Runtoeat Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 The pilot's inputs go from an average of 300 to 10 in the last 18 seconds. Great use of the available capabilities of "fly-by-wire" system on the F18. https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/navys-magic-carpet-simplifies-carrier-landings-interim-fielding-fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT2kflyer Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 The pilots better use it only 1/2 the time. Sure as s#it when their plane is shot to pieces and they need to get aboard, the Magic Carpet won't work. Lead does that to a aircraft system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted March 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Good point. But, perhaps with the redundancies and self checking algorithms the system has, the computer is capable of overcoming a marginal flight control situation which would be beyond a human's ability or, the computer will give a warning it's not up to snuff to provide auto landings and would say, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"! Problems is, if the manual landing mode is needed, this will require a pilot to resort to a landing proficiency which he/she is no longer has due to lack of training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony & Rose Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Problems is, if the manual landing mode is needed, this will require a pilot provide landing proficiency which he/she is no longer able to do due to lack of training. And that is the issue in a 'training nutshell' for proficiency. I've had 'Wing Kings' shut down the ILS/GS on dark moonless nights for 'personal proficiency development and skills retention', etc. Understanding your elevated pucker-factor I found worth every minute of that 'training' when I truly required the skills and mental awareness.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted March 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Tony, thanks for your reply. I will be forever grateful to my CFI who constantly takes me "out of the box" by having me fly many different flight scenarios, most of which I would never had tried without his encouragement. Although I'm still learning, and will be forever, this practice really has improved my proficiency in many areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony & Rose Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Dick -- I got one for ya. Fly with trim and power only, all the way to touchdown. (No, auto pilot coupling not allowed.) Gets exciting. Be sure to have an extra set (or two) of eyes. Think about the thought process.... (Really exciting at 140kts approach with 85000 pounds on the gear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted March 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Tony, first of all, let me say you have my absolute respect for having flown extremely technical aircraft. I'm sure that these machines demanded your undivided attention and you often needed to use your practiced reactive responses to keep them flying or they would have gladly bitten you in your rear end. Actually, my CFI had me do a drill similar to what you suggest, only he took away both my pitch trim and elevator. He said OK, you don't have your elevator, how are going to land? I think my bewildered look gave me away so he took over the controls and, with a combination of power to control altitude and flaps settings to control pitch, and a lot of room around the little used airport we practice in out in the farmlands, he landed. I repeated his example and was able to do this. I now know the drill for doing this but I don't claim I will be highly proficient if I ever get a frozen elevator and need to demonstrate this. Landing a 85,000 lb stone with huge jet engines at 140 kts would require abilities I don't have now nor ever did have but I would like to be a passenger and experience this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony & Rose Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Dick -- I like your CFI. Send him my 'thumbs-up' and a 'Sierra Hotel' for getting you out of a box making you think. Spend evenings with your feet up and eyes closed and imagine any situation you can; then apply first response. Simple items are good, since most 'troubles' are simple. We just over react and make a real problem out of a simple one. First - is it still flying (most cases, yes.) Next, take your personal body inventory (are all/most parts functioning). In our type of flying, I'd imagine those two are a go! Take a deep breath, review your surroundings, make determinations as best you can, then start putting into place all those 'maybes' you worked with in the chair. Dick, the recall ability of the brain is truly frighting, and has saved the bacon many times. Happy flights.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 The way the pilot responds to the system when flying with the CARPET engaged and how he controls it if he has to fly it manually is almost backwards. Manual landings require precise control of angle of attack (pitch) and glideslope is controlled primarily by power (and sometimes other devices, like Direct Lift Control in the F-14 that raised the spoilers using a thumbwheel to stop the ball from rising in close). This raises the possibility that flying the system nominally will induce negative training (habits) that could make a manual flying day even harder. Didn't see anything in the article about how the system performed in high sea states, other than a generic reference that seemed to imply it was somewhat impervious to the environment. (Bet me...!) When a ship the size of the Vinson is splashing water over the bow because it's pitching so bad, you know it's going to be an interesting night! It'll be interesting to see how the Navy handles the training challenges associated with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony & Rose Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Let's understand that this is OLD system wares. The newest addition was 'meatball' projected adjustment for a moving/pitching deck COUPLED to auto controls, both flight system and power plant.... (I'll admit, a nifty add-on to your approach program) One real killer to those 'aviators' is the spool-up time and power delivered when needed on any short final. Deck movement has always been the sight adjustment pucker-factor. That is why the LSO has those big paddles and a very loud connection to your ears... We do Cat.I approaches and auto throttle/stopping and taxi turnoff in zero-zero, to ac manufacture maximum crosswind component. Yes, it can be an 'E' ride, but is not an uncommon event, and subject to your Wings Mission profile. You might practice this approach every 60 days, or less if wing-boss wants it.. PS: F-14 fails in having the network for such a system, and AC dynamics of the T-Cat couldn't support the rapid adjustments needed to maintain, etc.. No training problems, we're doing most of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Thanks, Tony. But my comment was directed at the over-reliance on automation these systems tend to impose coupled with the totally different way of flying that long use of the system ingrains. That will work against you if it fails. The first X-15 fatality is an example of a case where a flight instrument was used for dual purposes and contributed to a bad pilot response during a contingency situation (in my mind somewhat analogous to the delta in pilot response these two flight control modes require). The over-reliance on automation is now being battled in the world of commercial aviation; and I personally saw the same thing on shuttle after we automated two and three engine out contingency aborts. All those procedures had been manually flown and were incredibly dicey; but the manual training taught the crews the flying characteristics of the Orbiter in extreme regimes; once we automated them, the training consisted of running through the procedures and watching the vehicle fly everything. Organizations tend to cut back on the training to save bucks and time once the pilot tasks are automated, and that can lead to a type of organizational complacency that leaves aircrews at risk. Hopefully, the Navy will anticipate that and (I suspect they will) and there'll be some amount of training to keep pilots up to snuff for those nights when its malfunctions or just doesn't engage it. No doubt this is a good system and will make things easier, though it'll take actual fleet use to really wring it out and put the system reliability where it needs to be, which will necessarily be quite high for this op environment. The F-14 was capable of Cat 1 approaches aboard ship and was certified for it sometime after I left the fleet (though the pilot was still the "coupler"). I've seen A-7's brought aboard zero-sero and it is impressive. Been there, done that on the spool-up time; the pilot pulled "too much" power off in close to stop a rising ball and we went off the angle at night feeling the airplane squat as the TF-30's caught up to us; not a confidence inspiring feeling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 An . . . "The over-reliance on automation is now being battled in the world of commercial aviation; and I personally saw the same thing on shuttle after we automated two and three engine out contingency aborts. All those procedures had been manually flown and were incredibly dicey; but the manual training taught the crews the flying characteristics of the Orbiter in extreme regimes; once we automated them, the training consisted of running through the procedures and watching the vehicle fly everything. Organizations tend to cut back on the training to save bucks and time once the pilot tasks are automated, and that can lead to a type of organizational complacency that leaves aircrews at risk." . . . This reminds me of "Children of the Magenta:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony & Rose Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 Andy -- Complete agreement from me re: over reliance on toys... It's apparent you and I came from the same school of 'fly the airplane, fly the airplane and fly the airplane' as the three most important rules to flying. I further concur with your analysis of the current status of events regarding the expansion of toys, training requirements (and related costs) and hopefully that flight-deck true needs (actual real skill levels) will balance out. I thought your write-up was right on. And Wmince, thanks for the review and reminder from prior thinking. And now, back to CT related items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted March 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Tony, thanks for your comments. I'll work on the advice you given me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.