"License to taxi"

B A R R Y wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:53:14 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
rating. He was never pilot in command.

Interesting...

Doesn't the B707 have (3) required crew? Don't you need a TR to act
as a required crew member? Or is that stuff only when the acft is
operated in revenue service?

Only the pilot in command needs a type rating.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:

No they had both, but they had a stricken aircraft after the
depressurization and they had a lot of things to worry about.
Doing the PAR approach lessens the pilot workload.

Did things like autopilot ILS approach and autoland exist back then?

Autopilot did, but it's much cruder than it was today. With an aircraft
that's aerodymanically challenged however, I'm not sure I'd have trusted
the autopilot. Let me concentrate on moving the controls, off load
navigation to ATC. That's what a PAR is good for.

Ron Natalie writes:

Autopilot did, but it's much cruder than it was today. With an aircraft
that's aerodymanically challenged however, I'm not sure I'd have trusted
the autopilot. Let me concentrate on moving the controls, off load
navigation to ATC. That's what a PAR is good for.

Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
possible. I don't see how ATC could have a better idea of the
aircraft's exact position than the pilot, given that the pilot has
many more instruments. I know ATC has radar echos that position the
aircraft laterally with a varying degree of precision, but how can ATC
know the heading or attitude of the a/c, both important on an
approach? I guess the transponder can provide altitude (if mode C
existed back then).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote
Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
possible.

PAR was the Navy's only means of precision approach for most
of its aircraft during the years that I was a Naval Aviator,
1958-1967. During that period, PAR minimums were 100'-1/4 mi.
while ILS minimums were 200'-1/2 mile. GCA (PAR) controllers
were damn good!

Bob Moore

Mxsmanic wrote:

Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
possible. I don't see how ATC could have a better idea of the
aircraft's exact position than the pilot, given that the pilot has
many more instruments.


PAR is a VERY accurate radar for approaches. There aren't many
around these days outside of military fields. It's a special
scope different from the normal radar that looks up the final
approach path. It uses the radar returns for both horizontal
and vertical guideance, it does not need a transponder.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Bob Moore wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?

He can't and doesn't.

Bob Moore
As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
rating. He was never pilot in command.


He's still SIC only on the 707

Rating(s):

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE









Type Ratings


P/B-707 P/B-720 P/CE-500 P/G-1159 P/HS-125
P/LR-JET




Limits


B-707 SIC PRIVILEGES ONLY.

CE-500 (VFR ONLY).

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Mxsmanic wrote
Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
possible.

PAR was the Navy's only means of precision approach for most
of its aircraft during the years that I was a Naval Aviator,
1958-1967. During that period, PAR minimums were 100'-1/4 mi.
while ILS minimums were 200'-1/2 mile. GCA (PAR) controllers
were damn good!

Bob Moore

Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
day. G God bless them all!!!!

Paul

Paul Riley writes:

Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
day. G God bless them all!!!!

So a PAR is preferable to an ILS for safety/precision in very poor
conditions, if you can find one?

I'm just surprised that radar systems are precise enough to permit
this. I suppose if it's the right kind of special radar it would
work. After all, ILS or PAR, it's all electromagnetic radiation.

I assume PARs are not used much today because of the need for skilled
practioners on the ground?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Paul Riley writes:

Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
day. G God bless them all!!!!

So a PAR is preferable to an ILS for safety/precision in very poor
conditions, if you can find one?

These days, at airports that have the facilities to permit it,
airliners can take ILS's to the ground (CAT II, III). This is
a big change from the way it was back in the late sixties for
commercial traffic or just about anywhere (especially on ships
or mobile encampments) for the military.