If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
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) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
"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) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
"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 :-/ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
" 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 ;-) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
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 ) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Berlin Airlift, IFR
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... It wasn't PAR? PAR was part of it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New ME-262s over Berlin | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 10 | August 24th 06 05:51 AM |
Berlin Airshow | Big John | Piloting | 1 | June 19th 06 05:17 PM |
Update on VacationRentalsforFamilies Airlift | Peter R. | Owning | 14 | September 9th 05 12:57 AM |
Update on VacationRentalsforFamilies Airlift | Peter R. | Piloting | 10 | September 9th 05 12:57 AM |
Hiroshima V. Berlin. | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 6 | December 27th 03 01:52 AM |