what is reason behind using minimum vectoring altitude ?

MikeD said:
But their hours are lousy. Only on Wednesdays now, can one get a PAR. Have done numerous ASRs into ELP and BIF, as well as a number of PARs at DMA (as well as all over the place). There are some spot-on PAR controllers out there.....especially when I was doing them to near-mins, on a runway where there was no pilot-nav ability such as ILS.
Click to expand...

I think you can still get ASRs into ABQ due to the presence of Kirtland. I'm not sure of the restrictions assoiciated with them though.
 
MikeD said:
But their hours are lousy. Only on Wednesdays now, can one get a PAR. Have done numerous ASRs into ELP and BIF, as well as a number of PARs at DMA (as well as all over the place). There are some spot-on PAR controllers out there.....especially when I was doing them to near-mins, on a runway where there was no pilot-nav ability such as ILS.
Click to expand...

Where I was in the Marines it was and still is the only precision approach available. I loved doing them when they were needed due to weather because it was only you and your ability between a successful and unsuccessful approach.
 
A150K said:
I think you can still get ASRs into ABQ due to the presence of Kirtland. I'm not sure of the restrictions assoiciated with them though.
Click to expand...

Yes, ABQ still has ASRs available.

boondr said:
Where I was in the Marines it was and still is the only precision approach available. I loved doing them when they were needed due to weather because it was only you and your ability between a successful and unsuccessful approach.
Click to expand...

Very true. For the longest time, USN/USMC tactical aircraft didn't have ILS compatible to the land-based systems, so it was PAR if they wanted a precision IAP. Like I said, Ive seen some good guys giving them, and have been on the receiving end of many good ones.

Of course, there was the new ROKAF controller who was trying to tell me how I was "left of glideslope, going further left", one bad WX day long ago.
 
PARs/ASRs arent a whole lot of fun, but are very handy. When Calendar's ILS is down the only way we have to get in is their PAR. Just the other day United had an emergency and did the ASR into MSY. In all honesty, after having quite a few PARs under my belt, i would almost rather do an ASR. For us light civils, it just doesnt mean a whole lot when someone says slightly above/below glide slope. Its just too much of a guessing game.
 
cmill said:
PARs/ASRs arent a whole lot of fun, but are very handy. When Calendar's ILS is down the only way we have to get in is their PAR. Just the other day United had an emergency and did the ASR into MSY. In all honesty, after having quite a few PARs under my belt, i would almost rather do an ASR. For us light civils, it just doesnt mean a whole lot when someone says slightly above/below glide slope. Its just too much of a guessing game.
Click to expand...

It meant alot to me. You do get trending info, not just above/below calls. Make small adjustments based on what the controller is telling you and see where they trend you. Not too diffucult.
 
MikeD said:
It meant alot to me. You do get trending info, not just above/below calls. Make small adjustments based on what the controller is telling you and see where they trend you. Not too diffucult.
Click to expand...

The accuracy of the info a controller gets on a PAR is infinitely better than a ASR as well. The PAR would pick up dual targets on the C-17's and C-5's. One of the body, one of the tail. With an ASR altitude information consists solely of "altitude should be". "On Course" with most PAR's is less than 50 ft left or right of the centerline, "On Course" with an ASR is +/- 500 ft of the RUNWAY you tell me which on sounds more fun when down to weather minimums.
 
boondr said:
The accuracy of the info a controller gets on a PAR is infinitely better than a ASR as well. The PAR would pick up dual targets on the C-17's and C-5's. One of the body, one of the tail. With an ASR altitude information consists solely of "altitude should be". "On Course" with most PAR's is less than 50 ft left or right of the centerline, "On Course" with an ASR is +/- 500 ft of the RUNWAY you tell me which on sounds more fun when down to weather minimums.
Click to expand...

Of course, the mins are also higher on an asr approach. In my old freight flying days, pueblo co would often ask if you'd take an asr. Apparently the controllers have to stay current on them. I'd always take them, as it was about the only place I went to that had an asr, so it was good practice, and even when it was at or near mins you'd always be close enough you could comfortably land.
 
boondr said:
The accuracy of the info a controller gets on a PAR is infinitely better than a ASR as well. The PAR would pick up dual targets on the C-17's and C-5's. One of the body, one of the tail. With an ASR altitude information consists solely of "altitude should be". "On Course" with most PAR's is less than 50 ft left or right of the centerline, "On Course" with an ASR is +/- 500 ft of the RUNWAY you tell me which on sounds more fun when down to weather minimums.
Click to expand...

Everything one would like to know, written by your very own:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/technical-talk/4099-mikeds-gca-asr-par-approach-review.html
 
MikeD said:
It meant alot to me. You do get trending info, not just above/below calls. Make small adjustments based on what the controller is telling you and see where they trend you. Not too diffucult.
Click to expand...

And the good ones have some inflection in their voice which adds to the info for an "above glideslope, coming down rapidly" sort of call. IMHO they are easier to fly than ILS as you have a guy/gal telling you exactly what to do. Maybe that's just because they are about the only precision approaches I ever shoot, but I still think they are significantly lower tasking for the pilot.

edit: good writeup as usual Mike, learned a couple things as well. One addition, since the thread is now closed, for those unfamiliar with PAR ops, the "begin descent" call is for heavies, so for lighter/maneuverable aircraft, we always use the "up and on glidepath" call to actually initiate the descent. Not sure if you did this in Hogs or -117's, but it is standard for USN/USMC tacair jets and works nicely......unfortunately around here (KNKX) you intercept the G/S from above due to MVA considerations to the east of the field, so it ends up being a little more non-standard and you tend to start out high coming down unless you really nail it at the start.
 
///AMG said:
And the good ones have some inflection in their voice which adds to the info for an "above glideslope, coming down rapidly" sort of call. IMHO they are easier to fly than ILS as you have a guy/gal telling you exactly what to do. Maybe that's just because they are about the only precision approaches I ever shoot, but I still think they are significantly lower tasking for the pilot.

edit: good writeup as usual Mike, learned a couple things as well. One addition, since the thread is now closed, for those unfamiliar with PAR ops, the "begin descent" call is for heavies, so for lighter/maneuverable aircraft, we always use the "up and on glidepath" call to actually initiate the descent. Not sure if you did this in Hogs or -117's, but it is standard for USN/USMC tacair jets and works nicely......unfortunately around here (KNKX) you intercept the G/S from above due to MVA considerations to the east of the field, so it ends up being a little more non-standard and you tend to start out high coming down unless you really nail it at the start.
Click to expand...

AF/Army and civil still do "begin descent"; whereas USN/USMC uses "up and on glidepath". Same same, just different nuances, as you mention, and all work good. USN/USMC also does "perform landing check", which the other services and civil don't do.
 
MikeD said:
AF/Army and civil still do "begin descent"; whereas USN/USMC uses "up and on glidepath". Same same, just different nuances, as you mention, and all work good. USN/USMC also does "perform landing check", which the other services and civil don't do.
Click to expand...

Rog, haven't flown any AF/Army controlled PAR approaches that I can recall so I will keep that in mind when I do. Navy/USMC controllers still give the "approaching glidepath begin descent" call, but it is informative rather than directive comm, and sounds like it has a slightly different meaning.....another example of simple differences being lost in translation between the services I suppose

Reminds me of a story I heard recently from a guy who had been in a mixed division of 2 Hornets and 2 Vipers. They were headed into the initial, and like good USN/USMC wingmen, his section of Hornets auto-balanced back into echelon for the break. Apparently that was completely non-standard for the Viper/AF guys, and the flight lead was pissed that they had moved without his call. Interesting differences, I'm sure it is confusing at the least to intermix the services in flight ops.
 
MikeD said:
AF/Army and civil still do "begin descent"; whereas USN/USMC uses "up and on glidepath". Same same, just different nuances, as you mention, and all work good. USN/USMC also does "perform landing check", which the other services and civil don't do.
Click to expand...

don't remember ever doing that but it has been 8 years

Edit: I think we did "Check wheels down". Which always elicited the "Down and Welded" from the Huey and Cobra pilots
 
hey, i wasnt talking crap about PARs, it was just my experience around here. YMMV. I've had some great controllers, and i have had some novice ones. I just dont appreciate A trainee on GCA at 2am with 300 OVC. It would be one thing if i was landing on the RWY that i was shooting the approach to, but i have to do the approach and then side step along a canal to a different rwy. Like i said, its a personal experience, but i would just rather shoot an ILS and leave the crashing part up to me.
 
boondr said:
PARs and Surveillance Approaches you definitely are retired! (Although we did them all the time in the Marines and they still do them in certain places with regularity)
Click to expand...

If I remember right Evansville still has one, or did about a year ago.
 
cmill said:
hey, i wasnt talking crap about PARs, it was just my experience around here. YMMV. I've had some great controllers, and i have had some novice ones. I just dont appreciate A trainee on GCA at 2am with 300 OVC. It would be one thing if i was landing on the RWY that i was shooting the approach to, but i have to do the approach and then side step along a canal to a different rwy. Like i said, its a personal experience, but i would just rather shoot an ILS and leave the crashing part up to me.
Click to expand...

Precisely the reason that mil regs don't allow student controllers to give PAR's in hard IFR conditions. If the wx is at minimums, you are not talking to a student controller.
 
Haisam Mohamed El Sayed said:
which abbreviated as MVA
Click to expand...

I have used it so we did not have to fly a full approach. Say you are coming from the north to an airport that only had an approach from the south. The controller vectors you across the airport at the MVA and you get the airport visually, then you do not have to go miles south to shoot the approach. Saves time and money.
 
As of a year ago OFF had their PAR available at a wide range of times. I always enjoyed having my students shoot one, and they typically enjoyed it as well.
 
gne in prog said:
Of course, the mins are also higher on an asr approach. In my old freight flying days, pueblo co would often ask if you'd take an asr. Apparently the controllers have to stay current on them. I'd always take them, as it was about the only place I went to that had an asr, so it was good practice, and even when it was at or near mins you'd always be close enough you could comfortably land.
Click to expand...

ABQ welcomes practice ASRs to keep the controllers current according to a guy I know at approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top