ,is good practice for both the controller and the pilot. good to know you can do the approach if you have too.
 
I've done surveillance approaches during training, they're fun. Go to a military field and do a GCA approach, it's similar but lots more coaching from the tower. During mine, I asked and was cleared for a low approach, "as low as you want to go, as long as the wheels don't touch."

Never done one for real, as it's for when your vacuum pump is dead. That happened once to me, flying VFR in gusty conditions. Wait until you are cleared for an ILS Back Course in actual conditions . . .
 
I only did an ASR once, and that was in training when landing at GRR. It was really fun, the controller and I both enjoyed it. You should do it at least for the experience.

Haven't done one since, unlikely I ever will do one again.
 
I've given probably a few hundred as a controller. It's simply a non precision radar approach. The controller uses an extended centerline on an ASR map for guidance. Recommended altitudes will be provided on request to your MDA. They'll get your clearance to land from the tower and if it's IFR, issue MAP and lost commo instructions (have a pen ready). Really a no brainer.
 
Hank S said:
I've done surveillance approaches during training, they're fun. Go to a military field and do a GCA approach, it's similar but lots more coaching from the tower. During mine, I asked and was cleared for a low approach, "as low as you want to go, as long as the wheels don't touch."

Never done one for real, as it's for when your vacuum pump is dead. That happened once to me, flying VFR in gusty conditions. Wait until you are cleared for an ILS Back Course in actual conditions . . .
Click to expand...

It's either an ASR or a PAR, both are GCA radar approaches. If your gyros are dead you ask for a "no gyro" ASR or PAR and heading corrections become "turn right/left, stop turn" instead of numerical headings. The controller gives headings and recommended altitudes as you progress down an (non-precision) ASR while he directs adjustment to your descent rate as you progress down his glideslope on a (precision) PAR.
 
That's it! Civilian fields give ASR, military gives PAR, much more precise.
 
Hank S said:
That's it! Civilian fields give ASR, military gives PAR, much more precise.
Click to expand...

Mil fields give ASR's too (as does USS Ship when they are having trouble with their systems). I've flown a bazillion of them, as my aircraft has no precision approach capability other than PAR unless I'm landing on the boat. The controller makes all the difference. Like any non precision approach, there is a lot more room for error on an ASR, and you have an MDH rather than a DH just like a TACAN or VOR/NDB approach. On a PAR, they are bringing you down to 200' 1/2 mile conditions conceivably, so controller proficiency makes a big difference there. I've had PAR's where I've been zig zagging across the final approach course the entire way due to crosswinds, and I have done ones where the controller had me on a rails approach the whole way. Taking the controller out of the equation, I think it is a much easier type of approach to fly than an ILS, as there is a lot to be gathered from voice inflection about your trends and the 15 to 5 second updates you get the whole time. Meanwhile, with a good inside outside scan, you can really free up your eyes to try and break out the runway environment. If I had a good controller and I were in a pinch, I would take it down to the runway in 0/0 if I needed to (which I would never do with an ILS).......it can be that precise. But that is a BIG if. Those kinds of controllers are not that common, and come out typically just on really bad weather days/nights. Also of note, the radar used for GCA's frequently has trouble in heavy precip which kind of defeats the purpose at times......but anyway, starting to jump down a rabbit hole now.
 
200 & 1/2 for Air Force & Army. Real controllers run you down to 100 & 1/4. Been there done that, got the kudos. :wink2:
 
Velocity173 said:
200 & 1/2 for Air Force & Army. Real controllers run you down to 100 & 1/4. Been there done that, got the kudos. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should say that many PARs go lower, but our single pilot absolute mins in the USN are 200 1/2 regardless, hence my comment. I think the multi-pilot guys can go to the actually occasionally published mins of 100 1/4 in some places.
 
35 AoA said:
Yeah, I should say that many PARs go lower, but our single pilot absolute mins in the USN are 200 1/2 regardless, hence my comment. I think the multi-pilot guys can go to the actually occasionally published mins of 100 1/4 in some places.
Click to expand...

Are you all allowed to attempt an approach regardless of the WX report?
 
Velocity173 said:
Are you all allowed to attempt an approach regardless of the WX report?
Click to expand...

yes, you can do a "practice approach" to a field reporting below mins if it is not your final destination or alternate. Those rules are pretty specific to preclude guys from shooting "practice approaches" to their destination to see whether they break out or not. I'm guessing there was a mishap somewhere along the lines that lead to this. If I am going to my destination or filed alternate (wx forecast requiring) then I need at least 200 1/2 to begin the approach if there is a PAR. Otherwise, I'd need non-precision mins, whatever those may be. That last part is an argument that continues to fan the flames of operator hate and discontent at every annual NAVAIR systems review conference. The Canadian Hornet has ILS, so does the Growler, and the EA-6B was retrofitted, so why do we keep having to box ourselves into a corner when the wx gets bad and we are going somewhere without a PAR (obviously much of the country)? Valid point, but it seems to get shot down every year.
 
Last edited:
Left of course going further left, turn left heading 120
 
ASR missed approach procedures are always radar vectors. That is because there is no expectation of any particular nav gear aboard to fly an ASR.

Also, the issue of ASR vs PAR is strictly based on available equipment, not branch of service or civilian/military. And where PAR is available, you can still ask for a ASR (flown as a nonprecision approach with MDA).

Finally, the use of 100-1/4 PAR mins (if published) for USAF and Navy is based on crew status and seating. Crews with two pilots or a pilot and WSO/NFO side-by-side are authorized the 100 DA, but single-seat and tandem seating are limited to 200 DA. I've been through a few of those 100 DA PAR's, and it's pretty tense to be descending through 200 feet with nothing at all in sight either ahead or below. Even tenser is executing a missed at 100 AGL and seeing just a bit of runway directly below as the power comes up.
 
Velocity173 said:
Are you all allowed to attempt an approach regardless of the WX report?
Click to expand...

In the USAF we needed wx mins to start the approach but if they went below after we had already started down, we could continue.
 
35 AoA said:
yes, you can do a "practice approach" to a field reporting below mins if it is not your final destination or alternate. Those rules are pretty specific to preclude guys from shooting "practice approaches" to their destination to see whether they break out or not. I'm guessing there was a mishap somewhere along the lines that lead to this.
Click to expand...
Back in 1976, "Buffalo" Bud Langston and I did a PAR to Whidbey Island in an A-6 Intruder with the field reporting zero-zero at the end o a war-at-sea training mission off the coast o Washington. "Operational necessity" was a valid excuse in those days, and the skipper wanted the jet back at Whidbey. We entered the fog at about 900 feet, took it down to 100, saw absolutely nothing, went missed, and diverted to McChord AB down in Tacoma. By the time we'd gassed up, the fog lifted, so we came right back for a nice visual entry to the overhead.
 
Witmo said:
In the USAF we needed wx mins to start the approach but if they went below after we had already started down, we could continue.
Click to expand...

OK. We had similar in the Army but could initiate the approach regardless of WX. As long as we had the mins for planning we were good.
 
To the OP, if you want, I can email you a GCA ppt. It's a computer practical exercise that covers generic phraseology for both PAR & ASR. Don't think you'll really need it for AVL but it's a good training tool.
 
Cool to do if you have never done one. With civilian fields I've ran into problems where the controllers that were qualified to do them weren't there. Haven't had that problem at military fields(yet). The controllers will gladly do them so they can stay current. Here is a good video of the communications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMDO9080pJ8

Some key things to remember about the approach:

For communication he is suppose to talk to you every 60 seconds when being vectored to final, every 15 seconds when on final for an ASR, and every 5 seconds while on final for a PAR. Pay attention to the "Do not acknowledge further transmissions" call. Use standard rate turns until advised to make half-standard rate.
 
Ugh! That was an ugly approach in that vid. Horrible handoff from approach / center. GCA didn't even have time to say "do not acknowledge further transmissions." Not that it matter because the pilot stopped acknowledging anyway. Got the handoff above glidepath (bad) so there was no 10-30 sec notification. Controller pulled his gyro immediately and then kept him left the whole way down. Didn't hear a wheels down check but could have been given anywhere in the pattern prior to descent.

As 35 said, some controllers can bring you in on rails and then there's this.
 
If you call ahead, it is less likely that that the guy who is certified to do the ASR has stepped out for his lunch-break.
I did two on the same flight during my training. While being vectored, approach asked whether I could go missed and do a second one the opposite direction so they could get two controllers signed off. A fun exercise and could come in handy one day.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Working on my IR. And going to Asheville, NC for Christmas...looking at the approaches which include an ASR, pretty rare. Has anyone actually done one of these approaches, for real. What is it like? Seems kinda neat. The VOR/ILS approach requires an ADF for the MA. Does that requirement still apply for an ASR? It does not mention it in the approach plate.
Click to expand...

I've done a No Gyro approach for real, and have done numerous ASR and PAR approaches in training and practice. Most dual use mil/civ airports have one, and the controllers need to work some to stay current, so they seem to appreciate when I ask for one.

Basically they tell you exactly what to do and you just do it without saying anything back.
 
Velocity173 said:
Ugh! That was an ugly approach in that vid. Horrible handoff from approach / center. GCA didn't even have time to say "do not acknowledge further transmissions." Not that it matter because the pilot stopped acknowledging anyway. Got the handoff above glidepath (bad) so there was no 10-30 sec notification. Controller pulled his gyro immediately and then kept him left the whole way down. Didn't hear a wheels down check but could have been given anywhere in the pattern prior to descent.
Click to expand...

Not great, but I didn't actually think that was so bad.....windy gusty day which I know is hard, and the controller at least didn't try to fix lineup all at once, though I think he could have maybe been a little more aggressive at the beginning. Not sure where Grays AFB is (never heard of it), but for example at Miramar, it was standard due to terrain clearance east of the field to begin PAR final control well above glideslope requiring a fairly aggressive correction right off the bat. Of course like you said, more than likely this was just a bad handoff from approach. What I did hear was my personal pet peeve of when the words "above" and "below" somehow end up sounding the same, which for some reason is not at all uncommon.
 
35 AoA said:
Not great, but I didn't actually think that was so bad.....windy gusty day which I know is hard, and the controller at least didn't try to fix lineup all at once, though I think he could have maybe been a little more aggressive at the beginning. Not sure where Grays AFB is (never heard of it), but for example at Miramar, it was standard due to terrain clearance east of the field to begin PAR final control well above glideslope requiring a fairly aggressive correction right off the bat. Of course like you said, more than likely this was just a bad handoff from approach. What I did hear was my personal pet peeve of when the words "above" and "below" somehow end up sounding the same, which for some reason is not at all uncommon.
Click to expand...

A bad handoff from SOCAL? Say it isn't so. Yeah that happens on occasion there because of the terrain but they're required to give the handoff below glidpath. Just have to make the best of it on GCA. For fighter it's not a problem though. "Shooter 11 well above glidpath, can you make altitude in three miles?"

Also a pet peeve of mine when controllers slur above and below. Should be corrected during training thru the critique process but some slip thru the cracks. Really it's just the controller either being lazy or trying to talk too fast. Good, accurate control instructions always trumps speed.

Edit: now that I think of it, I believe we had an LOA with SOCAL allowing a descent to the glidpath interception altitude during handoff.
 
Last edited:
Gucci Pilot said:
Its actually Gray Army Airfield. Its just outside Seattle at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
Click to expand...

There's also a Robert Gray Army Airfield north of Austin Tx close to Fort Hood.
 
35 AoA said:
If I had a good controller and I were in a pinch, I would take it down to the runway in 0/0 if I needed to (which I would never do with an ILS).......it can be that precise.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement given that most people I know who've done 0/0s do them with ILSs. ILS or LPV would be my preference, but of course I've only done ASR once.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's an interesting statement given that most people I know who've done 0/0s do them with ILSs. ILS or LPV would be my preference, but of course I've only done ASR once.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I was speaking to a PAR.

Anyway, my reasoning is that for one, you can get your eyes out of the cockpit the whole time looking for the runway, rather than scanning back inside the cockpit for the ILS needles. Also, I feel like GCA controllers can catch trends earlier and faster, or at least maybe just hearing it vs seeing it makes me react more. Just some thoughts on them.

What is LPV?
 
Localizer performance plus verticle guidance - basically a precision GPS approach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top