A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Berlin Airlift, IFR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 13th 07, 01:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
Bob Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default 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)
Ads
  #32  
Old February 13th 07, 02:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
leadfoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old February 13th 07, 03:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default 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  
Old February 13th 07, 04:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
KP[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old February 13th 07, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old February 13th 07, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old February 13th 07, 05:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
KP[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old February 14th 07, 01:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old February 18th 07, 02:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.ifr
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default Berlin Airlift, IFR


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

It wasn't PAR?


PAR was part of it.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.