Berlin Airlift, IFR

[Paul[_4_]]

Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
airlift into Berlin in the 40s?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
> airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
>

GCA

[George Z. Bush]

Paul wrote:
> Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
> airlift into Berlin in the 40s?

All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings. There were no missed
approach procedures.....if you missed your approach, you were automatically
cleared for return to your home base. In that way, they were able to keep the
flow of aircraft moving and on schedule.

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/airborne_operations/3029936.html?page=3&c=y

George Z.

[Sam Spade]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>>Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
>>airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
>
>
> All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings. There were no missed
> approach procedures.....if you missed your approach, you were automatically
> cleared for return to your home base. In that way, they were able to keep the
> flow of aircraft moving and on schedule.
>
> http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/airborne_operations/3029936.html?page=3&c=y
>
> George Z.
>
>
>
That, nonetheless, is a missed approach procedure.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
>>airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
>>
>
>
> GCA
>
>

It wasn't PAR?

[John Godwin]

Sam Spade > wrote in news:l1Qzh.11876$c%2.1737
@newsfe12.phx:

>
> It wasn't PAR?

In those days, it was GCA

--

[rstro]

so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic to
their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel for
that???
"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
>>>airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
>>
>>
>> All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings. There were no
>> missed approach procedures.....if you missed your approach, you were
>> automatically cleared for return to your home base. In that way, they
>> were able to keep the flow of aircraft moving and on schedule.
>>
>> http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/airborne_operations/3029936.html?page=3&c=y
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>>
>>
> That, nonetheless, is a missed approach procedure.

[Tex Houston]

"rstro" > wrote in message
...
> so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic
> to their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel
> for that???


You don't know much airlift history, do you?

Tex

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
>
> In those days, it was GCA
>

It still is.

[John Keeney]

On Feb 11, 10:35 pm, "rstro" > wrote:
> so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic to
> their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel for
> that???"Sam Spade" > wrote in message

What makes you think they were based across the Atlantic? This was the
Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
Holland, Fance, West Germany...

> > George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> >> Paul wrote:
>
> >>>Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
> >>>airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
>
> >> All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings. There were no
> >> missed approach procedures.....if you missed your approach, you were
> >> automatically cleared for return to your home base. In that way, they
> >> were able to keep the flow of aircraft moving and on schedule.
>
> >>http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/airborne_operations/3029936.html?pa...
>
> >> George Z.
>
> > That, nonetheless, is a missed approach procedure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jim Macklin]

In 1948-50 nothing could do that, but flights came from
England and other European countries.



"rstro" > wrote in message
...
| so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned
across the Atlantic to
| their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried
enough fuel for
| that???
| "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
| ...
| > George Z. Bush wrote:
| >
| >> Paul wrote:
| >>
| >>>Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were
used to fly the
| >>>airlift into Berlin in the 40s?
| >>
| >>
| >> All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings.
There were no
| >> missed approach procedures.....if you missed your
approach, you were
| >> automatically cleared for return to your home base. In
that way, they
| >> were able to keep the flow of aircraft moving and on
schedule.
| >>
| >>
http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/airborne_operations/3029936.html?page=3&c=y
| >>
| >> George Z.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| > That, nonetheless, is a missed approach procedure.
|
|

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> This was the
> Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
> Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>

England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
harbour, landing on the Wannsee.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Eugene Griessel]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>John,
>
>> This was the
>> Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
>> Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>>
>
>England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
>it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
>harbour, landing on the Wannsee.

AFAIK the main routes in use originated from Lubeck, Fuhlsbuttel,
Fassberg, Celle, Wunstorf, Wiesbaden, Frankfurt and Rheinmain - and
the Flying boats that you mention. Various electronic Rebecca-Eureka
beacons were erected to "outline"(?) the three main air passages and
the runways equipped with radar for foul weather assistance. Gee was
extensively used and BABS at the Berlin runways. Pilots, at least from
the British sector, had to have the "green card" which certified
competency in blind landing techniques.

Those pilots were often damned good - especially at "seat of the
pants" foul weather flying! I remember flying into an airbase in a
C47 with a Berlin airlift veteran at the controls in fog so thick you
could barely see the nose of the aircraft. Once on the ground they
had to send a jeep with a flare to guide him to the apron!


Eugene L Griessel

Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it.

[Richard Oh!]

Tex Houston wrote:
> "rstro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic
>> to their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel
>> for that???
>
>
> You don't know much airlift history, do you?
>
> Tex
>
>
50,000 of the flights were made by the RAF from the UK and a further
14,000 flights were by civil aircraft, mainly from the UK.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

[nmg175]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "rstro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic
>> to their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel
>> for that???
>
>
> You don't know much airlift history, do you?
>
> Tex
>

He thought they burned the coal from W.Virginia on their way back to
the Mines.

[Sam Spade]

rstro wrote:
> so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic to
> their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel for
> that???

What makes you think they departed from the U.S.?

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> John,
>
>
>>This was the
>>Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
>>Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>>
>
>
> England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
> it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
> harbour, landing on the Wannsee.
>

Perhaps there were some miscellaneous flights from the U.K. As I
recall, the "mainline" supply flights had less than 200 miles from
departure to landing.

[Andrew Robert Breen]

In article >, rstro > wrote:
>so--in other words loaded transport aircraft returned across the Atlantic to
>their home baese???? they couldn't have possibly carried enough fuel for
>that???
>> George Z. Bush wrote:
>>> All aircraft involved used GCA approaches for landings. There were no
>>> missed approach procedures.....if you missed your approach, you were
>>> automatically cleared for return to your home base. In that way, they

WTF? What on Earth makes you think that the aircraft were operating across
the Atlantic? Many of the types used wouldn't have had the legs to do
that even unladen. If you look at any map from the 1950s-start 1990s
you'll see that Berlin actually lies not-awfully-far from the old border
(couple of hundred km-ish, from memory). The bases for the airlift were in
the American, British and French occupied zones - what later became the
Federal Republic.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:19:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
>>
>> In those days, it was GCA
>>
>
>It still is.
>

GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)

Both ASR and PAR are GCA.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 9:35 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote in news:l1Qzh.11876$c%2.1737
> @newsfe12.phx:
>
>
>
> > It wasn't PAR?
>
> In those days, it was GCA
>
> --


Please explain the difference between GCA and PAR.......


John Hairell )
former GCA/PAR controller

[Sam Spade]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:19:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
>>
>>>In those days, it was GCA
>>>
>>
>>It still is.
>>
>
>
> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>
> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.

That is today's definition. During the Berlin Airlift GCA meant
azimuth, range, and elevation radars.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> On Feb 11, 9:35 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>
>>Sam Spade > wrote in news:l1Qzh.11876$c%2.1737
:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It wasn't PAR?
>>
>>In those days, it was GCA
>>
>>--
>
>
>
> Please explain the difference between GCA and PAR.......
>
>
> John Hairell )
> former GCA/PAR controller
>

In the days of the Berlin Airlift GCA was what we call PAR today. The
term PAR did not exist then. Today GCA means both PAR and ASR approach
procedures.

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, Thomas Borchert
> writes
>John,
>
>> This was the
>> Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
>> Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>>
>
>England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
>it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
>harbour, landing on the Wannsee.
>
The flying boats were RAF Sunderlands, used for carrying salt because
their hulls were corrosion-proof.

This site contains a map showing the main bases and the inbound/outbound
routes used for flying supplies to Berlin in Operation Plainfare (RAF)
and Operation Vittles (USAF). Lots of details about the USAF, with a few
passing mentions of the RAF. GCA is mentioned under The Airlift Route
Pattern.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/Berlin_flightsim/BerlinAirlift.html

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[guy]

On 12 Feb, 18:27, Peter Twydell > wrote:
> In message >, Thomas Borchert
> > writes>John,
>
> >> This was the
> >> Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
> >> Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>
> >England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
> >it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
> >harbour, landing on the Wannsee.
>
> The flying boats were RAF Sunderlands, used for carrying salt because
> their hulls were corrosion-proof.
>
> This site contains a map showing the main bases and the inbound/outbound
> routes used for flying supplies to Berlin in Operation Plainfare (RAF)
> and Operation Vittles (USAF). Lots of details about the USAF, with a few
> passing mentions of the RAF. GCA is mentioned under The Airlift Route
> Pattern.
>
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/Berlin_flightsim/BerlinAirlift.html
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!

Peter, ISTR (from reading a Sunderland book 30 odd years ago) the
Sunderlands also carried Coal

cheers

guy

[Eugene Griessel]

"guy" > wrote:

>On 12 Feb, 18:27, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>> In message >, Thomas Borchert
>> > writes>John,
>>
>> >> This was the
>> >> Cold War, the planes were based in England and more eastern locations:
>> >> Holland, Fance, West Germany...
>>
>> >England? First I hear about that. West Germany is were they came from,
>> >it was a really short run for most. Flying boats took off in Hamburg
>> >harbour, landing on the Wannsee.
>>
>> The flying boats were RAF Sunderlands, used for carrying salt because
>> their hulls were corrosion-proof.
>>
>> This site contains a map showing the main bases and the inbound/outbound
>> routes used for flying supplies to Berlin in Operation Plainfare (RAF)
>> and Operation Vittles (USAF). Lots of details about the USAF, with a few
>> passing mentions of the RAF. GCA is mentioned under The Airlift Route
>> Pattern.
>>
>> http://members.lycos.co.uk/Berlin_flightsim/BerlinAirlift.html
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Ying tong iddle-i po!
>
>Peter, ISTR (from reading a Sunderland book 30 odd years ago) the
>Sunderlands also carried Coal
>

I think that wherever they could stick a sack of coal in - in it
went. Those hungry power stations needed to be kept fed.

Eugene L Griessel

Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings...they did
it by killing all those who opposed them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>
> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>

A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
altitudes.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:43:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
>> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
>> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
>> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>>
>> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>>
>
>A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
>altitudes.
>
>
Terminology and precision in language again. An ASR has minimum
altitudes and a "begin descent" point after which you can descend to
minimums as fast or as slowly as you choose while being guaranteed
terrain clearance. My insertion of the modifier "recommended" was bad.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[KP[_1_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:43:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
>>> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
>>> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
>>> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>>>
>>> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>>>
>>
>>A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
>>altitudes.
>>
>>
> Terminology and precision in language again. An ASR has minimum
> altitudes and a "begin descent" point after which you can descend to
> minimums as fast or as slowly as you choose while being guaranteed
> terrain clearance. My insertion of the modifier "recommended" was bad.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Don't feel too bad Ed, Stevie's just splitting hairs again.

From an FAA controller's standpoint recommended altitudes on ASR approaches
are only provided on pilot request (see FAAO 7110.65 5-11-1).

However IIRC, either AFR 60-5 or AFCSR 60-5 required USAF final controllers
to provide them all the time even without a specific request so a USAF stick
actuator would seldom (if ever) have a need to split that particular hair.

[Allan9]

Recommended altitudes were routinely issued until an accident at Cleveland.
Then it was on request only.
Al

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
. ..
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:43:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
>>>> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
>>>> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
>>>> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>>>>
>>>> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
>>>altitudes.
>>>
>>>
>> Terminology and precision in language again. An ASR has minimum
>> altitudes and a "begin descent" point after which you can descend to
>> minimums as fast or as slowly as you choose while being guaranteed
>> terrain clearance. My insertion of the modifier "recommended" was bad.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> Don't feel too bad Ed, Stevie's just splitting hairs again.
>
> From an FAA controller's standpoint recommended altitudes on ASR
> approaches are only provided on pilot request (see FAAO 7110.65 5-11-1).
>
> However IIRC, either AFR 60-5 or AFCSR 60-5 required USAF final
> controllers to provide them all the time even without a specific request
> so a USAF stick actuator would seldom (if ever) have a need to split that
> particular hair.
>

[leadfoot]

" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 11, 9:35 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>> Sam Spade > wrote in news:l1Qzh.11876$c%2.1737
>> @newsfe12.phx:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It wasn't PAR?
>>
>> In those days, it was GCA
>>
>> --
>
>
> Please explain the difference between GCA and PAR.......


PAR is part of the GCA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Approach_Radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Controlled_Approach

I worked as a Radio Repairman at Williams AFB in the late 70's . Our GCA
was located beside the Control tower. It had 2 PAR Positions and three ASR
positions. It does not actually control airspace it only provides guidance
for landing. If a GCA like the one at Williams was to control airspace it
would not be a GCA it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)

A brief note on ASR approaches. ASR does not determine Altitude
information. That is coming from the Aircrafts altimeter through the
aircraft transponder and the decoded by the radars IFF reciever which then
places that information on the Controllors ASR scope. Most of you already
know this but I though I'd add it for those who don't


>
>
> John Hairell )
> former GCA/PAR controller
>

[Bob Moore]

leadfoot wrote
> If a GCA like the one at Williams was
> to control airspace it would not be a GCA
> it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)

Hmmmmm... I always thought that was RADAR Aproach
Control. :) Wikipedia seems to agree.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
PanAm (retired)

[leadfoot]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> leadfoot wrote
>> If a GCA like the one at Williams was
>> to control airspace it would not be a GCA
>> it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)
>
> Hmmmmm... I always thought that was RADAR Aproach
> Control. :) Wikipedia seems to agree.

It's been a long while (26 years) since I worked in a radar room. They use
to be in a deployable trailer out in the middle of the runways when I was
in the Air Force, which may be why I was a little off. I got everything
else right didn't I? ;-)




>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFII
> PanAm (retired)

[Newps]

leadfoot wrote:
If a GCA like the one at Williams was to control airspace it
> would not be a GCA it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)

Military approach controls are called RAPCON's. It stands for radar
approach control. Not runway because it will serve a wide area like a
TRACON.

[KP[_1_]]

"leadfoot" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Feb 11, 9:35 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>>> Sam Spade > wrote in news:l1Qzh.11876$c%2.1737
>>> @newsfe12.phx:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > It wasn't PAR?
>>>
>>> In those days, it was GCA
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> Please explain the difference between GCA and PAR.......
>
>
> PAR is part of the GCA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Approach_Radar
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Controlled_Approach
>
> I worked as a Radio Repairman at Williams AFB in the late 70's . Our GCA
> was located beside the Control tower. It had 2 PAR Positions and three
> ASR positions. It does not actually control airspace it only provides
> guidance for landing. If a GCA like the one at Williams was to control
> airspace it would not be a GCA it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach
> CONtrol)
>
> A brief note on ASR approaches. ASR does not determine Altitude
> information. That is coming from the Aircrafts altimeter through the
> aircraft transponder and the decoded by the radars IFF reciever which then
> places that information on the Controllors ASR scope. Most of you already
> know this but I though I'd add it for those who don't
>
>
>>
>>
>> John Hairell )
>> former GCA/PAR controller
>>

As others have noted back in the Berlin Airlift days GCA was the term used
to describe what we now call PAR. At the time if the equipment and
personnel were available for ASR approaches then odds are PAR was also
available. Probably not much demand for ASR-only approaches so calling a
PAR a GCA didn't cause any problems.

It wasn't until around the mid-70s or so that there was a real push to use
the terms "PAR" or "ASR" and stop using the term "GCA" which could be
either.

Today "GCA" is the name given to any terminal radar ATC facility that
doesn't provide approach control services.

-Some GCAs are temporarily or permanently delegated a portion of the parent
approach control's airspace to run the radar pattern(s)
-Some provide only final control service and are technically RFCs (Radar
Final Control)
-The one at Randolph AFB used to only provide radar monitoring of ILSs and
was technically a RMF (Radar Monitor Facility)

All three answer to the name of "GCA"

Only USAF approach controls are called RAPCONs. The Navy calls them RATCFs,
the Army uses the term ARAC; and the FAA TRACON. No good reason for any of
it; people just like to be different :-/

[[email protected]]

On Feb 13, 10:14 am, Newps > wrote:
> leadfoot wrote:
>
> If a GCA like the one at Williams was to control airspace it
>
> > would not be a GCA it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)
>
> Military approach controls are called RAPCON's. It stands for radar
> approach control. Not runway because it will serve a wide area like a
> TRACON.


What are ARACs?

John Hairell

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/13/07 08:52, wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:14 am, Newps > wrote:
>> leadfoot wrote:
>>
>> If a GCA like the one at Williams was to control airspace it
>>
>> > would not be a GCA it would be a RAPCON (Runway APproach CONtrol)
>>
>> Military approach controls are called RAPCON's. It stands for radar
>> approach control. Not runway because it will serve a wide area like a
>> TRACON.
>
>
> What are ARACs?
>
> John Hairell
>
>

<http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ARAC>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:43:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
> >> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
> >> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
> >> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>
> >> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>
> >A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
> >altitudes.
>
> Terminology and precision in language again. An ASR has minimum
> altitudes and a "begin descent" point after which you can descend to
> minimums as fast or as slowly as you choose while being guaranteed
> terrain clearance. My insertion of the modifier "recommended" was bad.
>

Our controller terminology was "X miles from runway" and "descend to
your minimum descent altitude". The controller provided course
trending information and the pilot was expected to maintain separation
from terrain. Recommended altitudes could be provided on final
approach if the pilot requested. The armed services may/may not have
slightly different methods on altitude information.

One other difference between a PAR approach and an ASR approach is
that in the PAR approach the distances as given are from touchdown,
and in the ASR approach distances are from the runway.

John Hairell

[KP[_1_]]

" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 12, 5:57 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:43:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >> GCA = Ground Controlled Approach. PAR = Precision Approach Radar (A
>> >> GCA with both glide path and centerline guidance. ASR = Air
>> >> Surveillance Radar (A GCA with centerline guidance only, using
>> >> recommended minimum altitudes at various ranges from touchdown)
>>
>> >> Both ASR and PAR are GCA.
>>
>> >A surveillance approach does not necessarily include recommended minimum
>> >altitudes.
>>
>> Terminology and precision in language again. An ASR has minimum
>> altitudes and a "begin descent" point after which you can descend to
>> minimums as fast or as slowly as you choose while being guaranteed
>> terrain clearance. My insertion of the modifier "recommended" was bad.
>>
>
> Our controller terminology was "X miles from runway" and "descend to
> your minimum descent altitude". The controller provided course
> trending information and the pilot was expected to maintain separation
> from terrain. Recommended altitudes could be provided on final
> approach if the pilot requested. The armed services may/may not have
> slightly different methods on altitude information.

Well, "the pilot was expected to maintain separation from terrain" only in
the sense that like any other non-precision approach no glidepath info was
provided. If there was a step-down fix on final the aircraft was descended
to that altitude and only instructed to descend to the MDA after passing the
fix.

> One other difference between a PAR approach and an ASR approach is
> that in the PAR approach the distances as given are from touchdown,
> and in the ASR approach distances are from the runway.

Unless it's a "Surveillance approach using PAR azimuth, mileages will be
from touchdown..."

The AN/TPN-8 (-18 with IFF) was an, ummm, interesting piece of gear. It was
pretty much a "one PAR at a time" set-up so the Arrival guy really had to
space them out in the pattern or get the turn to final right on the money to
get the second aircraft within coverage. Yeah, "interesting" that's the
word I was looking for ;-)

[[email protected]]

KP wrote:


>
> Well, "the pilot was expected to maintain separation from terrain" only in
> the sense that like any other non-precision approach no glidepath info was
> provided. If there was a step-down fix on final the aircraft was descended
> to that altitude and only instructed to descend to the MDA after passing the
> fix.
>

Exactly.

> > One other difference between a PAR approach and an ASR approach is
> > that in the PAR approach the distances as given are from touchdown,
> > and in the ASR approach distances are from the runway.
>
> Unless it's a "Surveillance approach using PAR azimuth, mileages will be
> from touchdown..."

Let's not confuse the aviators here. ;-)

> The AN/TPN-8 (-18 with IFF) was an, ummm, interesting piece of gear. It was
> pretty much a "one PAR at a time" set-up so the Arrival guy really had to
> space them out in the pattern or get the turn to final right on the money to
> get the second aircraft within coverage. Yeah, "interesting" that's the
> word I was looking for ;-)

Been there, done that. Also seen on the TPN-18 where multiple PAR
approaches could be run simultaneously on two displays, with the
second final controller also acting as an arrival controller,
switching the radar from ASR mode to PAR mode long enough to sequence
traffic onto final and then switching back to PAR mode, handling PAR
on one freq and arrival on another freq, while the other controller
handles the other PAR on yet a third freq. Highly illegal but it's
been done, with one aircraft landing, one descending, and one
approaching to descend. Of course when the radar is switched from
PAR to ASR, the other controller also loses their PAR display, making
for some imaginative trending information to pilots.

The other "interesting" thing about the TPN-18/TPX-44 setup was having
the controllers read raw IFF blocks to decode.


John Hairell )

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> It wasn't PAR?
>

PAR was part of it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the days of the Berlin Airlift GCA was what we call PAR today. The
> term PAR did not exist then. Today GCA means both PAR and ASR approach
> procedures.
>

The term PAR predates the Berlin Airlift by almost a year.

After WWII there was quite a battle over which precision landing system
would become the standard.

The CAA and airlines favored ILS. The CAA had been developing the system
for nearly 20 years. From the CAA's perspective ILS was cheaper, GCA
required personnel to operate and personnel cost money. The airlines
favored ILS because it kept control in the cockpit.

The Navy and AOPA favored GCA. GCA didn't require any additional equipment
in the aircraft and ILS did, equipment which at that time wouldn't even fit
in most private or carrier aircraft.

The Air Force saw ILS and GCA as complementary systems, not competitive, and
felt both should be adopted.

GCA was composed of three radars. A search radar to locate aircraft in the
vicinity and direct them to the approach path and a set of two precision
radars, one that provided azimuth data and the other provided elevation
information.

In July 1947 the CAA administrator announced that it had been decided to
separate the GCA's radars into two types on the argument that ground
controlled approach was a method, not a system. The search radar was called
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR), while the two precision radars were
together called Precision Approach Radar (PAR). This compromise solution
allowed the CAA to purchase the search radar without the approach radar,
protecting ILS while getting the benefits of traffic control radar.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:57:55 PM UTC-5, paul kgyy wrote:
> Anybody know what type of instrument approaches were used to fly the
> airlift into Berlin in the 40s?

MPN-1 GCA ground units equipped with both Surveillance and precision radar. The total approaches in 8 months was 36,797 GCA or 6+ per hour around the clock.