PAR approeach

Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, according to the airfield manager, I managed to destroy the gear motors when I took a trap at NAS Jax a while back. Then another one of our air wing jets followed me about an hour later, and broke it again. I didn't go mil in the wires or anything, but I also didn't touch the brakes before it played out, given that I had a brake failure. Wasn't aware this was a problem for shore gear.
 
35 AoA said:
Yeah, according to the airfield manager, I managed to destroy the gear motors when I took a trap at NAS Jax a while back. Then another one of our air wing jets followed me about an hour later, and broke it again. I didn't go mil in the wires or anything, but I also didn't touch the brakes before it played out, given that I had a brake failure. Wasn't aware this was a problem for shore gear.
Click to expand...

Probably some P-3 guy who doesn't understand traps. :D

Grew up in Jacksonville. Lots of Naval aviation history in that place. Been to many an air show at NZC and NIP back in the day.
 
The Rhino can take the gear E28 at 170 knots. If I recall correctly the Goshawk was 163? Could be a player during no flap landings in either platform.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
The Rhino can take the gear E28 at 170 knots. If I recall correctly the Goshawk was 163? Could be a player during no flap landings in either platform.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean 175 is the max trap speed for the legacy, but I assume that is an airframe limit, not the gear itself. I know a 7.1 AoA TEF off approach is somewhere north of 200 knots, above the wheel speed for the mains or the nose gear, but hopefully below the A-gear limits.
 
Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you only turn away from the good engine? Or was the purpose to make it more difficult? Or am I completely missing the point?
 
timwinters said:
Wouldn't you only turn away from the good engine? Or was the purpose to make it more difficult? Or am I completely missing the point?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure a C-12 can turn fine in any direction so not sure how that simulation came about. Someone in the food chain decided it was worth simulating so we did it. Never had a real world C-12 SE failure or smoke in the cockpit. Plenty of Hornets coming back on single engine but they definitely didn't have a problem with turns.
 
Velocity173 said:
Pretty sure a C-12 can turn fine in any direction so not sure how that simulation came about. Someone in the food chain decided it was worth simulating so we did it. Never had a real world C-12 SE failure or smoke in the cockpit. Plenty of Hornets coming back on single engine but they definitely didn't have a problem with turns.
Click to expand...

The book actually does advise to make shallow angle of bank turns into the good motor if feasible......contrary to what would seem to make sense, there is still a decent amount of rudder required for a single engine Hornet approach, so while technically "centerline thrust" there is asymmetry to it.
 
35 AoA said:
The book actually does advise to make shallow angle of bank turns into the good motor if feasible......contrary to what would seem to make sense, there is still a decent amount of rudder required for a single engine Hornet approach.
Click to expand...

Hey, I heard you guys use inboard rudder to help lift the nose on takeoff. Is that true?
 
Velocity173 said:
Hey, I heard you guys use inboard rudder to help lift the nose on takeoff. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Yes, the jet is designed to take off with the rudders "toed-in" as you speak of. Part of configuring for takeoff is pressing the takeoff trim button on the rudder trim knob, which trims the stabs 12 deg nose up, and the rudders 30 deg inboard. For a CV cat shot, you do have to manually trim the stabs more than that 12 deg (and potentially asymmetrically), but 30 deg toe in is standard across the board. During initial testing, it was found that the jet took significantly more runway than expected to get airborne, mainly due to the short moment arm between the main gear and the stabs. Rudder "toe-in" was a band aid fix for it, which provides extra nose up pitch moment. I'm sure nauga has more and better info on that stuff, but that is what I have always heard anyway.
 
I hope none of this is classified. :eek:
 
35 AoA said:
I think that would qualify as a mis-use of classification if it were :wink2:
Click to expand...

Yeah I was just confirming the toe in and it's in one of my many very unclassified aviation books. :)
 
Well, I'm glad to hear that none of you is going to be hauled away!
 
Palmpilot said:
Well, I'm glad to hear that none of you is going to be hauled away!
Click to expand...

Nah. For 20 yrs I had a secret security clearance. Believe me, they pound it into your brain about what's considered OPSEC and what's not. Generally people get into trouble with two things; training, tactics and procedures (TTPs) & troop movements. Even then a lot of those cases are gray. I have a UH-60 air crew training manual that anyone can get online. It outlines training events and tactics in it. I even kept all my TACSOPs which cover specific unit procedures. All of that is completely unrestricted access. Not even FOUO.
 
You should see the chickens___ stuff that they label FOUO in Civil Air Patrol! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Well, I'm glad to hear that none of you is going to be hauled away!
Click to expand...

That stuff is classified for national security, but more specifically, it is classified to keep myself and other mil aviators alive and coming home with the government assets we have been entrusted with in a conflict. Revealing any of that would be not only illegal, but also highly self-defeating.
 
Palmpilot said:
You should see the chicks___ stuff that they label FOUO in Civil Air Patrol! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


That would be the Air Force labeling that stuff FOUO, not the CAP. If it's what I think it is. And yes, it's dumb. You've been able to look up all of it on public websites for decades.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Years ago NAS Alameda Flying club PAR approach normaly right down to the runway well almost. One time on course on glidepath broke out at min what runway opps way off. That was when PAR was a trailer they moved around and lined up on marks on the ground , they missed the marks that day.
 
denverpilot said:
That would be the Air Force labeling that stuff FOUO, not the CAP. If it's what I think it is. And yes, it's dumb. You've been able to look up all of it on public websites for decades.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In our wing, I've seen people putting it on their emails.


Sent from my Gateway desktop computer using Internet Explorer.
 
MachFly said:
Why?

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

Why not? It was good experience and could be a very useful tool if needed someday.

I tried to expose my students to as much as possible during training. The PAR and ASR approaches were not in the syllabus, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T shoot them, just means you don't have to.
 
Captain said:
Why not? It was good experience and could be a very useful tool if needed someday.

I tried to expose my students to as much as possible during training. The PAR and ASR approaches were not in the syllabus, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T shoot them, just means you don't have to.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree....actually I completely agree.
Just wanted to hear your reasoning.
 
35 AoA said:
That stuff is classified for national security, but more specifically, it is classified to keep myself and other mil aviators alive and coming home with the government assets we have been entrusted with in a conflict. Revealing any of that would be not only illegal, but also highly self-defeating.
Click to expand...

... and often to protect people from embarrassment.
 
Section 12.3 of the AFMAN 11-217V1 (starts at bottom of page) has a really in depth overview of both of the ASR and PAR approaches. Both are fairly simply, PAR is a precision approach, and ASR is a non-precision (and people typically do the standard "dive-and-drive" versus calculating a descent rate). Pay close attention to how often they have to issue an instruction to you. They are quite literally talking you down, especially on a PAR.

Mins are published in the DOD approach plates in the front of the book. On the civilian side, when you look up a field on airnav or on the FAA's approach plate site, if you see a link for "Radar Approach Procedures Available," that means that field has either an ASR or PAR (example: Abilene Regional in Texas has an ASR run by controllers at Dyess AFB ). PARs are getting more and more rare due to lack of trained controllers and decommisioning of equipment, and with the rise of LPV and VNAV GPS approaches.

I suggest you try one out if you are nearby a field with that capability. Many places will even include it in their ATIS to request one for controller proficiency. I've heard Regional Approach in Fort Worth request for aircraft, civilian and military, to go over to Navy Ft Worth to try a PAR for that reason if they were shooting multiple approaches.

Biggest gotcha you might encounter is that if on a PAR, the final controller will issue your landing clearance instead of tower. You acknowledge that transmission, even if you were told to not acknowledge anything further. And if that will be a full stop or touch & go, be sure to switch to tower on roll-out. Also, the controllers usually appreciate/request feedback.

I haven't done one since pilot training a few years back, might be time to rehack that currency...
 
Last edited:
boilert said:
Section 12.3 of the AFMAN 11-217V1 (starts at bottom of page) has a really in depth overview of both of the ASR and PAR approaches. Both are fairly simply, PAR is a precision approach, and ASR is a non-precision (and people typically do the standard "dive-and-drive" versus calculating a descent rate). Pay close attention to how often they have to issue an instruction to you. They are quite literally talking you down, especially on a PAR.

Mins are published in the DOD approach plates in the front of the book. On the civilian side, when you look up a field on airnav or on the FAA's approach plate site, if you see a link for "Radar Approach Procedures Available," that means that field has either an ASR or PAR (example: Abilene Regional in Texas has an ASR run by controllers at Dyess AFB ). PARs are getting more and more rare due to lack of trained controllers and decommisioning of equipment, and with the rise of LPV and VNAV GPS approaches.

I suggest you try one out if you are nearby a field with that capability. Many places will even include it in their ATIS to request one for controller proficiency. I've heard Regional Approach in Fort Worth request for aircraft, civilian and military, to go over to Navy Ft Worth to try a PAR for that reason if they were shooting multiple approaches.

Biggest gotcha you might encounter is that if on a PAR, the final controller will issue your landing clearance instead of tower. You acknowledge that transmission, even if you were told to not acknowledge anything further. And if that will be a full stop or touch & go, be sure to switch to tower on roll-out. Also, the controllers usually appreciate/request feedback.

I haven't done one since pilot training a few years back, might be time to rehack that currency...
Click to expand...



Being cleared to land by the controller talking to you at 250' isn't really a 'gotcha'. I'd expect that.
 
boilert said:
Biggest gotcha you might encounter is that if on a PAR, the final controller will issue your landing clearance instead of tower. You acknowledge that transmission, even if you were told to not acknowledge anything further. And if that will be a full stop or touch & go, be sure to switch to tower on roll-out. Also, the controllers usually appreciate/request feedback.
Click to expand...

Just a couple clarifications...

Tower is actually issuing the landing clearance. The PAR/ASR controller is simply relaying it to you. If the controller doesn't get a clearance from tower, then you will be told to execute your missed approach instructions.

Unless you're doing a full stop, the controller will normally keep you on his freq. There are exceptions though typically you only switch to tower after you're on the runway for a full stop. When I was working at Mayport, we would have the aircraft switch back to Jax Approach as they were climbing out. This was part of the issued missed approach instructions as well.
 
Anymouse said:
Just a couple clarifications...

Tower is actually issuing the landing clearance. The PAR/ASR controller is simply relaying it to you. If the controller doesn't get a clearance from tower, then you will be told to execute your missed approach instructions.

Unless you're doing a full stop, the controller will normally keep you on his freq. There are exceptions though typically you only switch to tower after you're on the runway for a full stop. When I was working at Mayport, we would have the aircraft switch back to Jax Approach as they were climbing out. This was part of the issued missed approach instructions as well.
Click to expand...

One of the last PARs I did before I retired out of the Army was into RWY 5 at Mayport. Since I grew up in JAX it was pretty neat coming into land there. Of course the base is like a ghost town now compared to back in the 80s. No Sara and Forrestal anymore.
 
Captain said:
Being cleared to land by the controller talking to you at 250' isn't really a 'gotcha'. I'd expect that.
Click to expand...

Having been at the scope end of PAR approaches, I would expect the landing clearance well before 250 ft.
 
kkoran said:
Having been at the scope end of PAR approaches, I would expect the landing clearance well before 250 ft.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest waiting till 250 for a landing clearance.. I said the controller talking to you at 250.
 
In the 70s and 80s we could get PAR approaches into PSM (Pease AFB NH) and ASR approaches into PWM (Portland ME) and DF steer into CON (Concord NH).

Normally the landing clearance would be on the approach freq long before 250 AGL.
Of course the PAR into PSM was an automatic missed at 200ft.
 
Funny you mentioned that. I just remembered doing a DF steer as part of my initial civilian training. I don't even remember how it was done, but that memory had long since faded until now.
 
35 AoA said:
Funny you mentioned that. I just remembered doing a DF steer as part of my initial civilian training. I don't even remember how it was done, but that memory had long since faded until now.
Click to expand...

I did one into Salisbury, MD when I was on a dual cross country. Every few minutes you would call up FSS with a 5 count, and they would tell you if you were tracking the way you wanted to. I saw their "scope" when I visited the FSS. (Remember when you could do that?? And it was encouraged!!!) Basically, when a transmission came it, a line went across the scope indicating the direction the transmission was coming from. Using some black voodoo math, after a few transmissions the FSS folks could tell you roughly where you were and how to get you where you wanted to go.
 
35 AoA said:
Funny you mentioned that. I just remembered doing a DF steer as part of my initial civilian training. I don't even remember how it was done, but that memory had long since faded until now.
Click to expand...

Run by FSS. Key the mic and the get a bearing. Fly a set heading and the ask for another count on the mic. They count bearings crossed over time to estimate a distance from the station. They provide headings to get you on an inbound bearing. The idea is to get you overhead the field and hopefully lined up on a runway.
 
Clearance is usually obtain around 3 miles out. Two ways of getting it from tower; manually or automatic. Manually, you call tower on the landline. You give him the aircraft's callsign, position and intentions. Local either issues the clearance, a continuation, or abandon approach. At automated facilities the coordination and the clearance received is all through lighted buttons. Local acknowledges the lights in the tower. GCA looks up on a panel sees a green flashing "cleared to land" from local and then verbally issues the clearance to the aircraft. GCA takes the aircraft up to DH and then it all becomes advisory.
 
35 AoA said:
Funny you mentioned that. I just remembered doing a DF steer as part of my initial civilian training. I don't even remember how it was done, but that memory had long since faded until now.
Click to expand...

A DF steer is not an approach. If memory serves, a DF steer is when you get lost and call a FSS. They use a receiver that can detect direction on your VHF radio transmissions. Based on one or more stations picking up your transmissions (voice) they can sorta figure out where you are and point you in the right direction.

Not an approach and I'm not sure you can even get one these days. With radar and GPS its sorta obsolete.
 
Thanks for refreshing my memory! McMinnville Radio must have been wondering what on earth we were doing at the time
 
Captain said:
A DF steer is not an approach. If memory serves, a DF steer is when you get lost and call a FSS. They use a receiver that can detect direction on your VHF radio transmissions. Based on one or more stations picking up your transmissions (voice) they can sorta figure out where you are and point you in the right direction.

Not an approach and I'm not sure you can even get one these days. With radar and GPS its sorta obsolete.
Click to expand...

Concord (NH) Radio did have procedures for a DF Approach. We often flew it while under the hood during our Private Pilot training. A little less accurate than an ADF approach, but it worked!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top