Berlin Airlift, IFR

"John Godwin" wrote in message
. 3.50...

In those days, it was GCA


It still is.

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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


"John Godwin" wrote in message
8.3.50...

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.

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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

" 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 ;-)

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 )