How many nonradar airports?

I am curious to know how many airports exist where you have to fly a non-
radar instrument approach (ie feeder routes, IAF, procedure turn etc..). I
have come across a few in Colorado and New Mexico, but I have never
encountered one in other areas I have flown.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...

I am curious to know how many airports exist where you have to fly a non-
radar instrument approach (ie feeder routes, IAF, procedure turn etc..). I
have come across a few in Colorado and New Mexico, but I have never
encountered one in other areas I have flown.


Plenty in Texas. Fredericksburg and Brownwood are two that I've done full approaches in non-radar
environment...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Who would be counting them?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I am curious to know how many airports exist where you have to fly a non-
radar instrument approach (ie feeder routes, IAF, procedure turn etc..). I
have come across a few in Colorado and New Mexico, but I have never
encountered one in other areas I have flown.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of about 4 airports in Idaho
that do have radar coverage.


Andrew Sarangan wrote in message . 61...
I am curious to know how many airports exist where you have to fly a non-
radar instrument approach (ie feeder routes, IAF, procedure turn etc..). I
have come across a few in Colorado and New Mexico, but I have never
encountered one in other areas I have flown.

(Brian Case) wrote

Off the top of my head, I can only think of about 4 airports in Idaho
that do have radar coverage.

Idaho...???? Where's that? :-)

Bob Moore

Andrew Sarangan wrote in
1:


I am curious to know how many airports exist where you have to fly a non-
radar instrument approach (ie feeder routes, IAF, procedure turn etc..). I
have come across a few in Colorado and New Mexico, but I have never
encountered one in other areas I have flown.

There are a few thousand oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf of
Mexico that are beyond both radar and radio coverage from ATC. We fly IFR
approaches to them regularly.

--
Regards,

Stan

Andrew,
There is RADAR and RaDaR. After a 40 year delay all of the S.F.
Bay Area non RADAR airports have a TV like system called BRITE. Bride does
give the towers a TV like screen that allows the tower to see the VFR
aircraft on radar with a readout of altitude.

The antenna is usually so distant from the airport that it is not certified
to provide a transponder code nor separation. I recently checked out
Concord, CA tower's situation and found that the radar is a two edged blade.
In over 40 years as a radar-less tower there has never been an ATC related
accident at CCR. Nor has there been one in the year BRITE has been in the
tower.

The problem is that some of the tower people become reliant upon
a radar screen that has inherent weaknesses and errors. The visual
skills of the past become less required and proficient. The position
reporting skills of the pilot become more important.

A week ago I was with a student in a C-172 where we made a call-up saying
that we were planning on a 45 endtry to the downwind. Immediately
afterwards a twin Commander made the same call. Neither aircraft was able
to find the other and the controller could not distinguish one from the
other since both were squawking 1200. The difficulty arose from the
perception of what constitutes a 45 entry. The Commander was closer to a
direct entry to downwind than a 45.

By making a short approach we were able to help resolve the situation.

Gene Whitt

In article ,
"Gene Whitt" wrote:

Andrew,
There is RADAR and RaDaR. After a 40 year delay all of the S.F.
Bay Area non RADAR airports have a TV like system called BRITE. Bride does
give the towers a TV like screen that allows the tower to see the VFR
aircraft on radar with a readout of altitude.

The antenna is usually so distant from the airport that it is not certified
to provide a transponder code nor separation.

I don't think the certification of what a controller can do with a brite
scope has much to do with where the antenna is. NY Tracon has (to the
best of my knowledge) 5 antennas, located at JFK, EWR, ISP, HPN, and
SWF. The raw signals from all of the antennas are transmitted to a
secret location in suburban Long Island where the Tracon is physically
located. The various display scopes at all the area airports (the four
Class B and C primaries plus all the dozen or so Class D satellites) are
all then fed remotely from the computers in the Tracon.

HPN, with an antenna right on the field, acts like a satellite airport.
They can't release IFR flight without coordinating with the Tracon, and
the Tracon handles sequencing inbound flights and (in the case of VFR
inbounds) assigning squawk codes before handing off to the tower. The
brite scope in the HPN tower does give altitude and squawk code readouts.

On the other hand, LGA has no antenna on the field (my understanding is
the HPN antenna sees almost to the ground at LGA), but I'm sure they
provide full radar services.

The problem is that some of the tower people become reliant upon
a radar screen that has inherent weaknesses and errors. The visual
skills of the past become less required and proficient. The position
reporting skills of the pilot become more important.

This certainly seems to be the case at HPN. I've had the tower refuse
to allow VFR pattern work because the radar was down. Or limit the
pattern to one or two aircraft. At CDW (in the pre-brite days), they
used to routinely handle 8 guys in the pattern and still work arrivals
and departures on both runways.

A week ago I was with a student in a C-172 where we made a call-up saying
that we were planning on a 45 endtry to the downwind. Immediately
afterwards a twin Commander made the same call. Neither aircraft was able
to find the other and the controller could not distinguish one from the
other since both were squawking 1200. The difficulty arose from the
perception of what constitutes a 45 entry. The Commander was closer to a
direct entry to downwind than a 45.

One of the things I try to impress on students is that the tower at a
Class D airport has no responsibility for separating VFR from VFR in the
air. Most pilots seem to think that the tower is doing more for them
than they really are.

In theory, the controller in your case could have said, "172, maintain
at or below 1000, break, Twin Commander maintain at or above 1200,
report the 172 in sight". That would have ensured you wouldn't swap
paint. But, I'm sure it would have also broken the rules the controller
operates under, so it'll never happen.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gene Whitt" wrote:

[snip]

I don't think the certification of what a controller can do with a brite
scope has much to do with where the antenna is.

Correct.

[snip some stuff about ops in NY that illustrate some of the various ways a
tower radar display may be used as well as the relationships between
non-approach control towers and their parent TRACON]

The problem is that some of the tower people become reliant upon
a radar screen that has inherent weaknesses and errors. The visual
skills of the past become less required and proficient. The position
reporting skills of the pilot become more important.

This certainly seems to be the case at HPN. I've had the tower refuse
to allow VFR pattern work because the radar was down. Or limit the
pattern to one or two aircraft. At CDW (in the pre-brite days), they
used to routinely handle 8 guys in the pattern and still work arrivals
and departures on both runways.

Part of this may depend on the level of radar service being provided at the
airport as well as local SOPs that are written with radar in mind.

But part of it can also be ascribed to a lack of proficiency amongst some
current local controllers. I'm sure there are still some who can work three
simultaneous VFR patterns along with IFR arrivals, departures, practice
approaches, and VFR overflights. I'm equally sure there are some who can't.

By the way, back when I was working I had to get up for a dayshift a week
ahead of time, eat a breakfast of cold gravel, walk barefoot through the
snow to get to the tower (uphill both ways), and strike flint on steel to
get the light gun started ;-P

A week ago I was with a student in a C-172 where we made a call-up
saying
that we were planning on a 45 endtry to the downwind. Immediately
afterwards a twin Commander made the same call. Neither aircraft was
able
to find the other and the controller could not distinguish one from the
other since both were squawking 1200. The difficulty arose from the
perception of what constitutes a 45 entry. The Commander was closer to a
direct entry to downwind than a 45.

One of the things I try to impress on students is that the tower at a
Class D airport has no responsibility for separating VFR from VFR in the
air. Most pilots seem to think that the tower is doing more for them
than they really are.

Alas, too true. See immediately below

In theory, the controller in your case could have said, "172, maintain
at or below 1000, break, Twin Commander maintain at or above 1200,
report the 172 in sight". That would have ensured you wouldn't swap
paint. But, I'm sure it would have also broken the rules the controller
operates under, so it'll never happen.

As you've already noted, the controller does not (some might even say
cannot) provide separation service to VFR aircraft outside Class B and C
airspace.

I can't envision why a controller would want to issue a restriction without
first knowing both aircraft's position and altitude. Otherwise he may only
make the situation worse by requiring one aircraft to climb or descend
through the other aircraft's altitude and/or flight path.

Plus, given the allowable differences in altimeter readings between the two
aircraft I'm not sure what good a mere 200ft would accomplish? If anything
500ft but again in Class D it's See and Avoid.

Better for the tower to issue traffic as they are required to do and for all
three parties to look out the windows.

"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
.net...

Andrew,
There is RADAR and RaDaR. After a 40 year delay all of the S.F.
Bay Area non RADAR airports have a TV like system called BRITE. Bride
does give the towers a TV like screen that allows the tower to see the VFR
aircraft on radar with a readout of altitude.

What is displayed on a tower's BRITE depends on the equipment although I'd
be suprised if there are any not equipped with D-BRITE these days. D-BRITE
is a digital display vs the old long persistence TV version of the 70s and
80s. It has the ability to display all the info available to the TRACON.
What is actually displayed depends on what the SOP requires and what the
local controller prefers.

The antenna is usually so distant from the airport that it is not
certified to provide a transponder code nor separation.

Distance from the antenna seldom, if ever, has anything to do with the
information available for display or operational procedures applied when
usiing a tower radar display. See FAAO 7110.65 3-1-9 for more info of what
can and cannot be done wit a tower radar display.

I recently checked out Concord, CA tower's situation and found that the
radar is a two edged blade. In over 40 years as a radar-less tower there
has never been an ATC related accident at CCR. Nor has there been one in
the year BRITE has been in the tower.

The problem is that some of the tower people become reliant upon
a radar screen that has inherent weaknesses and errors. The visual
skills of the past become less required and proficient. The position
reporting skills of the pilot become more important.

This has been at issue for the more than 40 years since the first BRITE
radar systems were placed in towers. Some say it's an aid, some say it's a
crutch, some say it's something in between.

A week ago I was with a student in a C-172 where we made a call-up saying
that we were planning on a 45 endtry to the downwind. Immediately
afterwards a twin Commander made the same call. Neither aircraft was able
to find the other and the controller could not distinguish one from the
other since both were squawking 1200. The difficulty arose from the
perception of what constitutes a 45 entry. The Commander was closer to a
direct entry to downwind than a 45.

So what? You were both VFR. Neither of you were in the pattern yet. See
and Avoid.

By making a short approach we were able to help resolve the situation.

Not sure what needed to be "resolved?" Once the aircraft entered downwind
the controller should have issued any instructions necessary to establish
the landing sequence.