General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

Greenie Board Possibilities?

<< < (7/51) > >>

SpazSinbad:
OK - found the same symbology 'fly up / fly down through glideslope' in the 2009 LSO NATOPS - missed it on the first quick squizz.

fsxnp, it seems you use the APARTS symbology. Better to use LSO symbology? Or is the APARTS easier to use for computer I guess?

This is where the LSO knowledge can say about 'degree of deviation' to record events. As you say the approach is 'around' the actual glideslope so the LSO not only records the actual deviations but the movement to other deviations. I think the phrase implies the 'grossness' of the correction from one deviation above the glideslope to end up below the glideslope - for example.

It a pilot anticipates the necessary corrections (this is ideal) then if for example he is above the glideslope by a small amount it is possible to make a correction down then correct with an UP to stop the DOWN then again anticipate with a smaller UP then smaller down to effectively go down to the glideslope but not go below and then to remain on glideslope. In practice the aircraft deviates by a small acceptable amount which gets smaller as the aircraft/pilot sees a more accurate glideslope - all going well.

To me the phrases indicate that the corrections were not refined - therefore noteworthy - gross - too much. Not sure how that can be modelled except in comparison of 'what to what' if the aircraft is high then goes low through the glideslope by an agreed margin - then this is noteworthy. The difference between the too high to the too low by flying through the glideslope is a big change (and still in error).

neutrino:
Serge, I think for the "up/down", if I interpret it correctly, you can simply monitor deviations from a calculated "ideal" vsi. For example, let's say from given {wind/wind direction/carrier speed/carrier course}, you calculate an ideal vsi of 720 fpm. If in the groove you register a vsi of 400 fpm - this means that the jet is going too fast UP towards or through the glideslope. Or if you see a vsi of 1000 fpm - he is flying DOWN through the glideslope quite fast. On the other hand you can have a hundred corrections within 650-800 fpm - that's a really smooth approach.

For example check my landing here - my vsi stays within 670-740 fpm for the entire approach, which is +/-5%. This is as smooth as I can get  ;)



Even more accurate will be to divide the vsi deviation by the distance - this will give you the angular speed through the glideslope. For example, you can descend 1500 fpm at 1.5 miles from the ramp, but this will be much less dangerous than descending at 800 fpm at 0.1 miles before the ramp (provided your "ideal" vsi is 700 fpm). If you are looking at the two jets through the PLAT cam - the jet at 0.1 miles will be descending twice as fast than the jet at 1.5 miles. A third jet at 700 fpm will appear stationary on the PLAT cam at any distance.

N.B. A pilot's job is not to maintain any pre-determined vsi or even look at the vsi indication! He need only maintain AOA and glideslope (ball/lineup/AOA). The vsi is just a means to evaluate the corrections relative to the glideslope with a computer.

SpazSinbad:
A new 'how to deck land' PDF now 1.5GB (smaller without some large embedded videos) is available:

http://www.a4ghistory.com/_HowDeckLand24mar2011pp1711.pdf

Keep in mind this information has been taken from the main 4.4GB PDF so it is skewed towards the interests of that PDF - the A4G Skyhawk and various aircraft in the RAN FAA. However you will be surprised at the variety of aircraft mentioned - including FSX aircraft talked about in this forum - as well as a bunch of material about FCLP - not just carrier landings.

SpazSinbad:
neutrino, your idea about descent rates is good but needs some further refinement IMHO. I'm not sure how it can be achieved so I'll describe what is meant.

Carrier Pilots are not SMOOTH as such. This is not an Air Force Style landing. In a much earlier thread now I recall making a very bad approach video for illustration purposes but in the end I did get there (I think). In a roundabout way this video perfectly illustrates in a gross way how a carrier pilot flies the ball (not that anyone in the real world would be allowed to fly in such a dangerous manner - the LSO would wave them off before they got too close).

It is legitimate to make large corrections a long way from arrest so as to get 'on the ball' as quick as possible. The closer one gets when 'on the ball' corrections necessarily should be much smaller ideally but the point is to 'fly the ball' and be 'on the ball'. Smoothness is not a benchmark. Flying the ball accurately is the benchmark hence the often large elevator movement of a Hornet as it crosses the ramp - to keep the ball where it is - rather than have it move - in this situation. So at the ramp there is not a requirement to change the ball position but keep it in the mirror which apparently will guarantee an arrest. Ideally though the ball is centred all the way to touchdown.

Again my point is the pilot flies the ball to the best of his ability and does not worry about how that looks to others or how smooth that process may be. Generally speaking it is NOT a smooth process but may look smooth to outside viewers. Certainly from the inside is it NOT smooth. The power goes up and down rapidly and control movements can be gross with both inputs becoming smaller hopefully the closer the aircraft gets to touchdown.

As I say I don't know how that can be modelled in the sim but want to stress that smooth is not the goal. Keeping the ball within acceptable parameters is the goal - with accuracy paramount. Any emphasis on smoothness can mean that appropriate, timely corrections are not made. For example a rampstrike can occur from a high start where enough correction is not made so that the aircraft is 'high all the way' but 'coming down at the ramp' for a rampstrike. This can be because the pilot is not making enough correction early on to get back to keeping the meatball centred, or perhaps he/she is trying to be 'smooth'.

A carrier approach can be described as an endless series of corrections that get smaller the closer the aircraft gets to arrest. The ball can remained centred with appropriate constant corrections - this is not smooth Air Force flying.

http://www.a4ghistory.com/VikingS3longCarrierApproach.wmv  (2.3Mb) TURN UP VOLUME TO ELEVEN!   ;D

There is a classic video of an S-3 Hoover/Viking doing a long approach with engine sounds heard in the cockpit. Air Force people remark on how the engines are cycling up and down. Yep - that is the key - there is nothing smooth about a carrier approach although it may look smooth. With experience a carrier pilot can anticipate ball movement and appropriate corrections to keep the ball centred, however there is a constant input of corrections with anticipated corrections for the earlier corrections and on and on becoming ideally smaller as the aircraft approaches arrest with the ball in the middle of the datum lights.

Bear in mind that carrier approaches use the same techniques for all jet aircraft. Keep the ball in the middle of the datums using 'meatball, line up and airspeed (short for 'Optimum Angle of Attack') as your only guides (not smoothness - not deck spotting). This 93 Mb PDF with embedded videos mentioned in an earlier thread is useful:

http://www.gamefront.com/files/17349862/DeckLandingInstructionVideos_pdf  (93Mb)

Very good Clemenceau Approach Video BTW!   ;D

neutrino:
Spaz, you may have a point - smoothness is not a priority, staying on glideslope is. The pilot should be penalized only based on the size of the deviations from glideslope, but he should be able to correct them as fast as necessary. In this case, I don't know how to interpret the symbology that puzzled Serge ???

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page