Current status of carrier landings?

In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

"August 1972
5--A Naval Air Test Center pilot made the first fully automated landing
aboard the carrier Ranger in an F-4J Phantom II. The test landing device
links the plane's controls with a computer aboard ship and enables the
aircraft to land with the pilot's hands off the controls. The system was
developed to make safer landings at night and in low visibility conditions."

In article , a425couple says...

In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

"August 1972
5--A Naval Air Test Center pilot made the first fully automated landing
aboard the carrier Ranger in an F-4J Phantom II. The test landing device
links the plane's controls with a computer aboard ship and enables the
aircraft to land with the pilot's hands off the controls. The system was
developed to make safer landings at night and in low visibility conditions."



http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...arrier-Landing

And our old buddy Fred's company, Raytheon, has the contract for the piloted
version.

In article , a425couple says...

In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

"August 1972
5--A Naval Air Test Center pilot made the first fully automated landing
aboard the carrier Ranger in an F-4J Phantom II. The test landing device
links the plane's controls with a computer aboard ship and enables the
aircraft to land with the pilot's hands off the controls. The system was
developed to make safer landings at night and in low visibility conditions."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../14030_ch9.pdf

a425couple wrote:
In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

Coupled landings are still possible but not common--the pilots
hate them for a number of reasons, and in truth there is little
motivation or incentive to do them except in extreme need--every
pass you automate is one less practice pass for you, the driver,
and someday, when you most need it, the system will go down at
one end of the link or the other, leaving you with the options
you've always had--land the damned thing by hand, or, if you can,
bingo to the beach. Option b) is sometimes just not possible.


Jeff
--
The problem with the gene pool is there's no lifeguard.

On 02/07/2014 22:02, Jeff Crowell wrote:
Coupled landings are still possible but not common--the pilots
hate them for a number of reasons, and in truth there is little
motivation or incentive to do them except in extreme need--every
pass you automate is one less practice pass for you, the driver,
and someday, when you most need it, the system will go down at
one end of the link or the other, leaving you with the options
you've always had--land the damned thing by hand, or, if you can,
bingo to the beach. Option b) is sometimes just not possible.

It was interesting to go through a 1980s NATO publication on aircraft
capabilities (outdated, long superseded) and note how badly carrier
aviation suffered from the assumption of "must have enough fuel left to
divert to a base ashore, nominally X(lots) miles away, after a few
bolters or a foul deck" in payload and radius terms.

That was very much a peacetime assumption based on a fixed rule (and, as
an older and wiser analyst pointed out, one reason it looked
unfavourable was that the carrier might be far closer to the problem
than the nearest reliable land-based field, indeed might be the only
place to fly from with any chance at all of getting the aircraft or at
least the pilot back...)

However, it did highlight the point that getting back onto the birdfarm
is a challenge and can't be assumed to be simple and easy, even if in
wartime the answer might be "dry your eyes, Princess, and keep trying
until you get it right, crash on deck or flame out... and if you crash
on deck and don't die, I'll kill you myself!"

I heard an anecdote that, for USN pilots at the time, the most stressful
part of strike missions over North Vietnam was landing back onto the
carrier at or after dusk... don't know whether it's true but I'm
prepared to consider it.


Still a believer in carrier air, though, and HMS Queen Elizabeth gets
officially named on Friday which is a welcome move. (And I even know her
first CO, even if only on slight nodding acquaintance: Jerry Kyd was an
ace student on HCSC, well regarded as CO of Ark Royal, and liked and
respected when he ran BRNC Dartmouth)

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

"Jeff Crowell" wrote in...
a425couple wrote:
In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

Coupled landings are still possible but not common--the pilots
hate them for a number of reasons, and in truth there is little
motivation or incentive to do them except in extreme need-- - -

Thank you. Kind'a predictable.
Do you have any data on odds of damage per landing?

Jeff Crowell wrote:
Coupled landings are still possible but not common--the pilots
hate them for a number of reasons, and in truth there is little
motivation or incentive to do them except in extreme need
snip
when you most need it, the system will go down

Paul J. Adam wrote:
It was interesting to go through a 1980s NATO publication on aircraft
capabilities (outdated, long superseded) and note how badly carrier
aviation suffered from the assumption of "must have enough fuel left to
divert to a base ashore, nominally X(lots) miles away, after a few
bolters or a foul deck" in payload and radius terms.

That was very much a peacetime assumption based on a fixed rule

The Boys (i.e. q.v. e.g. those USN/USMC individuals
participizing in carrier aviation) have always set aside
(peace)times when they play under "blue water" rules,
whether they are that far from land or not.

For those not up on their terminology, blue water ops is when
there just plain is not a divert field in range, no matter your
fuel state or aircraft configuration. You just can't carry
enough gas to get to that big ol' Air Force runway which is
2 miles long (and wider than the ***length*** of the carrier's
landing area). There are times when the Admiral decrees blue
water ops, even when MCAS Cherry Point (or NAS North Island,
or *.*) is just over the horizon.

Which can get pretty bloody serious if you're the nugget
who is having his turn in the barrel tonight. As an LSO
once said to a friend of mine "You have to land here, son.
It's where the food is."

And the guy having his turn in the barrel is not necessarily
the nugget (nugget = first-cruise player), either. As the
saying goes, 'there are them what have had their turn, and
them what will.' Couple that with blue water ops, and you
have, oh-fishully, a Bad Situation.

At which point you just plain have to sack up, settle down,
and get 'er done. Or go for a swim. And, if it need be said,
sometimes that is a very bad option. At the very best of
times (day clear air), ejecting is a hazardous event. Given
the sort of conditions under which you usually have Your Turn
(moonless/overcast night, bad weather/heaving deck), you can
have a perfectly optimal ejection, a good chute, a good water
landing in which you avoid entanglement, and a raft which
inflated properly when it hit the end of the lanyard,and
still not get picked up, or even found.

It has happened, in number of times not few, that pilots have
had to be helped from the cockpit after having Their Turn but
actually got it together and successfully trapped.

If you haven't seen it (or even if you have), a scene from
PBS: Carrier involving a heaving deck (and it really isn't
even bad weather):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs


getting back onto the birdfarm
is a challenge and can't be assumed to be simple and easy, even if in
wartime the answer might be "dry your eyes, Princess, and keep trying
until you get it right, crash on deck or flame out... and if you crash
on deck and don't die, I'll kill you myself!"

Words not infrequently spoken also in peacetime, I assure you.
Though usually it's "...crash on ***MY*** flight deck..."


I heard an anecdote that, for USN pilots at the time, the most stressful
part of strike missions over North Vietnam was landing back onto the
carrier at or after dusk... don't know whether it's true but I'm
prepared to consider it.

True story, as measured by devices recording pulse/respiration
rate, etc. According to The Boys, still true.



Jeff
--
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

a425couple wrote:
In 1972 they were working on automated carrier landings.
What is current status?

Jeff Crowell wrote:
Coupled landings are still possible but not common--the pilots
hate them for a number of reasons, and in truth there is little
motivation or incentive to do them except in extreme need-- - -

a425couple wrote:
Thank you. Kind'a predictable. Do you have any data on odds of damage
per landing?

None, so long as the system stays up, the hook catches the wire,
the wire doesn't fail, the a-gear is set right, the (landing)
gear don't fold up, noting falls off the jet, etc.

It would not make much sense to accept for use a system in
which routine use of it caused damage. With, let it be said,
the exception of systems intended for use during casualties,
such as the barricade (which use would IMO beggar the
definition of 'routine').



Jeff
--
You may be an al Qaeda if:
You wipe your butt with your bare hand but consider
bacon unclean.

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:

I heard an anecdote that, for USN pilots at the time, the most stressful
part of strike missions over North Vietnam was landing back onto the
carrier at or after dusk... don't know whether it's true but I'm
prepared to consider it.

I read that too. I think it was in Stephen Coonts' Flight of the Intruder.

Does anybody have a good reference?

--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.

On 03/07/2014 17:32, Jeff Crowell wrote:
If you haven't seen it (or even if you have), a scene from
PBS: Carrier involving a heaving deck (and it really isn't
even bad weather):

I was lucky enough to use the HARRY S. TRUMAN as a staging point back in
2008: the Desert Hawk out of Bahrain flew us out to the TRUMAN between
cycles, then HMS MANCHESTER's Lynx came and got us after the next cycle,
so we got to watch a US carrier do its stuff in the interim.

On the one hand, landing on that deck when it's empty is scary: the
flying part is safe in a helicopter in nice weather, but it's *huge*
when you're hurrying from the helo to the island so you can get out of
the way of all the hard-working folk who are soon to be very busy.

But when, shortly thereafter, you're watching them land an aircraft a
minute, while simultaneously launching a strike-loaded Hornet every
thirty seconds off the bow... that 'huge' deck looks very cramped and
crowded indeed. I outgrew most of "Top Gun" quite quickly but I do think
the first few minutes - showing just how furiously busy, and how skilled
and disciplined, the deck crew of a carrier have to be - are still
awesome. (And this was all calm seas and good weather...)


Utterly awesome to watch, and if the USN weren't sharing generously with
us we'd have no chance at all of quickly regenerating carrier strike
capability.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.