FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: GOONIE on March 01, 2011, 07:09:10 pm
-
This is a question for all the FSX mission developers on this forum.
As some of you might remember, TopGun Simulation came out with a mission a few years ago (no longer in business or operating), that was able to keep track of your performance for six carrier traps which you could then load online for a LSO debrief and score (Greenie Board). I remember you had to load a separate piece of software that had to be running in the background while you flew the approaches (I assume this is where the magic happened or tracking of your flight performance).
I was curious if any FSX mission developers have looked at the TGS mission file to see how they captured/tracked your flight performance for the Greenie Board scores online, and if it is possible to recreate a mission with the Sludge hornet and other updates (i.e. correct aircraft carrier speed) that also tracks each of your approaches and collects scores for your review later? I am not sure how much of the tracking was a function of the mission they developed and how much was a function of the extra software they required you to install and have running.
What do you guys think? We know it is possible based on the TGS work, and if I had the FSX SDK and knew how to create missions I would give it a go. Just wanted to throw it out there for discussion. Could be a fun way to setup a greenie board for the Sludge Hornet.
-Capt
-
if making anything for fsx was a little more user friendly i'd give it a try, but i dont have the time to do so, the way it currently is.
hopefully someone might consider :)
-
If I knew simconnect and export traps to a MySQL database, I could use the greenie board available here:
http://www.sludgehornet.com/GreenieBoard/Blank%20Example/GreenieBoard.html
-
Nevermind.
-
How about this poor man system I have? Boy is this Hard, where are wire #2 and 3? Herb
-
...I remember you had to load a separate piece of software that had to be running in the background while you flew the approaches (I assume this is where the magic happened or tracking of your flight performance).
I was curious if any FSX mission developers have looked at the TGS mission file to see how they captured/tracked your flight performance for the Greenie Board scores online, and if it is possible to recreate a mission with the Sludge hornet and other updates (i.e. correct aircraft carrier speed) that also tracks each of your approaches and collects scores for your review later? I am not sure how much of the tracking was a function of the mission they developed and how much was a function of the extra software they required you to install and have running.
Well, the SDK provides a developer so-called Custom Actions:
(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6702/sdk.jpg)
So, a mission tracks your aircraft's position and 'grades' your approaches. It then sends this 'grade' information to a SimConnect program, which collects the data and shows you that greenie board whenever you need it. It's pretty easy. ;) I could create such a mission (or missions set), generating custom actions and sending some useful data to a SimConnect application, but I have no experience in making SimConnect programs so far. Alas...
-
Nevermind.
-
Serge...
Would be super cool if you could get that information to update. I messaged CAPT elsewhere and told him that once I get some time, Ill try to find and talk to the guys who made the TGS Traps missions. Especially if we can get those already built "control zones" enabled with a Javier Carrier instead of their slow-moving (10 kt) default carrier, that would be a good first step. But Id have to talk them into giving us the pre-release code and get permission to work on it.
Actually, in the meantime, IF you have time... Id suggest using your FCLP mission as a baseline testing platform, if you know how to install those "control zones" (not sure what to call them), where if you deviate you get an LSO call "power, come left, come right"... in the TGS Trap missions.
Then, once we figured out how to pull the flight data and corrections and what-not and setup a grading criteria... we'd have to work it into a database like Raz is talking about, so it would auto update.
Let me know what you think
Later
Sludge
-
FSXNavypilot,
Thanks for the info and for the encouraging words, "It's pretty easy", but you are very capable in creating missions, your FCLP missions are great, and your experience making "control zones" is going to be really helpful I think for any Greenie Board created. It sounds like SimConnect is the biggest hurdle, I have never used or heard of it before. If you have time to look into SimConnect and can find a solution that would be awesome. I think it could be used for some fun competition for all the sim hornet pilots here 8)
Sludge,
That would be great if you could get in contact with the TGS folks, they were trail blazers for this Greenie Board concept. I agree, that with a few corrections to the carriers speed, updated javiers carrier textures, and the sludge hornet, we could have a great mission on our hands.
Raz,
Definitely like the Greenie Board you have created, just needs this mission or tool through SimConnect and we can start populating it with OK3s!
Herbie,
Nice idea, looks like you got a 1 wire, but that might have been due to the double vision on your HUD symbology, hope you were not drinking and flying ;)
Orion,
I don’t mind.
Thanks for all the feedback, hope we can make this happen!
-
Ok, guys,
Looks like SimConnect is no more a problem, so we can discuss the Greenie Board idea in more details.
Here is my vision, or concept, of this:
The player flies a mission, which sends certain messages to a program, running in background. The messages describe aircraft's position, relative to the glideslope. The program gathers these messages, processes, or grades, and keeps them locally in a form, suitable for further analysis. I think that real-life APARTS' concept would be useful for this purpose. Here's an excerpt from NAVAIR 00-80T-104 (NATOPS LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER MANUAL), Figure 11-2 attached:
11.3.1 Automated Performance Assessment and Readiness Training System (APARTS)
APARTS is a computer software program designed to assist the LSO in recording and analyzing pilot and LSO carrier landing performance information. The system provides various summaries for individual pilots, squadrons, or an entire air wing. The results may be displayed on the computer screen or printed out for a hard copy record (Figure 11-2).
Some of the data (say, date, time, name and grade), collected by this program, could then be sent to a server, maintaining the Greenie Board.
So, this is merely a concept and I'm intentionally not getting in more technical details right now :)
Any ideas, suggestions?
-
FSXNavyPilot,
Great news! ;D It sounds like you have figured out SimConnect?
I like your idea of mimicking APARTS. Does NATOPS give any guidance on how deviations and their severity are used to determine a Grade? I feel this is the tricky part of the logic, for example would three minor deviations (glideslope IM, IC, AR) equate to one severe deviation AR (ie being low/slow) and affect the landing grade in a similar way. The APARTS output looks like a great format to show deviations (glideslope/lineup/power) and wire caught. The final grade (OK3) could be fed into a Greenie Board format like Raz put together.
FSXNavyPilot, do you have the originial TGS files? I do not know how to open the ATG.mission3.spd and look at the file in its entirety (I use notepad and can see most of the file). I used this file when I generated my updated LSO audio files, and while looking through the file I noticed a large section which appears to contain all of the conformance monitoring criteria and proximity triggers which I assume fed SimConnect to upload your approach for grading online when the website still was operating. If you are able to look at the .spd file provided with the mission it might provide some clues on how to collect performance metrics during the approach and then send them to an external script via SimConnect for collection and further analysis (APARTS output).
Thoughts?
-
This PDF here has some great info about LSO grading parameters (whether it is actual used today - who knows):
OUTER-LOOP CONTROL FACTORS FOR CARRIER AIRCRAFT Robert K. Heffley 1 December 1990
http://robertheffleyengineering.com/docs/CV_environ/RHE_NAV_90_TR_1.pdf
-
Thanks Spazsinbad!
The docs contain a lot of detailed criteria for grading each aspect of the approach; however, I am still unclear how it is used to surmise the final grade or score for the trap.
-
You will have to educate yourself by reading these publications. Remember ordinary USN pilots selected/volunteering to become LSOs go to LSO school. Excerpts from both LSO PDFs attached below.
LSO NATOPS 01 May 2009:
http://www.wings-of-gold.com/cnatra/LSONATOPSMAY09.pdf (2Mb)
OK _OK_ Perfect pass
OK OK Reasonable deviations with good corrections
(OK) (OK) Fair. Reasonable deviations
— -- No-grade. Below average but safe pass
C Cut. Unsafe, gross deviations inside waveoff window
B Bolter
NC NC No count (used in grade column)
( ) ( ) Parentheses around any symbol signifies “a little” (e.g., (F) means “a little fast”)
_______ _Comment_ Underline. For emphasis
______________________________
LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (Rev B):
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf (5.6Mb)
-
Thanks Spaz, I understand the real world LSO grades, what I am trying to understand is how we would generate an automated LSO grade or score (not real world) using an automated Greenie Board that this thread is trying to discuss.
First you need the parameters for the approach, which the NATOPS docs provide, and collect performance against these parameters during the approach via an automated system (simconnect). Then you need to sum up all the deviations/performance values throughout the approach (X, IM, IC, AR) to get a final automated LSO grade (OK, (OK), --, C, B). Does that make sense?
Both an OK and (OK) say "reasonable deviations" which sounds pretty subjective if we are going to automate scoring each pass, not saying it is impossible, just saying it needs to be discussed. Thoughts?
Here is an example for an automated LSO grade, if you received (LUL) at X, IM, IC, AR, would you receive a OK, or (OK)? I guess we would need to monitor corrections and determine what is considered a "good correction" to receive a OK vs a (OK). FSXNavyPilot, do you have any ideas on how to judge good correction? Would it be a trend analysis or can you monitor corrections at each point during the approach? For example if you are LUL at the start and LUL in the middle, you would assume a good correction was not made and thus an (OK) is possible.
-
In case anyone was wondering what I was referring to in my posts from the beginning of the thread before I edited them...
(http://i.imgur.com/o44G6.png)
And yes, it does connect to FSX and receive messages from missions.
-
Yep, it totally works ;D
(http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss333/neutrino2009/o44G6-1.png)
-
Probably an LSO would need to say more about how grading is performed. A real LSO logbook can be downloaded in PDF format for you to get an idea of how passes are scored. That would be my only suggestion. Otherwise to rank all the possibilities etc during an approach is probably beyond a non-LSO. I was not trained as an LSO. It seems you are on the right path though. Yes the system is subjective. The VF-805 LSO logbook PDF is here:
http://www.a4ghistory.com/VF-805-LSO-log-Early1980pp66.pdf (38Mb)
"LSO (Landing Signal Officer) logbook in PDF format (38Mb) as used by the VF-805 LSOs in early 1980 during the second last cruise to Hawaii and RIMPAC80. Extra contextual information is included in 'squadron linebook style'."
There is also FCLP passes recorded at the back of the logbook to also give an overview of how to score. Be advised one chap in this section 'Binskin' went on to be the current Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] (CAF) now Air Vice Marshal Mark Binskin.
Also at the time the Squadron VF-805 was embarked LEUT (USN - on exchange) Bob Stumpf is recorded. Bob went on to become one of the Leaders of the Hornet Blue Angels.
One of the LSOs named in the book went on to become an Air Commodore in the RAAF. Why did Navy pilots join the RAAF? Because the RAN Fixed Wing and Carrier Aviation stopped in the early 1980s, with only helos flying today.
On page 52 of the 66 page PDF you will see at the bottom of the page a PERFECT PASS by the first jet era LSO (1968-9) in the RAN now at that time the Senior Pilot (XO) of VF-805.
-
Some fun LSO jet olde worlde video clips:
http://www.a4ghistory.com/LittleHighBringItDownSon.wmv (1.3Mb)
&
http://www.a4ghistory.com/TA4JthrottleStuckDetentLexington.wmv (2.4Mb)
&
http://www.a4ghistory.com/A4GsStumpf1980music2m6sPDF.wmv (8.7Mb)
-
LSOing is something a human is needed to Judge accurately. If we're going by a computer. A deviation is detected, and 2 seconds later it searches for another. Every 2s (2 second interval) it checks for deviations. Number of deviations determines the grade (0 - _OK_ -> Not sure if reserved for emergency, 1 OK, 2-3 (OK), 4 NG).
-
Well, guys...
I am currently arranging the areas, very well described in the RHE_NAV_90_TR_1.pdf (thanks to Spaz). Passing through any of these areas will generate specific messages for a SimConnect program, which will collect these data and try to grade pilot's performance. I also plan to collect at these areas some other crucial info such as AOA, descent rate, flaps state etc. All these data will be used to form APARTS-like sheet, very informative for trend analysis. Finally, the grades from this sheet will be uploaded to a server, maintaining the Greenie Board.
And of course, an _OK_ could be scored only if the plane flew all the way along the GS with deviations less than 0.3 vertical and 1.5 horizontal.
BTW, the TGS missions have similar, but more simplified, approach - there are less areas with more wider margins. I guess, they thought 'Hey, who cares... It's just a game!..' ;)
And finally, creating a program with AI (of any kind) is not a trivial business. But we will try... Why not? ;D
-
Nice FSnavypilot! Your slogan "want it done right? do it yourself" is perfect! 8) Your description of how to make this work sounds spot on, and it sounds like you are making head way.
Raz, I agree the human element of judging an approach is critical, but I think we can simulate this as FSNavypilot describes and get pretty close for the FSX simulation experience when a human is not available (not in MP).
Spaz, where did you find those videos??? talk about pucker factor, I am sure the seat cushions disappeared in both cases, almost went swimming. I love the second video and LSO dialogue, "EJECT! EJECT!, negative... rotate. ....who the hell yelled eject!" :o
Orion, thx for sharing, not sure why you didn't share this earlier ???
I gave it a whirl,
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/Picture1-1.jpg)
based on these scores, I found out what the problem is.... ;D
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/lso.jpg)
-
I'll have to update the 'how to deck land' PDF (which is just the now voluminous section from the 4.4GB PDF scrapbook about the RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk and other aircraft). This section has a lot of information already posted in this forum on other threads but also should be interesting with information on the F-35 variants and other new stuff as well as old stuff and the RN FAA innovations over the years (SRVL).
EDIT: Updated PDF - also smaller for easier download
http://www.a4ghistory.com/_HowDeckLand24mar2011pp1711.pdf (1.5GB)
"UPDATE 24 March 2011: New 1.5GB PDF (extracted from the main 4.4GB PDF) about ‘How to Deck Land’ with reference not only to the A4G Skyhawk but to other USN and RN aircraft of that era. In the mid-1960s groups of new RAN FAA pilots were trained in the USofA, instead of with the RAAF in Australia (basic flight training to Wings standard). This meant that these USN trained pilots became carrier qualified in the T-28C Trojan, so this aircraft is included also. More info about FCLP and ‘carrier deck’ at OLF/NOLF airfields is included as well as extra videos showing from the pilot perspective how to deck land & FCLP the T-45C Goshawk. Please see the main 4.4GB PDF for supporting information.
Please use a download manager or 'right mouse click' on the download URL below to "Save target as" to your computer. As indicated further down the page all these PDFs must be viewed on 'Windows XP SP2 or above computers' [Windows 7 is best] using the latest Adobe Reader 9.4.3 or better (when available). MAC users will have varying results with these PDFs I'm told (but I don't have a MAC because they are ...)."
Today I'll start making a new version of the above which will include the new material gathered since this one was made (quite a bit actually) especially with new historical material added.... The cartoon below has been in the PDF since the beginning - now some five or more years ago. Work on it never stops.
[EDIT] I might add that a lot of the 'how to deck land' material was generated by answering/researching to answer questions on this forum, with some 'advertisements' so to speak for Flight Simming/SLUDGE etc.
-
13. The XO dared me to get a 1-wire.
;D ;D
-
Long CUT & PASTE but informative I hope:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php/139558-Looking-for-gouge-Ask-your-Stupid-Questions-about-Naval-Aviation-here-(Part-1)?p=385759&highlight=Grade%20Bolter%20Waveoff
"Here's a stupid question for Paddles. Could one of y'all put up a "grading passes 101"? The shorthand LSO's use - is it Fleet-Q: standardized? Taught at LSO School? Or just whatever the CAG Paddles prefers? What's considered start/at the middle/in-close? Etc and so on
______________
A: 2. Suppose to be standardized ... but it "changes" slightly over the decades ... most of the phraseology used to be in the LSO NATOPS -- I don't have one anymore ... there was always some consideration for "creative" phraseology, but it was frowned upon as only YOU or your platform mates might know what it meant ...
3. We did not have a dedicated LSO school when I got my qual; that came later. My peers and I did it at the end of the runway and at the ship like those who came before us ... hundreds of hours ... thousands of passes observed and controlled. Assuming you were any good and had "talent" (or a good "eye" and "feel" for it) you were usually only as good as those who taught you. My LSO mentors were fortunately VERY good ... starting with the ORISKANY'S legendary Ron "No-Nights" Coalson and moving on up from there. Nose will stick his nose in here with more skool information, I am certain ...
4. There's actually more; a LOT more in fact ... i.e., abeam, at the 90 (or anywhere else in the turn if it's appropriate) ... start (X) ... in the middle (IM) .... in close (IC) .... at the ramp (AR) ... and even "to land" (TL i.e., passing the platform) ... and "in the wires" (IW) which wasn't used too much and was usually thought of as "old school" ...
___________________________
Only a little bit has changed, it is still the "artform" that he was taught. We have computerized so grades are now stored in a database which makes things like "Top 10" and Trend Analysis much easier. It also means that a couple of the comments have changed. Not many symbols any more. "Rough" as in rough wings, rough nose, etc, is now "RUF" It used to be a squiggly horizontal line. Fly-through-up and fly-through-down, which used to be hand drawn (usually improperly) are now "/" and "\" respectively.
1. Grading Passes and 2. Shorthand and 4. What is the start, in close...
101 Remember the main reason we grade passes is so a pilot can learn from every pass and the Pilot and LSO can spot trends which need correction. My philosophy as a CAG LSO was not "lets see how much detail we can go into" it was more "hit the high points and tell him what he saw."
Tell him what he saw. Not what you saw. Important distinction. If you saw him low, but he saw a centered ball because he was slow and cocked up, then you would say slocu "slow cocked up". Then in the debrief when he doesn't see the low you saw, you can explain the airspeed deviation maksked the glideslope deviation.
We can start grading anywhere we want. In my airwing, we gave upgrades for the SHB - shit hot break, but only if you could handle it. Common calls in the RAG and TRACOM are TWA or TCA - too wide/close abeam. WUX, AA Wrapped up start, angling approach. All valid comments. ("If you ever hear a student say "Don't call the ball until you are wings level, because Paddles can't start grading until the ball call." Please punch them.)
So, basics: We look at three things. Glideslope, Lineup, Speed. There are lots of comments you can use:
Glideslope - H - High LO - Low. HCD - High coming down. B - Flat. (Flat is ALWAYS a glideslope reference, not aircraft attitude) S- Settle
\ - fly down through the glideslope / - Fly up through the glideslope
Lineup - LUR/LUL Lined up left/right R-L -Right to left.
Speed - F - Fast Slo - Slow CU - Cocked up ND - Nose down ACC - Accelerate DEC - Decelerate
We can also talk about the magnitude of a deviation. If it is (in parentheses) it is "a little" if it is underlined that means "a lot".
We grade any part of what we see, from the break to the flyaway on a B (Bolter) or WO (waveoff). For tracking and debriefing purposes, we break the groove up into distinct (but subjective) parts. X - start (usually about the time you go wings level). IM - In the middle. IC - In close. AR - At the ramp. IW - In the wires.
Then we take the deviation comments, put them in a location and build a pass. (We will talk about grading in a minute)
(OK) HX (TMP.CDIC) FBAR 4
Fair pass. High Start, a little too much power on the come down in close, fast flat at the ramp. 4 wire.
-- NEP.DRIM OCSDEC.LUIC LOBAR 3
NO GRADE Not enough power on drift right in the middle. Overcontrolled big settle decel on lineup inclose. Low, very flat at the ramp. 3 wire.
OK (NEPIC) (SAR) 2
OKAY PASS. A little not enough power in close, a little settle at the ramp. 2 wire.
Grades and grading philosophy:
Our (me and the other CAG LSO) philosophy was that in our airwing, it would be harder then in most to get an OK. We did not give sugar calls and expected pilots to get aboard without help. We tried to make it so that the only time you got a radio call was if we thought you were losing control of the pass. Not unheard of on our platform to get a "no grade" and not have anything said. Our mantra was "If he is going to clear the ramp, land near centerline with no drift, and not break the jet (For A4s, that is a new concern in the Hornet age ) then we normally won't talk to them.
Grades (and points assigned on 4.0 scale)
OK 5 "Okay Underlined" No deviations. (Never happens) Usually assigned for single engines, 1000th trap, very tough enviornmentals, etc.
OK 4 "Okay pass" Above Average Pass. Minor deviations with timely and proper corrections.
(OK) 3 "Fair Pass" Pass with average deviations and corrections.
B 2.5 Bolter. Basically a fair pass where you didn't get aboard. Boarding rate hit for pilot and squadron. Contrary to popular belief, a bolter is a safe, acceptable pass. (as long as you don't make a habit of it!)
-- 2.0 No Grade. (AKA "Stitch" or "Gash") Below average (but safe) pass. Excessive deviations and/or improper or untimely corrections and/or improper response to LSO call.
WOP 2.0 Pattern Waveoff. Usually issued for gross deviations in the approach turn. Excessive low or overshoot.
WO 1.0 Waveoff. Issued to prevent an unsafe pass from continuing. Caused by escessive deviations, compound deviations, or lack of response to LSO calls.
C 0.0 Cut pass. Unsafe. Probably a mishap.
WOFD * Foul deck waveoff. No grade awarded, doesn't count as a pass. (like a walk in Baseball) No boarding rate hit. (Exception- If you caused the WOFD by not having enough interval, then I would grade it as a WOP)
There are a few others:
OWO (Own Waveoff). Unless done at the start, not safe. Will definitely get a talking to from CAG Paddles and possibly Boss/CAG/CAPT.
WOW Waveoff Winds. Winds out of limits. Treated like WOFD.
3. Taught at LSO school: Not really. Like A4s said, it is an art. The only way you get good at it is to do it. Over and over and over and over.
LSO school is to waving what a simulator and Instrument ground school are to flying: You learn necessary info and procedures, but you don't learn to wave.
We spend a lot of time at LSO school going over stuff you don't normally cover on the platfrom during a recovery. ARBs (Aircraft Recovery Bulletins.) How the Gear works. How PALs works. LSO Administration. Safety considerations. Glideslope geometry (This one used to be a ball buster. We did actual trig calculations!) LSO Post Mishap Procedures. Pre-Op checks. Field equipment set-up, etc. And, since we were a "center of excellence" and were responsible for teaching the teachers, we did classes on giving classes.
There were four classes at school.
IFGT - 2 weeks. Initial Formal Ground Training. For first tour LSOs. We requested that an LSO have 1 cruise worth of experience prior to attending.
FRS/TRACOM - 1 week. Refresher geared towards LSOs on their way to FRS/TRACOM LSO billet.
AFGT - 1 week. Advanced Formal Ground Training. For LSOs on their way to CAG Paddles jobs.
Air Department class - Class for prospective Air Bosses and/or Boss+Mini+Shooters. This was a class we started when I was there, don't know if they still do it. Focus on ARBs. Lots of drills. Lots of communication. Talk about Boss role vs. Arresting Gear Officer role vs. LSO role.
We also did a seminar for any PDCAG during their training track."
-
Very useful post, thanks Spaz!
I think it's time to get into more details. Most of the areas I planned to arrange are in place already and here you can see the layout (don't be confused of that red wireframes mess).
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8666/gradeareas.jpg)
I used approach figures from the latest LSO NATOPS available (of may 2009) and calculated (millimeter-wise) GS areas geometry for Javier's CV68, which is known to have the glideslope angle 3.99 and the deck angle 8.496. The GS distances, shown on the picture, are measured from the ramp.
There are 7 areas for lineup deviations (_LUL_, LUL (LUL), OK, (LUR), LUR, _LUR_) and 7 areas for glideslope deviations (_H_, H, (H), OK, (L), L and _L_) at each part of the approach. So, it will be possible to reliably define aircraft's position/deviation. I also plan to monitor AoA, sink rate and other aircraft parameters such as flaps, gear and hook positions...
And here is my question. ;)
What do mean \ - fly down through the glideslope and / - fly up through the glideslope? Or when these errors are recorded? I mean that during its approach the aircraft constantly flies up and down through the glideslope, as the pilot constantly makes corrections. So what are the criteria?
Thanks. And more questions to come... ;D
-
fsxnp, WOW - looks like you have an excellent idea of how to go about the task.
Not sure about your question:
"What do mean \ - fly down through the glideslope and / - fly up through the glideslope?"
I'll do some thinking and investigation. I gather this criteria is in the latest LSO NATOPS May 2009. Every other day I search the internet for the latest 2010 LSO Reference Manual PDF - no luck. ;D
-
Fuzzy Logic PDF may be inspirational - or just plain FUZZY:
http://www.stottlerhenke.com/papers/WCCI_2002_Richards.pdf
-
Found the 'fly up' & 'fly down' through glideslope references here online:
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1211/P-12110028.htm
FROM this CNATRA T-45C pub: http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1211/index.htm
Is this the standard? I hope it is seen that comments differ over time whilst there is some flexibility as well.
-
Spaz,
Good reading about fuzzy logic, it IS inspirational, not fuzzy ;D thanks!
Down to my question. Just an example. Say, I start a little low and make correction. Sure I will cross (fly through) the GS and will be a little high. Then I'll try to compensate and go down again... These small oscillations are inevitable during the approach. So, when or why these oscillations are considered as / and \ ?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ???
-
neutrino, IF the pilot is 'smooth' by skill, technique and anticipation (of corrections) to remain on the glideslope accurately then all well and good. But the prime aim as you say is to be on glideslope - even if it looks ugly, and there have been a lot of UGLY approaches out there which turn out OK. ;D
Personally I think the suggestion to 'score' the approach by pilot accuracy through the boxes indicated is a good one with the 'flying through glideslope' being secondary. Within reason - whatever it takes - to stay on the ball is good. There are provisos/caveats to these kind of catch all statements though, especially in close. I'll hunt out some of them. The earlier PDFs highlight some considerations for the Hornet for example.
The first graphic is from a USN LSO Brief about the difference between flying FLOLS and NEW IFLOLS.
-
LSOs 'need to watch' guidance from:
NOTE: There is a limit to what can be done on any approach. Always best to start on the ball and stay there.
OUTER-LOOP CONTROL FACTORS FOR CARRIER AIRCRAFT
Robert K. Heffley 1 December 1990
http://robertheffleyengineering.com/docs/CV_environ/RHE_NAV_90_TR_1.pdf
"LSO View of Outer-Loop Control
Table 2-2 presents a list of outer-loop control factors from the LSO's vantage point
(Reference 45). These are useful in evaluating aspects of the task and of the aircraft
which may be crucial to success. A number of these items are concerned with where on
the final approach corrections can be made, especially when engine response is a factor.
According to this table, LSO's exercise may more caution with corrections from a
high glideslope deviation than from low. Also, the aircraft should be stabilized on the
approach by the "in-close" position (about 1/4 nm range).
Table 2-2. Outer-Loop Control Factors
Profile:
• More ramp strikes occur when the pilot is correcting for a high deviation in-close
than for a low deviation. - Living Proof :-)
• For significant multiple deviations in close, a waveoff should be used by the LSO.
As a rule of thumb, if 2 major deviations (from among GS, LU, AOA or power)
are AFU approaching the waveoff point, use waveoff. This is especially critical
with a CQ pilot.
• For unsettled dynamics (speed, power, wing position, flight vector, pitch) in close,
the LSO should consider giving a waveoff.
• High at the ramp with less than optimum rate of descent can lead to a dangerous
long bolter. Do not hesitate to use waveoff.
• High at the ramp with excessive rate of descent can easily result in a hard landing.
• LSO should never accept a low trend on an approach.
• Be prepared for sink rate increases during late lineup corrections.
• LSO should not accept a high trend on an approach.
• Poor trends leading to the start and at the start are good indicators that the pass is
going to be a problem due to pilot disorientation or poor pilot scan.
• A poor start frequently leads to overcontrol tendencies in the remainder of the pass.
• Be alert for the "moth effect" (drift left in-close or at-the-ramp) due to pilot fixation
on the meatball at the expense of lineup control.
• During day recoveries, beware of pilot tendency to try to salvage an extremely poor
start (i. e., OSX, NESA HFX, HFX, etc.). If not stable approaching in-close position,
use waveoff.
• A major glideslope deviation at-the-start to in-the-middle is difficult for the pilot to
salvage. Extra LSO assistance may be needed to help pilot get aboard.
• If calls are necessary for aircraft with slow engine response (A-7, S-3, F-14),
they must be given well prior to glideslope interception when correction is
being made for a high deviation.
• For aircraft with excellent engine response( A-6, EA-6, F-4), be alert for pilot
overcontrol of power. This also includes excessive power reductions following
too much power."
____________________
From same source above - characteristics of aircraft for LSO guideance:
Table 2-3b. Carrier Landing Features of Existing Aircraft—LSO View.
F/A-18:
Excellent power and waveoff response..
Flat attitude when on AOA.
If back on power and cocked-up, SIC-AR is probable. [Settle In Close - At Ramp]
Easy to over-rotate on waveoff; in-flight engagement potential.
Nose adjustments must be coordinated with power changes to get glideslope correction results.
-
Serge...
Been working on some really good Sludge mods, including a seriously RE-VAMPED .air file and updated effects. Also, working with JIMI and Shylock, w/some of their mods. But, I read up on your posts and you have a really good start on this "AI LSO" mission add-on.
From what I've been reading, my opinion would be to use your own IFLOLS gauge for measuring "coming up/down thru the glideslope" criteria. Using the IFLOLS gauge as a basis of "on glideslope" (2 middle/centered balls=baseline); +/-1 ball deviation (little high/low), +/-2 balls deviation (high/low), 3+ balls deviation (very high/low).
Take a measurement (or meas. of deviation) for each phase in "the groove" (start [X]; IM; IC; AR) til touchdown, and have it stored for assessment after the trap. An example would be: X = +2 (high); IM = 0 (on glide); IC = -2 (low); AR = -1 (little low); IW [trap gauge] = 2 (wire), 145 (fast), 6.8 (fast, little overpowered), -550 (Rate of Descent flattening). For glideslope errors ONLY, I would grade this as: "High at the start... coming down thru glideslope in close... little low at the ramp... flat into the wires... fair 2."
I think this is what you're looking for? Some type of basis to start an "AI grading criteria" that you can use for your mission? Hope this helps.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks, guys
Sludge, I want to make a program that not only collects measurements for later assessment and grading, but also (and mostly) monitors and gives correcting advices 'live' , as a real LSO does. The data collected may be then accessed for trend analysis in an APARTS-like form or something. That's my purpose. :)
Besides, to use my IFLOLS one needs to tune to an ILS frequency...
And here's why I asked what was the purpose of those / and \ symbols. In this example my aircraft starts low, then overcorrects and flies up through the GS, being high in the middle. Could I describe this situation either as 'LOX HIM' or 'LOX /' ? My guess is that the first is more informative, it tells WHERE the aircraft is in respect to the GS. The latter tells only WHAT happened. Are those interchangeable or not? Should I stay with the first and not spending my efforts on implementing more complex programming logic of the latter?
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3176/picture1rdz.jpg)
And thanks again, I appreciate everyone's help and this ain't my only question (I guess) ;)
-
Perhaps what fsxnp wants to achieve is at odds with what the LSO wants to achieve. I'm not sure about that issue myself. On the previous page there is this quote:
"1. Grading Passes and 2. Shorthand and 4. What is the start, in close...
101 Remember the main reason we grade passes is so a pilot can learn from every pass and the Pilot and LSO can spot trends which need correction. My philosophy as a CAG LSO was not "lets see how much detail we can go into" it was more "hit the high points and tell him what he saw."
Tell him what he saw. Not what you saw. Important distinction. If you saw him low, but he saw a centered ball because he was slow and cocked up, then you would say slocu "slow cocked up". Then in the debrief when he doesn't see the low you saw, you can explain the airspeed deviation maksked the glideslope deviation...."
If the purpose is to be like the trend analysis then that seems to be more work than necessary. So what is the aim again? Is it to grade passes and leave it that or go to the nth degree as fsxnp seems to suggest. I'm asking for clarification of aims - no criticism implied.
-
Spaz, I agree, the real world LSO debrief is designed to help the pilot learn.
The original intent of this thread was to see if creating a virtual "Greenie Board" was possible, to hopefully create some fun competition on this forum (or others) amongst the virtual F/A-18 pilots. Similar to the "greenie board" competition in the real world.
In order to do this correctly, a scoring/grading mechanism needs to be created based on the specs provided by NATOPS and the other details Serge is trying to understand and nail down. It sounds like Serge is trying to create a very capable virtual LSO that not only scores your approach (including storing and collecting multiple traps; using real world shorthand and grades), but also gives you guidance during the approach (similar to the TGS mission LSO calls). By creating a new mission and AI LSO, several things can be corrected or made better (when compared to TGS), correct aircraft carrier speed, better approach scoring zones, and ability to create a greenie board (real world short hand and grades), etc. This would be a huge improvement in my opinion.
-
Right, I think even if the program just gave you a score, without exporting it to a greenie board, will be a great achievement and important milestone of the whole system. Like, I am playing the mission, and after the trap - I get a composite score based on a couple of criteria (in order of importance): glideslope deviations, lineup deviations, AOA deviations in the groove and one final score based on wire, lineup, speed and vsi on touchdown. Serge has the responsibility to find the proper weights of each score in the composite score ;D
-
i understand nothing of technical details, but i hope you guys succeed.
btw, fsx has a mission where the dude says too high, too low, too fast, etc...
maybe that uses something like that but much more simple :P
-
And here's why I asked what was the purpose of those / and \ symbols. In this example my aircraft starts low, then overcorrects and flies up through the GS, being high in the middle. Could I describe this situation either as 'LOX HIM' or 'LOX /' ? My guess is that the first is more informative, it tells WHERE the aircraft is in respect to the GS. The latter tells only WHAT happened. Are those interchangeable or not? Should I stay with the first and not spending my efforts on implementing more complex programming logic of the latter?
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3176/picture1rdz.jpg)
And thanks again, I appreciate everyone's help and this ain't my only question (I guess) ;)
Serge...
In a straightforward answer, I would say, USE the 'LOX HIM' for the initial project. After you BETA test, more people fly the mission, you'll get FEEDBACK on what works and what doesn't. Then you'll be able to tweak/tailor the "Virtual LSO AI" to the point of making some FSX-RealWorld decisions that will work for a full launch of this mission. And I mean decisions such as coming up with a calculation that can make a realistic 'LOX /' debrief annotation that the FSX PILOT would remember during the pass. Spaz can give his FSX feedback and what an LSO might say different? Then, from critiques like that, you can model the vLSO to a good compromise of what will work in FSX and what Spaz and others say.
And I PROMISE, I will provide feedback on this one. I wasn't a big help on the FCLP and Im sorry, it just never hit my "I have to fly this" bone, so I did install and fly it, but that was just cursory interest. On this one, Im telling ya, when you get this done, I will be ONE OF THE FIRST to fly it!!
What other questions do you have?
Later
Sludge
-
Okie dokie :)
I'll start with that 'LOX HIM', as well as 'LURX LULIM' instead of 'RTL', and other similar GS/lineup gross deviations...
Some other questions:
What does B (flat glideslope) mean? Is this the case when the aircraft travels along the more shallower glideslope? If yes, ain't this the same as NERD (not enough rate of descent)?
What does RUF (rough) mean? We do know navy pilots shouldn't be smooth... ;)
When or why the approach is AFU (All “fouled” up)?
-
Anyone know an LSO? Most I know from years ago have lost their memory. ;D
I can imagine that 'B' means a flat glideslope within the glideslope parameters going from low to high but FLAT.
I can imagine that 'NERD' means just that - someone NOT near the glideslope HIGH and not getting enough rate of descent to get to the glideslope. How to have a rampstrike if you catch up near the ramp.
RUF is just that. Rough and not so skillful changes can be well - rough. Especially if done closer in. In matters of degree I would suggest it is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the LSO wants you to be less rough by being more skilful, having more anticipation. A classic LSO saying is: "don't wait for the ball to move but anticipate and certainly do not wait for a call from the LSO before making a correction."
-
I can imagine that 'B' means a flat glideslope within the glideslope parameters going from low to high but FLAT.
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5778/flatce.jpg)
I can imagine that 'NERD' means just that - someone NOT near the glideslope HIGH and not getting enough rate of descent to get to the glideslope.
So, something like (H)IM-(H)IC?
RUF is just that. Rough and not so skillful changes can be well - rough. Especially if done closer in. In matters of degree I would suggest it is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the LSO wants you to be less rough by being more skilful, having more anticipation. A classic LSO saying is: "don't wait for the ball to move but anticipate and certainly do not wait for a call from the LSO before making a correction."
We'll better leave this up to a human LSO, not a virtual, for it's too complex and subjective, right?
-
RUF seems to me to be subjective as you suggest fsxnp. Personally I don't think it is necessary to model all the LSO cryptics. I think the 'flat' illustration is good while it could be more subtle than your illustration if you follow. Put more descent on the 'flat' glideslope should do it IMHO.
Probably as long as the 'marking' is consistent and it is clear what the parameters are then any approach can be followed with or without the comments from the LSO. In real life (probably not doing initial FCLP) the LSO says nothing. Then whatever comments are made during debrief they are meant for the pilot's viewpoint. So any marking/comment from the computer LSO is probably irrelevant except if the pilot knows these things beforehand.
I hope it is clear that the LSO tries to say very little during a carrier approach and ideally says nothing. It is only for initial FCLP or some gross error from bad conditions on deck that the LSO starts to jabber. There is nothing worse than the LSO talking unnecessarily and they know it. However when they do talk and if they need to talk then the pilot knows to listen. ;D
Don't get me wrong - it is a good idea but implementing it from the virtual LSO viewpoint seems to be a bit difficult. However if the pilot knows this from the start then I don't see any problem with having the computer LSO do the scoring the best way it can be implemented. Any participants know that the scoring is equal in that sense for all participants.
Can this 'marking' be modelled during FCLP also?
-
So, going 'flat' means steadily going up within the glideslope OK margins, i.e. +/- 0.3 degree? I'd call this as a 'micro /' ;D
Down to LSO talking... Why not to make it adjustable, say from 'initial FCLP' to 'zip-lip' level or something? That won't be a problem, I guess.
Finally, I think I'll be able to modify my FCLP missions so they'll be compatible with this future vLSO...
-
I guess 'flat' is a trend which if not corrected will result in a waveoff. Probably the pilot is unaware of the 'flat' tendency because aircraft carrying too much power and going a little fast perhaps or vice versa until a bigger trend takes over. The point is NOT to be smooth. FLAT implies smoothness unnecessarily to me. These are only my UNlso opinions. It takes an LSO to really explain these terms. Otherwise we can only guess.
For example during the debrief the LSO will explain if required. If one is fully qualified there is nothing much to it. Grade/Wire and a comment if necessary. Perhaps he will say something about a trend or something the pilot may have done out of the ordinary.
I think documentaries and movies make a big deal out of the LSO talking because otherwise he has a dull job from a bystander viewpoint. Sure it gets exciting during an emergency or at night. ;D
Trouble is at night no one can see anything - including the LSO and pilot. That is why the LSO has a seeing eye dog. ::)
-
Anyone know an LSO? Most I know from years ago have lost their memory. ;D
Spaz...
I've talked to TWO LSOs in real life and was just D-U-M dumb to not stay in contact with either. Both woulda been helpful right now. Guess I just didn't want to impose myself on them, as they have real life jobs and whatnot.
The first was an EARLY Legacy ALPHA Hornet driver who was an LSO. I met him and a KC-135 pilot (hmm, coincidence?) while playing golf in Hawaii. Its the story I told here when we were on the fairway right next to 08 runway, Hawaii Intl, and as this 767 is doing an approach, I call out "202, 3/4 of a mile call the ball.." and go on to do some LSO'ish commentary. The guy looks at me laughs, asks me where I learned to LSO, and I said "FSX". So he finishes up my psuedo-LSO mumbo-jumbo with a "pass debrief" that included: "202, you were flat at the ramp coming into the wires."
The other was last year at the Alliance airshow, I talked to a CAG LSO (Prowler driver, transitioning to the Growler/Grizzly). The main thing I remember is when I asked him: "youre looking to get these guys the optimum 3 wire approach?" He says "no, we (LSOs) want to keep them safe and consistent on their passes." And I guess he knew his crap as his Prowler has the safety "S" and he pointed out they got it for having the "safest" boarding rates for PacFleet.
I can imagine that 'NERD' means just that - someone NOT near the glideslope HIGH and not getting enough rate of descent to get to the glideslope. How to have a rampstrike if you catch up near the ramp.
I always thought 'NERD' meant one of us guys writing on forums about virtual jets?
I guess 'flat' is a trend which if not corrected will result in a waveoff. Probably the pilot is unaware of the 'flat' tendency because aircraft carrying too much power and going a little fast perhaps or vice versa until a bigger trend takes over. The point is NOT to be smooth. FLAT implies smoothness unnecessarily to me. These are only my UNlso opinions. It takes an LSO to really explain these terms. Otherwise we can only guess.
For example during the debrief the LSO will explain if required. If one is fully qualified there is nothing much to it. Grade/Wire and a comment if necessary. Perhaps he will say something about a trend or something the pilot may have done out of the ordinary.
Spaz...
When I talked to that CAG LSO, he also said that something about "Flat" thats usually a debriefing comment. When a guy overcorrects to a high-ball, drops the power to center the ball (not good), then gets too high RoD, puts too much power on the jet as its AR, and results in a "flat" (500 or less RoD) glideslope "in the wires"?
The reason I say "not good" is that a pilot is supposed to accept a high ball at the ramp or closer. "Keep what you have", take the 4 wire or bolter. Centering a high-ball AR or closer could overstress the gear, too high - RoD.
Later
Sludge
-
Not being an LSO I can only guess at what the terms LSOs use - especially today for Hornets and better. However I hope it is clear these or similar terms have been spoken to me often in different ways depending on circumstances. We can all put too much emphasis on trying to define them. However the virtual LSO defines them we will adjust to - in the same way we adjust to whatever the glideslope will be - rightly or wrongly.
The main point is to 'fly the ball'. Fly a good approach and it looks good and you will get an OK. It will look smooth to boot. However the 'after' view from inside the cockpit (which is a very artificial feature of FSX) is not always the same thing.
In real life there is the outside view from the PLAT cameras and the LSO notebook + APARTS and pilot memory. That is it. Personally I would like to see the notebook LSO symbols used rather than the APARTS symbols if that is possible?
-
Serge,
I just uploaded the 3rd update to the LSO sound files (for the TGS mission) on AVSIM (file name "LSO Sound Update 3"), should be available for download in 24hrs. Please feel free to use any of these sound files for the new mission you are working on.
New audio updates include:
-Marshall instructions triggered when 10 miles from the ship, with a "dirty up" call
-Tanker call from mother with angles (would be cool if any new mission included a tanker)
-Time mark from mother
-Mother weather and tanker instructions/fuel
-After the six trap, you get "welcome to the fleet awesome job"
-few other tweaks and adjustments
If anyone knows of any other good sources for LSO and marshall audio, please let me know, would be happy to add to the inventory.
-
Slightly OFF TOPIC but when researching/looking for new LSO Reference Manual 2010 found this item about LSOs using a PALM handheld device instead of a spiral bound notebook - I'm wondering what symbols/text is used:
http://investor.palm.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=PALM&fileid=240936&filekey=13442745-0c5b-4d80-86e3-7ef0550937c2&filename=340513.pdf (21Kb)
"...Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) aboard Navy aircraft carriers are
responsible for grading and evaluating each aircraft landing for safety and
accuracy. The software developers, Ken Schneider and Michael LaPaglia, are two
naval aviators who applied their own programming skills to improve the
existing LSO grading process. To eliminate an antiquated data-collection
process once completed with a paper notebook and pen, the officers developed a
software application called PASS. The application runs on Palm handhelds and
allows LSOs to electronically grade by pilot and aircraft, and to input
comments for each landing.
Previously, grades from a paper notebook were manually re-entered into a
PC database, resulting in redundant work and inefficient use of time. With
PASS, LSOs eliminate hours of redundant data entry by electronically capturing
the landing data and then uploading the information directly from the handheld
to the Navy network via a simple HotSync® operation. Additionally, the
software helps increase overall flight-deck safety due to the reduced time
commitment necessary for data entry between successive landings.
"Since the first versions appeared in 1999, the PASS application has been
perfected and distributed throughout naval aviation," said Kyra Hawn,
spokesperson for the Pacific Fleet naval air force. "Today, this software is
part of the official curriculum for Landing Signal Officers' training. The
system has eliminated much of the tedious paperwork that used to occupy
officers for hours. Everyone associated with this project should be proud of
their contribution, and we thank Post Newsweek Tech Media Group for
recognizing Navy innovators...."
-
This graphic from a PPT presentation that is otherwise not relevant to topic.
-
Spaz,
Obviously, these guys are making grade records with such device:
(http://cdn.wn.com/pd/42/cb/10d02612460059ff14fb2701dfce_grande.jpg)
Sludge,
Thanks! Will d/l this pack as soon it's available on Avsim
-
fsxnp: Fair enough. News to me. Where did that pic come from please. Thanks. I'll add this or similar to PDF along with the PALM/PASS info.
-
Here it is http://cdn.wn.com/pd/42/cb/10d02612460059ff14fb2701dfce_grande.jpg
The other day I asked google to find some LSO pictures and got a bunch of them ;D
-
Hmmm, never thought of Googie. As mentioned just found PALM info so it takes a while for me to 'get my act together'. Thanks for link.
EDIT: Zooming in on the pic to me it looks like the LSOs are looking at a graph in their SPIRAL NOTEBOOK - note spirals on right hand side. When time I'll look for other PALM device pics.
-
Yes, when zoomed in, it looks like a usual notebook. However it is more advanced - colored pages and all... ;D
-
Finding more photos of the PALM in use would be handy. ;D Photos without context or text describing the scene can be easily misinterpreted if features otherwise unknown. To me the metal spiral rings are easily seen.
However to me it looks like the hard cover spiral bound notebook has colour graphs inside which the LSOs are consulting. OK. Bear in mind I have not seen a PALM handheld device for about a decade. What happened to them anyway. Mobile phones and BlackBerries took over eh.
-
Ok, guys
Here's a WIP update. It's a sample screenshot of the vLSO program (initial beta version).
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3014/vlsosample.jpg)
What does work already:
- monitoring of SimConnect and FSX connections
- reaction to certain mission events
- requesting info, required for grading
- presenting info in two formats (logbook/APARTS
What will work:
- textual debriefing
- voice LSO calls during approach and landing
- GreenieBoard upload
- and grading, of course ;D
The mission is 80% ready.
-
Awesome. What is it coded in?
-
Delphi7
-
Awesome Serge!!! ;D
The vLSO program is looking great, couple small questions. Is it possible to include a couple features typical on a greenie board, such as color coded grade boxes (box filled in based on grade), markings for day/night passes, and pilot name/callsign? See Razgriz's greenie board example for typical box colors and markings for OK, Fair, No Grade, etc.
http://www.sludgehornet.com/GreenieBoard/Blank%20Example/GreenieBoard.html
Also my LSO sound update 3 is available now on AVSIM, let me know if you have any requests or questions, hope they help.
-CAPT
-
Guys,
let's make it clear...
What is a Greenie Board? It's a board used by naval aviators to record the number of traps pilots have made. I like this definition: This is a prominently displayed aircraft carrier squadron scoreboard where the landing signal officers rate the pilots’ carrier landings (any color other than green is bad). Also called the “weenie board”. :) So, it is publicly available and contains only grades, not any other approach details.
But this vLSO program is primarily intended for everyone's personal use on their local PCs. You may consider it like your personal LSO, because it will watch, record and grade/score your landing attempts. These records will be kept on your PC and then only your scores, for a given period of time, could be uploaded to a server, maintaining that publicly available comparison table, looking like the real Greenie Board. Good example is here http://www.pbase.com/image/99190343 (http://www.pbase.com/image/99190343). Very similar to Razgriz's one...
And another example of VFA-41 unique style:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4176/greenieboard.jpg)
CAPT,
It's ok to add pilot name/callsign, but I'm not sure about color coded grades. Will think about it.. ;) Day/night passes already marked with D/N in date column.
And thanks for your LSO sound update, some really nice new samples!
-
Roger that, thanks Serge! Looking forward to the beta release!
Understand there will be no "weenie board" at this time ;)
-
fsxnp, Thanks for good pics. HMAS Melbourne had a 'hi-tech' chalkboard outside the common aircrew briefing room - one of the most crowded spaces - because it was one of the few airconditioned spaces near the flight deck. Below is a 'modified' APPROACH Magazine cartoon - an unrealistic polite LSO/Pilot debrief for sure. ;D
-
Another question...
In FSX/TGS missions the LSO calls the number of wire, but on many real videos they say nothing upon touchdown (at least I couldn't hear anything wire-specific). Is that true? Should the vLSO call the wire or not?
-
It is not clear to me what is being simulated. If the intention is to simulate the 'real world' LSO then NOTHING is said except mandatory calls. One finds out the wire at the LSO debrief. I'm not sure if any pilot thinks it is a big deal at the time. They are glad to be aboard without anyone YELLING at them! ;D
Seriously - what is being simulated? Is it the real situation or whatever was done in that other FSX thing.
More LSO talking is done at the FCLP stage. Onboard the last thing anyone wants to hear is the LSO (except mandatory calls). No one talks needlessly on the radio - ever. The radio is for emergency use.
Anything can be simulated of course. IF the required information is given in the debrief then don't have the radio calls. If there is no debrief (via some scoring system) then by all means have a bunch of radio calls but that is not realistic.
-
Serge, the TGS mission calls out the wire and also includes and audible debrief following a trap, but this was done for simulation purposes only (simulates the debrief you would get in the ready room), and is not how they do it in the real world.
As Spaz points out, the debrief, including the wire caught, would be given later in the ready room face to face, hope that helps.
-Capt
-
Yeah, I see... Indeed, my intention is to simulate the 'real' LSO as closely as possible, but I also do realize that the modeling of human thinking is beyond my humble abilities. All I can do is try to create a set of logic rules, which will govern my virtual LSO's behaviour. That's why I ask such questions. :)
NAVAIR 00-80T-104, Chapter 9:
Under normal recovery conditions, the LSO should restrict his radio transmissions to the minimum necessary to provide positive corrective signals to the pilot during the actual approach. It must be realized, however, that at some times (i.e., initial stages of FCLP, excessive deck motion, restricted ceiling/visibility, etc.) the number of LSO radio transmissions will be greater than normal
....
The LSO must on occasion use radio transmissions to effect safe aircraft recovery. Calls that are too frequent or verbose actually degrade pilot training and performance.
Pretty clear. However, I think that the level of LSO talking could be adjustable by the user, from 'ALL' (i.e. informative, advisory, and imperative phrases) to 'MODERATE' (imperative phrases only) and to 'NONE' (no calls at all). I proposed something like that a few days ago, AFAIR... ;D
-
fsxnp, OK your last sentence as a solution - if possible - is a good one IMHO.
FCLP has a lot of calls if the pilot is 'OFF' but none if he is "ON" the ball. Pilot learns during FCLP with the aircraft carrier a different scenario.
Apart from the mentioned simulation (I had never used it) often I see documentaries where for 'dramatic' reasons the LSO is babbling at an approaching aircraft. Often I am waiting for the 'LSO writer' to hit the offender with a big lump of metal saying "SHADDUP"! ;D
However you will understand that just showing an LSO looking mute but worried is not so dramatic for the film. Also the CarQual docos for first timers in old jets and probably T-45Cs will have more talkative LSOs for this reason and in real life but not once they get to the Hornet Squadrons etc.
-
Serge...
I'd say throw in the user ADJUSTABLE (All, Moderate, None) settings, then once we fly it, we can give you feedback on how it worked. I know personally, I feel right now Id rarely if ever, use the ALL... but some people might like the ALL setting. Who knows, if its tweaked right and I use ALL, I might like it? Id have to make about 20 passes apiece and see what worked.
Or maybe add some categories: ALL (informative, advisory, imperative, and wire), FULL (informative, advisory, and imperative), MEDIUM (advisory and imperative), MODERATE (imperative), and NONE (zip lip, no calls). Whereas, in this setup, I know Id PROBABLY LIKE the MEDIUM or MODERATE settings. Still would have to fly about 20 passes on each to get a good feel of what I liked.
Hope this helps?
Later
Sludge
-
Similar Greenie Board (unseen in fsxnp URL only post above):
"... looking like the real Greenie Board. Good example is here http://www.pbase.com/image/99190343. Very similar to Razgriz's one..."
""Greenie Board" that is on display in Ready Room 3 aboard the Midway in San Diego."
http://lfeldhaus.tripod.com/cmdrjackfeldhaususn/id37.html
http://lfeldhaus.tripod.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.lfeldhaus.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/greenieboard.jpg&target=tlx_new
(http://www.lfeldhaus.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/greenieboard.jpg)
-
Well... Here are some records, made by the vLSO, of my (wild) landing attempts:
(LOX) LOIM _FIM_ LOIC _FIC_ LOAR (LURFAR) _FAR_ Wire #1
(LOX) (LURX) LOIM (FIM) LOIC _FIC_ (LOAR) _FAR_ Bolter
(LOIM) LOIC (SLOIC) _LOSLOAR_ Bolter
(LOX) LOIM _FIM_ (LOIC) _FIC_ (LOAR) _FAR_ Wire #2
Is this understandable? Should I change anything about it? Any criticism/suggestions are welcome, as usual.
Note, that this is just a recording part of the program, acting like a real-life bookwriter. Evaluating and grading parts are not yet implemented.
-
fsxnp, I'll assume the vLSO comments are made at two second intervals? So each comment when added can give time in groove?
Looks like too many comments to me, comparing the comments made in a hand written LSO notebook (link on earlier page on this thread) where it seems only four comments made with odd 5 or more.
IF 15 second groove length is ideal then perhaps having a vLSO comment every 3 seconds will give 5? to be more manageable?
AFAIK no pilot needs to know the LSO shorthand because he never sees the notebook. Not sure if today those comments can be seen via computer / electronically by the pilot. Sure the pilot may pick up on symbols over time but the symbols will look undecipherable to most.
Is it possible to also have a series of phrases in the same order of the symbols as well? Sure the symbology does the job (for LSO) but making them user friendly would help.
-
fsxnp, I'll assume the vLSO comments are made at two second intervals? So each comment when added can give time in groove?
Not quite... The comments are made when the aircraft passes through each of these four areas, so exact time intervals depend on the aircraft's speed. However, it is possible to measure 'in groove' time.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8666/gradeareas.jpg)
Looks like too many comments to me, comparing the comments made in a hand written LSO notebook (link on earlier page on this thread) where it seems only four comments made with odd 5 or more.
Remember, it's a very first version, which only logs every event. If the program were evaluating recoveries, all my wild attempts would be immediately waveoff'd and the records would be much shorter... ;D
AFAIK no pilot needs to know the LSO shorthand because he never sees the notebook. Not sure if today those comments can be seen via computer / electronically by the pilot. Sure the pilot may pick up on symbols over time but the symbols will look undecipherable to most.
Is it possible to also have a series of phrases in order of the symbols as well? Sure the symbology does the job but making them user friendly would help.
Yes, human words are to be in the next version. ;D
(LOIM) LOIC (SLOIC) _LOSLOAR_ Bolter will be A little low in the middle, low in close, a little slow in close, very low and slow at the ramp, bolter.
BTW, any need of APARTS table?
-
"...low in close, a little slow in close, very low and slow at the ramp, bolter." ;D Must have hit the AFTERBURNERs and gone flat (or engaged the SKYHOOK!] to get the bolter! ;D
Understand now about the 'gates'. IMHO there can be too much information but probably too much is better than TOO LITTLE - or NONE - which is the case now.
Yes you have a point about 'wild' recoveries. Perhaps that should be part of the options. Some newbies, not willing to do FCLP, will have some 'amazing' approaches according to the vLSO for sure. Remember there are mandatory calls so if it is WAVEOFF then no matter the aircraft has to wave off; that will stop most bad approaches I reckon. If the aircraft continues there should be an option to invoke the 'Blue Screen of Death'. ;D
I don't think the APARTS table is needed, however I don't know how it is used currently on USN carriers.
-
Spaz,
I like your BSOD idea. But this could scare some noobs to death, so they'd remove FSX forever... ;D
But, hey, who said it's easy? Landing on moving deck is the ultimate challenge in aviation... 8)
-
You can actually cause a BSOD on demand using Mark Russinovich's tool, Notmyfault: http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Notmyfault.zip (http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Notmyfault.zip).
More info:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2011/01/11/3379158.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901
-
Serge...
Also, just as a correction, the LSO Shorthand should read: deviation/deviation(if needed)/point of deviation. In example: (lo)x instead of (lox); meaning little low at the start. A more elaborate example is (lobar), which should read (lo)(b)ar; meaning little low, little flat, at the ramp. This is so you can differentiate between (lo)bar; little low, flat, AR and (lo)(b)ar; little low, little flat, AR. Im sure you can see the difference.
Understand now about the 'gates'. IMHO there can be too much information but probably too much is better than TOO LITTLE - or NONE - which is the case now.
My two cents is: initially the vLSO program should OUTPUT all the errors. Then as actual BETA testing occurs, you can always throttle back the OUTPUT and develop something "workable" based on all of our results.
Later
Sludge
-
Serge...
Do you have the vLSO voice call parameters? Other than the ABEAM distances, I cant see the GLIDESLOPE/LINEUP deviations in your picture illustration. Which is really cool looking and puts your whole program in perspective, BTW.
Can you do the same type of picture? But on this one, can you have it between the viewpoint you used and one looking down the glideslope from the jets point of view? So we can see what your deviation zones will look like? Could you add a optimum glideslope/lineup cone in GREEN or BLUE?
These are only requests... if you are too busy, just disregard and we will test when you release the mission pack.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
thanks for your input. Actually I wasn't sure about the LSO shorcuts... So, now my attempts would look like this: :)
(LO)X LO_F_IM LO_F_IC LO(LUR)(F)AR Wire #1
(LO)(LUR)X LO(F)IM LO_F_IC (LO)_F_AR Bolter
(LO)IM LO(SLO)IC _LO__SLO_AR Bolter
(LO)X LO_F_IM (LO)_F_IC (LO)_F_AR Wire #2
Is it ok to record attempts this way?
It's virtually impossible to clearly show you all the areas of deviations, it would be a huge mess of those red frames. :) All I could do are just an OK approach limits, as seen from nearly about the ball call distance:
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/388/okareas.jpg)
And now imagine 56 invisible areas around these green boxes, used by the vLSO for registering every possible glideslope/lineup deviations. :o
-
Serge...
No worries. It should be fine to record attempts that way.
OK, I see what youre saying. Actually, you hit on exactly what I was looking for, but you said it far more clearly and less wordy.... something that shows a good glideslope/linup.
Later
Sludge
-
Looking good Serge, can't wait to try it out! ;D
To get ready, I've been flying your FCLP missions. One question, do you know how to reduce the halo around the IFLOLS in the picture below? I downloaded and installed the new halo.bmp that came with your FCLP mission, but it still looks fuzzy. Any thoughts?
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/th_2011-4-16_11-4-19-859-1.jpg) (http://s914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/?action=view¤t=2011-4-16_11-4-19-859-1.jpg)
-Capt
-
I think theres a FSX.CFG edit as well (located at %appdata%/microsoft/fsx/fsx.CFG). Heres a link to the DFlights package that I've always used. It may be the same thing as what Serge included.
http://www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=134873
-
Thanks Razgriz! The lights update worked like a charm. 8)
-
Serge...
Havent heard from ya in a while. Any updates on the mission? I'm chomping at the bit, ready to test this bad boy out!
Seriously, no pressure... I'm just runnin my yapper.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Yeah, I understand your eagerness, but a certain delay is occured in the vLSO and mission development, mostly because of recent reading some really good LSO-related stuff. :) Besides, that CAG LSO's words, you've cited recently, "...we want to keep them safe and consistent on their passes" have changed my mind a lot. ::) Safety and consistency are the key words.
So, what I want now is not only making 'snapshots' of the aircraft's positions at certain approach areas and making appropriate voice calls (as it is in all present carrier missions), but also following trends and timely waving off bad ones, i.e. making the control process more 'human-like', to some reasonable extent...
Also, I want the program to be both carrier and FCLP missions worthy. All this require significant changes in algorythms and mission's layout. The process is running and, presumably, it will take a couple more weeks before some beta version is ready.
And here are my new questions:
1. What rate of descend (sink rate) is nominal for the Hornet? What RoD is TMRD and NERD (too much / not enough RoD)?
2. What angle of bank is DRW and DLW (right / left wing down)?
-
Serge...
Seriously, no pressure. Do whatever you have to do to get this thing as right as you can. Yeah, I have that same problem. When I'm modding, a big "hold on a second, what's the point of this?" question will pop in my head, then I have to figure it out before going on.
Definately sounds awesome, so take whatever time you need, and I'm really not harrassing you or asking you to "hurry up", Im just runnin my yap and trying to be a little funny.
As far as your questions, I would say a standard RoD would be 700 fpm. I'll try to get a quote out of LSO NATOPS or even the LSO Guidebook they use at the LSO Schoolhouse. That being said, in FSX, we may have to UP it to 750 as the 3.99 carrier Meatball glideslope means a higher RoD IF you fly the meatball and/or ICLS needles properly.
Here's a reference to the LSO Guidebook, if you dont already have it.
www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/NavalAviation_Pubs/LSO.pdf (http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/NavalAviation_Pubs/LSO.pdf)
(note: pdf pg.206, WOD para, #8. WOD greater than 40 kts...) I mention this, because FSX is setup for a 3.99 Meatball basic angle, and so that means higher WoD requirements. And that means higher RoD.
I'll fly FSX tonight and try to verify what I just talked about, ok?
Nor am I sure about Right/Left Wing down but I'll look into that too.
EDIT: Link FIXED.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I keep looking for the new version of the LSO Reference Manual that was finalised in 2010 and likely to be available online some time but no luck so far.
I don't know if this chart is useful but it may be for the 'time to touchdown' with glideslope at 4 degrees from:
Final Report of Phase 1 — A Study for the Development of Improved Landing Aids - Feb 1964
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD432067&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
-
Spaz,
In the April "Paddles" monthly (attached), they talk about the new CV/LSO NATOPS PCL. Is that what you are looking for? Looks like they are in beta testing of the new PCL, will be cool when someone can get their hands on it.
Serge,
Trend spotting sounds awesome, and extremely complicated, kudos for looking into this and continuing to work on making a very capable vLSO. Can't wait!
-CAPT
-
capthaltli, thanks. And thanks to Sludge earlier I go to that hrana.org whatever page regularly to download the latest LSO Newsletter PDF. The LSO NATOPS PCL (Pocket Check List) is the LSO NATOPS condensed into a smaller package with cardboard metal ringbound pages.
http://www.hrana.org/ (go to lower right of this page for LSO Newsletter)
The LSO Reference Manual PDF will be weighter I guess - similar to the decade old edition probably - just updated etc.
-
Spaz...
Hey, do you have the newer Hornet Landing Approach Speed Chart? Specifically, the one with the 404-GE-402 engine specs? I have the one with the -400 specs and use it now for carrier landings. I also have the F/A-18ABCD NATOPS but it doesnt have the performance data section included. I think thats a whole 'nother Pub?
Anyway, if you have that chart for the -402 engine, can you post it?
Thanks
Sludge
-
Not sure where this came from - perhaps from an old deleted thread?
-
Serge...
Still working on getting TMRD and NERD values for you. I did a whole buncha test traps this weekend testing out some mods I just posted, but when I get home, Ill actually concentrate on flying some passes and getting some specific numbers for you.
Also, I dont know if your vLSO mission already does this but I was thinking it should be "in sync" with the carrier waveoff lights? Both the low and high altitude waveoff lights. If you dont already have those numbers, Ill try to get them tonight, so you can implement them into your mission. That way, if the vLSO gives a waveoff, the Meatball will be flashing the same thing.
Spaz...
Thanks for the chart. Put it to good use this weekend, doing modding/testing carrier passes.
Later
Sludge
-
CAPT...
Spaz,
In the April "Paddles" monthly (attached), they talk about the new CV/LSO NATOPS PCL. Is that what you are looking for? Looks like they are in beta testing of the new PCL, will be cool when someone can get their hands on it.
Serge,
Trend spotting sounds awesome, and extremely complicated, kudos for looking into this and continuing to work on making a very capable vLSO. Can't wait!
-CAPT
Good to know bout that LSO PCL. Will have to keep our eye open and try to get our hands on one.
Its funny how even the LSO guys are using GEEK terms now: "...in actuality it is more of a 'beta test' version made available..."
(kinda sounds like something I'd say on these boards) haha.
BTW, did you read all the articles in the magazine? What about the VX guy discussing how FPAH (flight path attitude hold) and ROLL HOLD, combined with ATC APP can make a damn near hands off approach for a Super? But they couldnt test/certify it cause the Navy ran out of project-specific money. Typical.
Plus, his theory about getting a speed-compensated velocity vector. Sheesh. If that could be done with one button press after the datalink was established, you'd have a completely corrected flight path v/vector for carrier landings.
Another "Oh golly, gee whiz"-thing I found out is that a TILT incidication on the right HUD means losing the datalink for over 10 secs. Nothing we can mod but did alot of reading this weekend, so I think I'm the wizard of information now.
Later
Sludge
-
... your vLSO mission ... should be "in sync" with the carrier waveoff lights? Both the low and high altitude waveoff lights. If you dont already have those numbers, Ill try to get them tonight, so you can implement them into your mission. That way, if the vLSO gives a waveoff, the Meatball will be flashing the same thing.
Sludge,
The glideslope geometry is well described in many LSO related manuals, that's cool. My previous FCLP missions follow the geometry pretty close and the future vLSO mission will follow too. But the carrier FLOLS is a gauge, implementing so called light plane technique, which depends on aircraft's relative position only. For each meatball light cell there are certain angle limits, and when the aircraft is within these limits, FSX engine turns that light on, and vice versa. This way you can see the meatball going up/down as your aircraft goes above/below the glideslope. The same technique was implemented in my Mk.14 IFLOLS. But there is no user's in-game control over it...
In many cases that's no problem, but what if you start high and still keep high in the middle? Right, you should inevitably be waved-off in close (but still being in that 'steady meatball' GS limit). You will hear LSO's 'Waveoff!" calls, but won't see the waveoff lights flash. The same will be for large lateral deviations...
I wish I could control waveoff lights of the FLOLS. ;)
-
It only gets easier.... Just the other day the F-35B did a fully automatic (no pilot involved - just pressed the button) vertical landing for the first time. The F-35C with JPALS precision will do such 'auto landings' very nicely. However some old info (when President Bush was doing his first carrier landing back in 2003) will clarify day landings anyway. The first part of this article is a bit 'suspect' [about nuts & bolts] but this last part quoted below is worthwhile:
Aircraft carrier landings are ‘highly automated’ – May 01, 2003
http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/05/aircraft-carrier-landings-are-highly.html
“Update: I spoke this morning to a retired rear admiral whom I know. He was a naval aviator who commanded a carrier battle group before he retired. He said:
True hands-off landings are indeed possible. In fact, a third to almost half of all carrier landings are hands-off landings. Patterns for autolanding are extended and final approach to the deck typically does start up to a mile away from the ship's stern.
In daytime with good weather, pilots almost always land the plane themselves, though. Manual-control patterns are very tight; the pilot will swivel to wings-level for final approach only about 1/4 [3/4] mile away. He is in constant communication with the landing signal officer on the deck and uses the optical systems I described above. The admiral said that once you do enough of these landings they actually become fun. Nighttime manual landings are never fun, he said, except after combat missions because then any landing is fun – certainly more than being shot at!
Tight patterns are the most efficient for aircraft recovery because they permit the shortest intervals between landings, as short as 20 seconds or so. Autolanding systems are not used for tight patterns because there is not enough time for the pilot to check them out before landing. Autolanding systems are almost invariably used in bad weather or rough seas.
He guessed that the landing for President Bush's aircraft will be a tight-pattern, manual landing because it's the best "show" for the president. Especially since Bush was a fighter pilot himself and can be relied on not to toss his cookies!
The admiral's son flies Vikings now, the same plane Bush will ride. The Viking is a very stable plane and has the ability to "dump" lift right over the fantail of the flight deck. There is a button on the pilot's controls that activates a mechanical means that reduces the wing's lift by up to 85 percent. So it can be landed on the deck with great certainty.
There is a "bubble" of turbulent air about 100 feet off the carrier created by the moving mass of the ship. The faster the ship is going, the bigger the bubble. Pilots have to correct for how the bubble affects their landing descent, but this is a known problem.”
-
Serge...
Copy all. So is there anything else you need?
Spaz...
That all SOUNDS good, but that'll be IF the F-35 finally makes it to the fleet or ends up being another F-22. All airshow, no combat. Right now, that thing is completely surrounded by bureaucratic BULL, I'm taking bets on whether it will make it to the fleet in 10 years. Again, another US military industrial complex money-mismanagement boondoggle.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5484169 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5484169)
Cutting corner, constantly running into new problems and upping the unit price to "fix" them, the "we've invested too much money to cut this now" mentality. Sounds alot like the F-22 program, doesn't it?
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I have tried to follow from situation in Oz - as best I can as a civilian - the progress of the F-35 for about three years. Was not really interested before then until Australia decided to buy a bunch. Then once we decided to buy two LHDs with ski jumps there was a possibility - however remote - that F-35Bs may be bought later on to use them. It was very interesting when the RN FAA developed the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing for their CVFs but then decided late last year to buy F-35Cs instead of F-35Bs leaving only the USMC to only develop SRVLs for faint hope use on CVNs. Then the USMC decided to buy some F-35Cs to reduce risk and mollify the USN. ;D So all the good NEW things for the F-35B have faded somewhat.
However it will be a good aircraft when in service. In Australia we are used to aircraft taking a long time to develop - the F-111 is a good example. There are a lot of potential new tecnologies and uses for the F-35 in our RAAF. You can see me finding out stuff about the F-35B & C models (even though our RAAF is buying potentially 100 F-35As) here:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewforum-f-22-sid-0587c62982627af42ae1b5b727c179f2.html
I started a very long thread about small carrier/LHD F-35B issues here: (probably best to start at the end and work backwards these days to pick and choose information that may interest)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html
Other threads look at some F-35C info such as the Optimum AoA and weight etc. (info gained from the LSO newsletters).
-
Spaz...
Sorry bout my rant on this thread. Sometimes, I read stuff and get off track. I completely disagree about the F-35, but I'll meet ya at a PM, and we can yap about it there. Lets not get off track on this thread.
Serge...
Let us know if you have anymore questions/requests, and hopefully we can answer. And I'll try to keep my Off-Topic rants to a minimum. Sorry.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, Unless you would like specific information PM me, however I'm just interested in the F-35 for reasons explained. What you or anyone else thinks of it is no matter to me at all. However your post needed a response so we can leave it at that. If you visit the forums indicated you will see I get plenty of advice one way or the other. ;D And I make up my own mind. No worries. ;D
-
Spaz...
Yeah, same here, what you think about it doesnt matter to me at all either. I was just ranting and took the thread off-topic and thats why I apologized. My point was that I need to stay on topic for the Greenie Board thread AND Serge's vLSO program, not why I dislike the F-35 or F-22 programs. Those are for another board and/or another thread.
Later
Sludge
-
Well, guys,
here's another WIP update. The project has changed drastically - no more that huge red frames mess. ;D Now it implements an idea found in OUTER-LOOP CONTROL FACTORS FOR CARRIER AIRCRAFT, Robert K. Heffley, 1 December 1990 (see http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.msg37985#msg37985 (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.msg37985#msg37985), thank Spaz again).
..a boundary can be computed which represents the locus of points in the vertical plane from which the aircraft will reach an on-glideslope condition at the ramp (OK GS and OK rate-of-descent). This allows for the LSO to make a final judgement of the approach and for the aircraft to continue on a trajectory to the desired arresting wire. (see the attached figure). The same (rather 'scientific') approach is now used in the program to judge a landing attempt and to timely waveoff a bad one.
The user interface has changed a bit too, and will be changed more, I guess. For example, I'd like to add a separate window with the debriefing text and a final approach trajectory, plotted over the GS geometry. This would help a pilot to find his errors and see bad trends and so on...
If time permits, we'll be able to start alpha- and beta-testing in a couple of weeks or so [fingers crossing] ::)
-
fsxnp, I'm no 'lateral thinker'. ;D Would never have thought to have used that excellent PDF and ideas how you have. Well done. Looks impressive.
Question: Can the same 'approach' be used in a new version of FCLP missions? Something for the far future for sure. ::)
-
Yep, it will definitely be used for the FCLP missions. And this future is not that far 8)
-
Oh my god Serge! :o This is looking really sweet!!!
Can't wait for the alpha and bravo tests, thanks for all your hard work on the vLSO tool, it is really going to add a lot of fun and realism to carrier traps and FCLP landing practice.
-Capt
-
Also, what aircraft is in the vLSO GUI? Looks like an F-35???
By the way I really like the format and content of the GUI.
-Capt
-
Serge...
Cheeze and Rice, you are going completely ABOVE and BEYOND on this. Your work is looking amazing!! Again, whatever time you have to take... so be it, but I'm really fired up to do this. Especially with all the upgrades done for the S/C v1.2 CHARLIE, I cannot wait to fly carrier patterns with your mission.
Later
Sludge
-
Very interesting
Amazing, keep at it.
-
capthaltli asks: "Also, what aircraft is in the vLSO GUI? Looks like an F-35???" That is an excellent photo. Square intake makes it a Super Hornet of some kind. Here is a link [first] for the GUI pic plus with a story (for the second pic [similar] with caption + explanation): [So far only the X-35C has done FCLP (some 200+ times) whilst the first F-35Cs are not scheduled to go to sea until 2013 AFAIK.]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/FD_LSO_CVN-75_15Jan2007.jpg
“Lex:– I’ve been a big fan of your site for a while. I’m CAG Paddles on the Ronnie Reagan and was on the platform for this shot (in the back with the headset on) which was taken a couple of days ago. I had no idea that the picture was taken and was very surprised to see it on your site. Our “wave” Teams today consist of a Paddles from each squadron–usually about five guys. There is the Controlling LSO, Backup, CAG Paddles, writer, deck caller, and also a timer for groove length and interval between aircraft. Of course, there is the enlisted hook spotter, gear cross-checker, and lens rep. (all with cranials on). Obviously, it makes for a crowded platform but is necessary for safe operations today. Yes, we are looking back at a Hornet which just trapped. And yes, we are girly-men for the wind screen! Thanks and keep up the good work. Taco”
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/26/motivating-naval-aviation/
ORIGINAL HI-REZ: [for pic below]
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/080324-N-3659B-190.jpg
(http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/motivatorlso.jpg)
-
Also, what aircraft is in the vLSO GUI?
I believe it's a Super Hornet. :)
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I've added a separate debrifieng window. However, there's currently only an approach image, textual debriefing is still to come. The attached are a couple of my test approaches 'debriefed'. The three colored areas show the glideslope deviations, from 0.3 (green), to 0.8 (yellow) and to 1.3/1.6 (red). How do you find this way of presentation? Any suggestions/criticism/whatever are welcome.
-
fsxnp, you will have the real LSOs asking about your stuff soon. I bet they would like to be able to show this graph during their debriefs. With all their high tech today I wonder why it is not possible?
It is too early in the morning for me to understand what you mean by the decimal numbers you mention. However if possible it would be great to see a 'graph' of horizontal/vertical lines with numbers in feet for height and yards for distance (Nautical Mile being measurement) perhaps in a decimal form (or even feet but this is less helpful probably). The lines can be discrete, less obvious but will help gauge the actual deviation represented by the actual approach red line. This is a whole new way of thinking about the approach for sure.
-
Latest LSO June 2011 has some info about updates to their equipment which may give 'fsxnp' some ideas perhaps. I'm not quite sure myself what current LSO stuff does onboard but it seems that they may want what fsxnp will be delivering for FSX!
Page 5 & 6 are shown/attached below from: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJune2011.pdf (1.6Mb)
-
Spaz,
thanks for this really good info. The new iPARTS screenshots look nice.
Down to the vLSO debriefing window... I have changed its apperance a bit. Now you can see both the areas names and their distances, as well as the glideslope deviations with their LSO notations. I intentionally do not use any altitude readouts, because in case of FCLP, even flying level, your altitude will vary significantly, as shown on the last picture. So I thought it would be better to show only deviations. :)
-
My expectation about the graph would be to have the altitude in a faint line, to be read as required. But maybe that is just me.
About altitude. Nothing wrong with having AGL where for FCLP it is the given runway altitude (which may vary slightly on an up/down runway so you could use the touchdown point as the datum). Also the carrier deck height is known so that could be subtracted from ASL to give the 'AGL'. Just a thought. In my view having the altitude comparing 'in close' to 'at the start' one can more easily gauge the magnitude of needed correction. Still in all the chart is excellent and your concepts seem 'on the money'.
-
:-X whoa I was way off on the aircraft, granted I wasn't working with much, just one landing strut, but in the picture Spaz posted, you can clearly see it is a rhino with the jet intake. At least I didn't guess the X-47 UCAV ::)
Serge, I like the altitude/glide slope deviation for debrief. One thing would be to make the debrief screen seem more military like, simple colors, like black background, with white path (red and green deviations), kinda like the iPARTS God's eye view of the carrier pattern in Spaz's post. Just a cosmetic thing, not sure if you agree.
-
In this FOV (Field of View) illustration we can see how the deck height is taken into account perhaps? From: http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf
-
Spaz,
thanks for pointing to that really useful reading!
Capt,
Your idea is not that bad, why not to give it a try? Here are two sample views, which one do you (and other guys) like better?
FYI: the altitudes shown on the first one are above the deck level, not AGL/ASL. Are these useful? Do they make any sence? I'm personally not sure :)
-
fsxnp, I'm conflicted. ;D Probably you do not want to clutter your glideslope readout with the graph of height ASL and distance (it can be faint as we see in first graphic). However what is there now is useful. I see the background height/distance graph as a way to show a specific deviation in feet if the pilot chooses. Otherwise only the coloured lines need to be followed. Though without the background graph (as in graph paper) it is difficult to fathom the height differential.
AFAIK the USN will use altitude settings which show height above sea level rather than 'height above deck'. Ashore pilots fly with QNH setting that will show 'height above mean sea level' where they are; even though the sea is nowhere to be seen. So for example at NAS Nowra the airfield was roughly 400 feet AMSL so our circuit height was 1,400 feet but 1,000 feet AGL (approx.). The Hornet Radar Altimeter might beep at certain heights at any given setting though.
The black background graph needs brighter or lighter colours IMHO. Perhaps a lighter colour for background (white?) will be OK?
-
Serge...
I like the second version, but would like to see the expected heights that you have displayed in the first version. So you end up with a grid that shows "optimum" glideslope points to evaluate after landing, without the cloud background. But, I'd have to agree with Spaz on one point... as I'd rather have it measured in MSL/ASL instead of above deck, in feet.
Personally, the colors seem fine, but if you get a buncha people that like something else, say lighter colors.... go with the popular vote. IF you do go with a different background color, I'd say go with grey or something subdued. Something easier on the eyes than computer screen black text on white background. Heck, even the light shade of blue-gray at the lower-most portion of the FSDT header on this page would work for me.
Later
Sludge
-
Okie dokie... ;D
Blue-grey background, altitude ASL stepping 100'. Looks nice 8)
-
Looks really nice, I like the light blue background, good tribute to FSDT ;D.
Questions:
Is the display dynamic, meaning does it show your path over time in a replay fashion? Or is it just one static snapshot of your path conformance? Can't tell from the pic, but it looks like your path stopped IC.
What reference is used to draw the vertical path? Is it Center of Gravity point of airicraft, tailhook location, eyepoint of pilot?
-Capt
-
Ok, that snapshot was a fake, just to see wheter these colors match each other or not... Here are my two landing attempts (default CVN, no ILS), with Dino's new T-45C (red line, bolter) and with the Sludge (white line, waveoff). White color is better, I guess ;D
Currently the display is static and I don't plan any animations, but this is a good idea, why not to add a 'play' button?.. :)
FSX reports aircraft's center position, which is shown on the pic. Looks like it's somewhere near CG, I don't know, really.. So, the path shows this particular point's trajectory.
-
Serge...
Great job, the last versions are exactly what I was hoping you'd show, and the 100' stepping is another winner. Geez, IF you can get the "animation" idea going that rock the house. Being able to play-back your pass would be the best, so you could see high/low glideslope and the over/under power corrections and what that does in relation to getting back on-GS.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks Serge for the clarification, looks good.
One more question, does the debrief "vertical profile" display work with moving carriers?
This is a crazy request, but you know what would be awesome, is if the color of the line mirrored the AoA indication in the jet. That way you could see your altitude performance as well as your speed/AoA performance on one line, one graph. For example if you were on speed on glideslope, the line would be yellow all the way down. If you got slow or fast, it would turn green or red only during the time you were slow or fast on the approach. see attached pic for example.
-Capt
-
Serge,
I have been following this thread with the greatest interest since I am an enthusiastic user of your FCLP missions. The work going down here is impressive. The image you provide is a vertical cross-section parallel to the carrier, to show the plane deviations from the glideslope. You were also previously showing (April 15, 2011) cross sections perpendicular to the carrier which would have shown the plane lineup deviations relative to the landing axis of the carrier. Did you abandon this concept? I understand it is not as important as following the glideslope, just being curious, and to let you know how much your work is being appreciated out there.
Thanks,
Johan
-
fsxnp, your last graph with light grey background and 'white line fever' glideslope is very good. ;D
Having an animated playback of the profile would be 'oughtta sight' for sure. Thanks for all your hard work and I agree about comments about your FCLP missions. If anyone can master FCLP Mission 5 they are well on the way....
-
Thanks, guys.
Well, today's WIP update is the lineup deviations view added to the debrief window. You will be able to select either the glideslope or lineup view simply by clicking a pushbutton. Here's my usual wild boltered test approach, viewed both in vertical and horizontal planes.
What's next..
- The AoA indication... Perhaps I'll use Capt's idea?.. Dunno...
- Animation. That would be awesome, for sure.
Capt, the vLSO works both with stationary and moving carriers, either the default or Javier's. And it will also work with FCLP missions (however I'll need to slightly modify them).
-
Serge,
Just amazing...Thanks a lot. Please count me as one of your beta testers when you release it.
Johan
-
fsxnp, The graphs are excellent. Great work. If the AoA can be shown then it will be as if the LSO is saying 'fast' 'slow' stuff (but of course a bit more complicated in reality).
The next thing would be to show engine power / rpm to relate to the AoA - ONLY KIDDING! ;D
-
Ok, Capt's idea works just perfectly! Here's a sample of my crazy (now colored) approach. The colors look nice, I'll use them for glideslope profiles, lineup profiles will stay white.
-
Marvellous. That will be really informative, great work.
-
SWEET! Really nice work Serge!
Check out the attached pic, this is what your display reminds me of, a time elapsed photo of a carrier landing, very telling.
-Capt
-
Beautiful! Yes indeedy it's a very telling picture! I wish I could master the fourth dimension this way... ;D
-
fsxnp, easy... cue the music for 'Twilight Zone' (old TV show about these issues) and you will be OK. ;D
-
Serge...
How goes things, friend? Havent heard from you in a while, so I'm assuming you're hard at work.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, you're right. Quite busy at work these days... :-X
-
Wow, what an incredible project.
My dad has 300 carriers landings in A-3's and A-7's and to be able to simulate what he used to do in a "realistic" way would be awesome. To say I'm looking forward to this would be an gross understatement.
I would love to be considered as a beta tester for this vLSO mission when available.
Thank you for all your hard work!
Nick
-
Is this still working?
I have it d/l to my desktop but when I double=click it, I get a message that....Integrator has stopped working.
-
Hi FSXNP,
Any status on this bad boy? Can't wait!
Nick
-
It's progressing, but rather slowly... Just finished logbook management :)
-
Thanks for the update!
-
Just stumbled across this very good reading http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA239511 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA239511)
-
Serge...
Great info. pull about the approach speeds. That sounds like the "missing puzzle piece" about why FSX Sludge (NATOPS correct as I can get) and those real-world Hornet Y/T vids dont match up.
How goes work on the vLSO project? Probly busy, but no worries we can wait, my friend.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, By now I would imagine that the Hornet/Super Hornet NATOPS have caught up with this aspect. It is important to not overstress the arrestor gear. For example LSOs warn NOT to engage burner for potential bolters when going to full power - but of course people hit it by mistake or go to burner because they may think they need it.
An earlier thread has this updated with F-18 info but repeated here: (I think earlier post has a very long 'google' URL)
EFFECT OF WIND OVER DECK CONDITIONS ON AIRCRAFT APPROACH SPEEDS FOR CARRIER LANDINGS 1 Sept 1991
[My old slightly different URL compared to 'fsxnp' above:]
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA239511
Just checking the URLs now to see that 'fsxnp' and this one are more or less the same. When 'fsxnp's first URL above was clicked it took me to this PDF:
short title: 'Study Carrier Landing Aids 1964' which has some good generic info in it:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0432067
Must be in my internet browser cache history. Whatever. Anyway the point about info being updated remains. Would be good to know for sure though. Apologies about earlier confusion of 'google' URLs - now corrected in my own copies of PDFs etc....
-
Yes, my vLSO work goes on... :)
And here's my next question...
WOD. Do we need the vLSO to specify WOD direction? I mean when real LSOs say 'Roger ball', they also add something like '30 knots' and sometimes 'port' or whatever. This obviously means that there's WOD of 30 knits from the port side.
Currently the vLSO reports only headwind speed, like this: 'Roger ball, 32 knots'.
-
SPAZ...
Thanks for the updated info on both documents. I think the 1991 document pretty much says it all, in regards to Wind Over Deck affecting approach speeds. While the 1964 document shows HOW we came about to having a FLOLS where it is and the setup of the lights on the FLOLS and the deck and why they are there. I'm guessing that Supers landing slower is a response to this real world "problem"? I know JJ has talked about Tomcats landing slow (130s) and I know the Supers can land slower with more ordnance and fuel, so maybe it was designed that way? Again, the reason I brought this up was REAL WORLD Y/T videos showing Hornets landing in the low 140s and our FSX Hornets (manual FULL flaps) landing in the mid-to-low 130s. Some disconnect was happening (FSX to real-world) and this bit of information (1991 document) clears that up.
Serge...
I would venture to say: "Roger Ball, 32 knots" would work fine, as we know where the wind is coming from. Knowing this is FSX and how to set the wind up to be 9-10 degrees off BRC, this should work universally. I would add to that, WoD should be 35-38 knots, given we are at a 4.0 glideslope and LSO NATOPS says: "A BA (basic angle) setting of 3.5 is most commonly used, with 4.0 used for higher wind-over-deck conditions (38+ knots)" So "Roger Ball, 38 knots". In actuality, I've only seen this used ONCE on Y/T videos but that was carrier landings at night with pitching deck. I'm assuming its used with alot of HOOK-to-RAMP clearance requirements but since we are stuck with FSX 4.0 Meatballs, we have to go with that.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, my earlier post has been amended. Apologies for URLs confusion. ;D
_______________
Yes for 'pitching decks at night' perhaps caused by high natural wind and carrier not able to do much about it for operational reasons (go slowly for example) then raising the glideslope will give more 'hook to ramp' clearance but then these and other factors being discussed come into play. The LSO knows all with his/her reference material to get it sorted.
We need a 'go to' LSO/Hornet Pilot to contact on these issues I reckon. ::)
-
Spaz...
Well, looking at this Y/T of Hornets at night, it looks like they put the ball at 4.0 for hook-to-ramp clearance. The wind over deck is high, goes from 33-to-39, and he stays in the high 140s, even some 150s. Look at the rate of decent on the right side of the PLAT. Looks like 10 (10=-1000k rate of descent) is the average there?
(go to 3:00, and start)
We do have a "go to" Hornet pilot, the guy JIMI knows. Wish I woulda got that other fellas' number or email last year when I went to the airshow... he was a CAG LSO on top of that. Missed opportunities.
Later
Sludge
-
Wasn't prepared for that.... Glad he survived and I gather no others injured?
On first look to me it seems the aircraft is high all the way - not good - I can tell ya about that. ;D I can post a clip later about the dangers of being 'high all the way - coming down at the ramp - for a ramp strike'.
The numbers could mean that the pilot was also fast? I'm not so familiar with looking at PLAT tapes (never had any). I'll look again later - gotta get some grub....
-
Don't have sound on this computer to know what LSO is saying in the first colour clip above before rampstrike. Attached is 'old advice' - always relevant - nothing changes - about 'Being High all the way etc.' video clip. The small .WMV clip cannot be uploaded unless it becomes a .ZIP. When unzipped it will be an .WMV....
More similar advice can be found at other spots on the internet, for example embedded in this PDF:
'DeckLandingInstructionVideos.PDF' 90Mb
http://www.gamefront.com/files/17349862
__________________
In the signature below my posts there are some URLs. This one has a 50Mb edited version of the one above. Look in the 'My Documents' folder for "DeckLandingInstructionVideosED.pdf":
http://cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791
BTW there is now a 90Mb .WMV video in same place with an example of the 'Mission 4 & 5' Dusk/Night FCLP FSX Mission Test Videos - oh the horror.... ; :o ;D "Mission4&5hornetFSXsludgeFCLPdemo.WMV"
-
fsxnp asked about LSO answering pilot ball call: "Do we need the vLSO to specify WOD direction? I mean when real LSOs say 'Roger ball', they also add something like '30 knots' and sometimes 'port' or whatever. This obviously means that there's WOD of 30 knits from the port side."
Unfortunately I cannot 'listen' to any videos at moment but I do not recall any LSOs saying anything about wind but I don't deny that they may do so on a carrier. Are the videos where this happens at a carrier or ashore?
Anyway a quick look at a recent LSO NATOPS does not suggest that the wind has to be called. Usually communication is at a minimum with only perhaps CarQual being a wordy time for the LSO (or night or emergencies but these 'out of the ordinary' so to speak). My guess if the wind direction is called then it will be because it is at or near the limit for crosswind for a carrier landing. Ideally the wind should be down the angle deck centreline so nothing to say except perhaps the wind strength if once again it is stronger than is usual perhaps.
Pilots fly the ball and do what it takes to stay there. Maybe later they will find out why they had to do what they did to stay 'on the ball'. I would say just have the LSO say 'Roger Ball'. The mission will have the same wind all the time unless the pilot changes it - then he will know what the change is (if it is possible to change the wind).
-
SPAZ...
You really need to get sound on your computer setup. According to Paddles comms the guy wasnt "high all the way", it was "on glideslope" several times, including at the "ball call". So thats my point... real world videos keep showing things like this, but you still go back to these references that we know about but arent pertaining. Do you get what Im saying that REAL WORLD and FSX dont meet up and thats why the "Approach Speed" document solves that problem for me? I mean you can reference documents all you want but in the end we have several resources that have verified the approach speeds get higher than the NATOPS charts when WoD component gets above minimums.
I mean... just putting these out to keep arguing for what? I know in NORMAL conditions trending too high is bad, but during this video its quite obvious that trending a little high is GOOD when you take the two possibilities: trending on-G/S to LOW (wire catch or RAMP STRIKE), trending HIGH to on-G/S (bolter or wire catch). With a pitching deck at night, I'm pretty sure they'd rather have High to On-G/S, which gives room for more error, do you agree? So more than likely (we dont know), is that Paddles set the Meatball glideslope higher (4.0), that it would give more Hook-to-Deck clearance.
Seriously, whats the point you're making?
Later
Sludge
-
Ok guys,
Just some WIP pictures. As you can see, there's an on-screen text message that appears when passing through the Start position, making ball call and during other crucial events like waveoff or bolter... This text can be easily switched on/off, as you need.
Well, the first message 'calls' the ball for you - there's side number, AC, ball and fuel state :)
The second message just repeats what you'll hear - a real LSO's voice saying 'Roger ball', and shows WOD as well.
The last picture shows a debrief window (of a boltered approach) where you can see both in the groove time and WOD. Notice that WOD here is not rounded and thus more precise.
FYI. CVN speed was 16 kts, BRC 151.3, wind 345.8 degrees, 22 kts. So, some basic computations give us 37.6 kts, or roughly 38 kts. :)
-
Sludge, surely we are discussing these issues. Yes I agree that FSX modelling and real world Hornet flight parameters are not the same and some kludges in FSX may need to be made. However I'll make this point. Unless you have flown the Hornet how would you know about these issues other than numbers? I have flown A-4 examples that purport to be 'on the numbers' but they flew totally unlike any A-4 I have flown. So about the Hornet I'm guessing we are both in a similar situation.
If documents are all we have then that is the situation.
About the rampstrike video you posted. Not being able to hear the video is a problem I'll acknowledge. Nothing can be done easily about that due my particular circumstances at moment.
The LSO will guide the pilot in bad situations to help get the aircraft onboard safely. I don't know if the situation is really bad or not. General advice about 'being high all the way' 'coming down at the ramp' for a rampstrike is valid as the old but still pertinent video advice tells. The basics remain the same, however as mentioned the LSO can prompt a particular course of action. AFAIK in a really bad 'deck moving situation' the LSO will go to the MOVLAS to 'trick' the pilot into flying a particular glideslope even though the pilot will see that aircraft is 'on the ball' if flown accurately.
Perhaps we have misunderstandings about what you are doing to the Hornet because that is not what I do myself. I think you nailed the required effect at the beginning with the manual flap fix. All the rest about the numbers being matched is your prerogative of course. I don't see how I'm being argumentative though. Disagree - yes - though it is not personal. You are free to do modifications as you please I'm certain of it. ;D
-
Ok guys,
Just some WIP pictures. As you can see, there's an on-screen text message that appears when passing through the Start position, making ball call and during other crucial events like waveoff or bolter... This text can be easily switched on/off, as you need.
Well, the first message 'calls' the ball for you - there's side number, AC, ball and fuel state :)
The second message just repeats what you'll hear - a real LSO's voice saying 'Roger ball', and shows WOD as well.
The last picture shows a debrief window (of a boltered approach) where you can see both in the groove time and WOD. Notice that WOD here is not rounded and thus more precise.
FYI. CVN speed was 16 kts, BRC 151.3, wind 345.8 degrees, 22 kts. So, some basic computations give us 37.6 kts, or roughly 38 kts. :)
Hey FSXNP, it looks OUTSTANDING. Will there be actual audio or just text messages? I assume just text except for the generic "calls" in that you couldn't have a wav file for every possible fuel state. On the other hand, it would be cool to be able make a wav file for the basic "ball" call with my own voice to replace the generic one.
-
WOW !!!
Spaz---
hit the nail on the head, FSX just isn't real, you might say, lol, gotta do the best we can, keep on trying
-
SPAZ...
Without a doubt, Im just asking where you are going with this. Im looking at it from the FSX vs. real-world perspective and thats why I brought up the approach speed issue. I havent flown the Hornet and everyone knows that but when the numbers on Y/T videos dont match with what the FSX (NATOPS-backed) approach speeds show, then I start to wonder and tweak. Initially, when I changed to ALL Auto-Flaps, I thought that was the answer. However, I was hasty in that regard. Now that I have tweaked the .AIR file flaps "virtual lift" and made the LEF (leading edge flaps) AUTO and the TEF (trailing edge flaps) MANUAL, I'm pretty happy as I get in the low 140s consistently yet have never come close to going over 146 (high limit approach speed; LSO Guide).
The LSO will guide the pilot in bad situations to help get the aircraft onboard safely. I don't know if the situation is really bad or not. General advice about 'being high all the way' 'coming down at the ramp' for a rampstrike is valid as the old but still pertinent video advice tells. The basics remain the same, however as mentioned the LSO can prompt a particular course of action. AFAIK in a really bad 'deck moving situation' the LSO will go to the MOVLAS to 'trick' the pilot into flying a particular glideslope even though the pilot will see that aircraft is 'on the ball' if flown accurately.
Again, you're bringing this up because...?
We dont have an LSO, we will only have a vLSO if Serge's program works well. Additionally in FSX, there is NO MOVLAS, we are stuck with a 4.0 Ball and higher than normal Wind-over-Deck conditions due to higher ball. The 1991 document gave me the "validation" needed to keep the LEF at AUTO (AoA driven) and the TEF at MANUAL (full deflection at FULL Flaps commanded). Also, we have words from a current Hornet driver that they approach in the low-140s and at try to get the boat at MAX TRAP weight.
I talked to a Hornet driver (Charlies) in my curriculum today and he said that they usually worked it out to where they usually approached the deck right under max trap and that they usually looked at approaching the ship in the low 140s. If you have any more specific questions, let me know and I will ask him.
With this information, I have re-created the same look as the Y/T video I initially posted in the other thread. I was able to put the CS Delta Hornet w/two empty drops and A/A stores, on-glide/on-speed at 140-142 kts, 36 kts WoD.
So whats your argument point? That we should keep the Sludge as it was, both LEF and TEF at MANUAL and no change to the .AIR file? And stay with the mid-low 130s at MAX TRAP weight? Its not personal, I just wanna know what you are arguing for...
Serge...
Frickin amazing. I had to leave for work (late shift) but was glancing at this before I left. This is gonna seriously rock. Now I cant wait to try the Sludge AND Dino's T-45 out on this. I'm guessing the text has audio with it, just like the default MS missions? But taken from actual transmissions?
Later
Sludge
-
Serge...
Its funny too, looking at your chart, the OK optimum g/path is just above 400' at Ball Call. I have my LOW ALT alarm set for 400' and sure enough thats right around the ball call. So I get visual (flashing ALT) and audio cues (whup, whup) for switching to 2D, un-caging the HUD, and Ball Call.
I'm sure the wait will be worth it. Your program is looking TOP-NOTCH.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, good to know you have modified the Hornet as you have described. I have no problem with that. However over the long series of posts at the beginning you were not sure how to go about modifying it and I was wondering why. Alls well that ends well - no worries. I'll leave it at that.
I'll look forward to trying out the 1.3 Sludge? if that is what it will be. As mentioned earlier I have not been flying the 1.2 version.
-
... Will there be actual audio or just text messages? I assume just text except for the generic "calls" in that you couldn't have a wav file for every possible fuel state. On the other hand, it would be cool to be able make a wav file for the basic "ball" call with my own voice to replace the generic one.
Yes, there are a number of real LSO audio calls. As you can see there's also a set of radio buttons to control the vLSO talking level, and if you choose Zip-lip conditions you'll still be able to receive some input from the vLSO via on-screen text messages, mentioned on my previous post. You can switch these messages on or off. Everything's in your hands... ;)
-
Great stuff! Thank you for the reply!
-
Serge...
Getting us fired up showing screenies like that. Cant wait to see the results. I like the "selectability" of features you have, so that it can be scaled from FSX noob to 3-wire king. Im really interested to see how the new Sludge mods will hold up on glidepath in the debriefing window.
Later
Sludge
-
Ok, guys
The moment has come to start wide ALPHA testing!.. 8)
Why alpha? Just because of lack of time... I'm leaving for vacation on this weekend, but I didn't want to make you waiting for another month, really, so I tried as thoroughly as I could to make this current version worth to test it. However some functionality is still unimplemented. Be warned.. ;)
Ok, here we go... First, download these three files:
a brief readme file - http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608644/readme.chm (http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608644/readme.chm)
the program itself - http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608670/vLSO.zip (http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608670/vLSO.zip)
and a test missions pack - http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608671/vLSOmissions.zip (http://www.gamefront.com/files/20608671/vLSOmissions.zip)
ATTENTION: these links are no more valid. Please read this message http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.msg41343#msg41343 (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.msg41343#msg41343)
Then read the readme.chm and unpack the program to a folder of your choice. For your convenience you may want to create a shortcut for the vLSO.exe.
Finally, unpack the missions pack (two missions - one for Acceleration CVN68 and one for Javier's CVN68) to the Missions/Military folder.
That's it, now you're ready to start!
Leave your suggestions/criticism/whatever over here. Also, keep your best/worst/whatever approach recordings (made by the program), because I'll need them to continue developing/debugging the program when I'm back.
Goog luck, guys and happy landings! I'll be back... 8)
-
Yeehaaw!!!! :o
Thanks Serge, really looking forward to testing this out, thanks for all your hard work again!!! If the program doesn't score every one of my approaches as OK3s, it must be broken, so it should be pretty easy to test. ;)
-Capt
-
Serge...
Cant wait to get home and try this out!! Now the work clock just starting ticking slower. I swear one minute feels like 15 and it keeps getting worse.
Thanks buddy and have a great vacation. You'll have lots of feedback by the time you return.
Later
Sludge
-
Serge,
There has been so much expectation about this...and now it's here. Thanks so much! There is a good weekend of flying coming up :)
Have a great vacation.
Johan
-
Can't read the readme.chm. How you open it? Herb
--------------------------------------------------------------
I found a Converter. Here is the file see screenshot:
-
Can't read the readme.chm. How you open it? Herb
I have the same problem...
-
Where is this converter so I or others can download it, please?
-
Herb,
I got your PM. Thanks. The converter works for me.
Johan
-
Thanks for hard work fsxnp and have a good holiday. The perhaps problematic readme.CHM made into a PDF is attached.
-
SERIOUSLY!!! Serge is a GENIUS!! This is very possibly the best FSX program EVER!!
The vLSO works like a champ but he's a tough grader, you better be on your A-game JUST to get a FAIR 3. Thanks Serge, now I will have NO OUTSIDE LIFE whatsoever. I love it.
Later
Sludge
-
Serge...
Dont know if youre still avail, as I have nothing but praise for your vLSO. I do have a couple of MISSION questions, possible fixes?
1. My vLSO mission 1 (Javier's) has the carrier moving at approx 15 knots and the wind at 22. Can we get that reversed? With the boat speed at 22 kts and the wind at 15 kts?
2. The wind direction is 330 and needs to be at 141.
3. I'm only able to make ONE PASS and the boat stops, does IN-PLACE turns, then STOPS. Was it meant for just one pass?
Thats it for now, and other than the few mission problems, the vLSO performs very well. Quite impressed, obviously.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks for hard work fsxnp and have a good holiday. The perhaps problematic readme.CHM made into a PDF is attached.
Thanks, that's a treat, good help.
-
Guys,
thanks for your kind words and wishes!
Down to business...
Grading approaches. Currently there's only three grades - (OK), W/O and B (fair, waveoff and bolter). I'll continue to work on this part of the program when I'm back.
Yes, the vLSO perhaps is a tough grader. That's because I based on pure glideslope geometry figures and other rather too scientifical stuff. We'll see, you have plenty of time to test it ;)
Sludge,
1. Yes, you can easily change both speeds.
To change the carrier speed just open the Carrier Trials.xml file, find and change these two parameters to 22 kts or something:
<GroundCruiseSpeed>16.000</GroundCruiseSpeed>
<GroundTurnSpeed>16.000</GroundTurnSpeed>
To change the wind you'll need to load the mission with changes enabled and change weather settings.
However, the two attached ZIPs have all these corrections already made. Unpack them into their folders, replacing the existing mission and weather files.
2. Oops, that's my fault... :o
3. Never experienced anything wrong with the missions on my computer - carriers move along their four waypoints as prescribed.
CHM issue. Again, never experienced this trouble. CHM is a compressed help file, so windows should open it. Obviously I'll need to change for PDF...
-
Serge,
That VLSO mission is HOT stuff.
What can we say about service already a fix ;)
Thanks a lot
-
ATTTENTION
Latest update!
The readme.chm removed from downloads.
Wrong wind direction and WOD computation are fixed.
Please reload these two ZIPs, unpack and replace the existing files/folders:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/20611129/vLSO.zip (http://www.gamefront.com/files/20611129/vLSO.zip)
http://www.gamefront.com/files/20610975/vLSOmissions_zip (http://www.gamefront.com/files/20610975/vLSOmissions_zip)
-
Overlooking the obvious I'm sure, but how do you operate this ?, I installed both missions into the FSX Missions folder, started the vLSO program, had two green buttons in the vLSO program, tried both missions but didn't hear the vLSO.
-
Serge, thanks for the quick turn on the mission updates. I was wondering why my groundspeed seemed so fast on final and so slow on downwind. Also, can you explain what the difference is between the two missions, they seem the same? Also I noticed a 737 parked in the mission, is that for future air refueling purposes? Finally, would you be able to add an LSO, PLAT, and Air Boss camera view to the mission? Similar to the San Diego mission?
OK, enough requests, what I really wanted to say is the vLSO is a great addition, I really like the glideslope and lateral debrief windows. Also seeing the shorthand LSO grade is great, I was surprised how quickly you learn to decode the comments. Kudos to pushing virtual naval aviation, this is huge progress.
Jymp, I had similar issues at first. I started up the vLSO program, then FSX, then the mission, but after flying a circuit, I got no LSO or scoring. But after closing the vLSO, keeping FSX running, and then restarting the vLSO, it worked. Not sure that was the issue though. Also, it seems like their are triggers around the boat that start the program/vLSO scoring in FSX. Is this true Serge? For example if you turn in early (inside of .5 mile) in the groove, the vLSO would not work?
I also updated the mission file to load the VFA-143 hornet for mission 1, and the T-45C and T-45C carrier in mission 2. Let me know if anyone is interested in how to do this, pretty easy but wanted to share.
Will try out the new mission and vLSO tonight.
-CAPT
-
CAPT,
The only difference between the two missions is carriers. Despite that these both are CVN68, they have slightly different runway geometry (height, angle etc.) So I intentionally made two missions to test the program with both carriers.
You're right - there are several triggers around the boat, so when flying within a standard carrier pattern one should first hear 'Clear downwind', then 'Paddles copy' at the abeam position, and finally, 'Call the ball' when rolling into the groove at exact 3/4 nm. Besides, the area triggering this call, is quite small, so if one doesn't hear that call he definitely missed that area. :)
I have no idea why and where is that 737, maybe it's FSX traffic?
Adding different views is no problem, I'll do that when we have that vLSO working as per NATOPS 8)
As for the T-45 I'd say that it's pattern is significantly narrower than that of the Hornet, so in the future the vLSO should take this into account.
---------------------
Ok, I'm leaving... I hope I'll be able to read the forum and see how things go on.
Bye for now and happy landings!
-
Awesome programm ! As I moves recently to a new country and don't yet have my computers, I'm not able to test this addon. It's not fair :'(.
I'm joining the other guys to thank you.
Ost
-
Serge, Hope you are enjoying your vacation!
What do you think about adding a carrier layout profiles to the lateral and vertical debrief windows? I ginned up some mock pictures to show what I am talking about. Not sure if they could be scaled accurately, but they would add eye candy. The vertical profile pic would have to be reworked to not block the GUI buttons.
-CAPT
-
FSXNP, thank you, this thing is awesome.
Glad we turned the wind around, I was 13 seconds in the groove and coming in hotter than a whore house on nickel night.
I "think" maybe the constraints on line up are not quite tight enough. I made some pretty crooked approaches and it didn't seem to comment on that often.
The glide slope parameters are very challenging and thus perfect.
I'll keep testing. Having a ball!
-
Agree with Nicka, tightening up the tolerances for lineup criteria/assessment would be good.
Also, does time in groove currently affect your grade? Where is the abeam trigger/box, 1.2NM and 600ft?
-Capt
-
You're right - there are several triggers around the boat, so when flying within a standard carrier pattern one should first hear 'Clear downwind', then 'Paddles copy' at the abeam position, and finally, 'Call the ball' when rolling into the groove at exact 3/4 nm. Besides, the area triggering this call, is quite small, so if one doesn't hear that call he definitely missed that area. :)
It seemed like wherever I flew, as long as I went throught the 3/4 mile trigger, it would grade the pass. Which is great because that means it will work perfectly for the night approach, which brings me to a request for future development. Can we get some more trigger boxes for hearing those communications? i forgot what they were but farther behind the boat on a straight in approach. Don't they ask you to call your needles or something?
Then we could just enable changes, set night time, and fly case III.
-
This is still, in fact, an early alpha test as I understand it so it is logical that the next alpha, or beta, will be better.
As it stands, in my humble opinion, it is amazing. Ahem.....especially when I looked at the charts for glideslope and lineup for the first time, lol.
Perhaps I'll post a good screeny if I fly the approach better. I really like it and grand thanks.
-
3. I'm only able to make ONE PASS and the boat stops, does IN-PLACE turns, then STOPS. Was it meant for just one pass?
Sludge
On Javier's carrier I get one pass or trap and the boat stops. Must be similiar to Sludge's note.
-
Serge,
This is remarkable...especially at the alpha stage. Agree with Sludge and Wily about Javier's AC stopping after the first pass. However, it restarted after I reviewed my flight with FSRecorder playback. I will continue to enjoy this around the weekend and long after. Views from the AC would be welcome as for your previous work. The LSO calls are great. Carrier layout profiles suggested by Capt would also be a great add.
Happy vacation, and thank you.
Johan
-
vLSO 0.1a
This early alpha version has many functions not enabled which is understanable. I'll mention one that makes me curious, at the moment, is in the main folder where a logbook is an MP2-video.
That's interesting but for the future apparently yet a video function makes me cuious.
One image shows a poor glideslope pass and trap while the other screeny shows that shift+2 gets a dark popup and the HUD is not working. This is at the start of Javier's carrier mission.
Is it me? By odds, yes, lol, but has anyone else seen this ?
-
So far no trouble on the cat. Sits on the cat at full AB nicely. This the Javier mission.
The other screeny shows what pops up when I lower the hook abeam the boat but I don't think that has anything to do with the LSO Missions.
My erratic flying -----it was deliberate-----has me hearing all the LSO comments, lol. I like using headphones for these flights. It's a treat to have an LSO.
-
Serge...
......looking at your chart, the OK optimum g/path is just above 400' at Ball Call. I have my LOW ALT alarm set for 400' and sure enough thats right around the ball call. So I get visual (flashing ALT) and audio cues (whup, whup) for switching to 2D, un-caging the HUD, and Ball Call.
Sludge
I get the same as far as I can see.
-
Wily
(The other screeny shows what pops up when I lower the hook abeam) thats into the Sludge/combat Charlie
-
Ok, so tested a little this weekend, and as it came natural, flew a bunch of marginal passes.
So I'm still thinking that the line up parameters should be tightened. Forgot the numbers, but let's say that 2.5 degrees left is how it decides "very LUL" but maybe it only says that when you are on or past that point, but maybe 2.5 is really the median of "very LUL" so you're "becoming" that past 2.0 degrees. Should the "zones" be shifted inward? That way 2.5 is in the center of the underlined LUL zone. I flew some passes where I would have been waved off for too much angling (under shoot) and extreme over shoot. I really think early wave-offs for bad starts should be implemented. Figure that's an easy fix by shifting zones inward and adjusting wave off trigger.
Basically, we want this software to act as "human" as possible based on the LSO expected behavior. The above line-up comments take that into account and for human LSO glidesplope calls I would say:
Too many wave-off calls for slightly high ball, and too many LATE wave-off calls for late/settle AR low meatball. Granted, a very high ball all the way should be waved off, but a slightly high ball that will become a bolter is still a "safe" pass.
Now, a very low ball early and not corrected should be waved-off, but a pass that becomes low late should be allowed and be graded as a cut pass. Why, LSO's are very wary of late wave-off calls because if you rotate just before AR, you risk the hook hitting the fantail or having an inflight engagement (the plane rotates, the hook accidentally grabs a wire and slams the plane down). When they see a bad low situation ocurring late, they scream Power, Power, Power, but they don't want you to rotate which moves the hook even lower, which exposes you further.
Just some thoughts, what do the rest of you think?
-
Can you change the mission start time in the .FLT file? I wanted to push the Carrier Trails start time closer to noon, but not sure if this is possible. I've changed the .FLT to start with the VFA-143 sludge hornet, and 75% fuel (currently set at 100%).
-CAPT
I also changed the time to day instead of dawn, and went to fx VFA-143. In flight, I dumped fuel to get down to under 33k lbs.
Also, I flew to 600 feet, 1.5 abeam, downwind and saved the flight so i could just start there without launching.
Sometimes I fly the downwind at 700 feet so I can decend slightly in the turn and intercept the 4 degree glideslope. At 600 feet, you have to stay so level in the turn, and this hornet really loses lift if you don't get some power and nose up in the banking turns. Dino's F-14 doesn't fall in the banking as much but I don't know which is more realistic.
Sludge said the hornet sinks on line-up corrections so maybe it does lose a lot of lift in the turns.
-
Nicka....
In flight, I dumped fuel to get down to under 33k lbs.
If you feel comfortable doing this, you can change the .FLT text file in the mission folder, to outfit the Hornet from the start with proper fuel amounts. In the aircraft/fuel subsection, keep left/right main=100, then change the center=0, left/right aux=80, all tanks=0, and left/right tip=0. This will be effective for the Sludge. If youre gonna use the CS Delta/Sludge and use two drops (standard), change the left/right aux=50, and youll be set.
You'll be set from the jump, such as what plane youll fly and how much gas you have without having to go to the selection menus. Also, you can change a buncha preconfigured items, such as what lights are active and others settings. Just dont mess with the aircraft position or such mission specific details.
I like your idea about being at 700. Personally, Ill still fly at 600, 1.3 Abeam, ADD SOME POWER, then start my 180 turn keeping A TAD below level, and then make my adjustments at the 90. Hopefully, the glide needle comes up on-glide about '530-550' at the 90 approx. 1.3 TCN, keeping in my turn while maintaining the glide needle til I get past the 45. Once the lineup (localizer) needle does its "crossing wake at th 45" number, I go 2D HUD (no obstructions) and usually am lining up around 0.8 TCN and in the groove. Then its all standard "Meatball, LineUp, AoA" scan to the ramp, you know the drill.
But its good that you and others have shown other ways to do it. IF your technique gets you to the start in proper position, then its a good thing. We can only get soo much outta FSX before we hit a brick wall and that unchangeable FSX 4.0 glideslope is a real pain-in-the-youknowwhat.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, thanks for the tips, will work on it.
1.3 is a tight pattern, very aggressive. Harder that way but more fun...especially when you roll out right in the groove.
-
Serge,
Been flying the alpha vLSO, here are my initial inputs, ignore the ones you are planning to add to the beta or release versions. I decided to break them down by the vLSO and by the companion mission.
vLSO
Overall I feel it is working well, the lateral debrief seems suspect, but could be a result of the lateral corrections you have to perform as the slanted landing area continues to move away. The debrief lateral track looks like small sine waves, always to left of course, but I am flying on course.
Also the moderate LSO calls is not working, probably an alpha version thing. One idea I had was to have a trigger or button in FSX that acts as a cue for calling the ball. This would replace the vLSO saying call the ball, which is not natops for case 1. Once you see the ball in fsx press some TBD button, call your side number, ac, fuel state, and the program would recognize the trigger and respond roger ball. If you didn't make the call inside .6 miles you would get a wave off, or we could have a Clara call, but that is probably overkill. Anyways just thought it is more realistic to see the ball and the make the call, not wait for the auto trigger.
As said earlier the lateral tolerances could be made much tighter. Also tighter glideslope tolerances and time in groove could affect grading. On Speed grading seems to be working well and is tough. Maybe have two levels of scoring, nugget and CAG.
More grades, like OK, cut, and even an _OK_, of course it should be near impossible to get
The others are ideas for later additions and cosmetics:
-option for t-45c
-option for FCLP
-option for CAse 3 approach, with approach calls,
-color in LSO grade book for score, think you showed this in an earlier version (might be later for greenie board)
-zoomed out debrief, gods eye view, to see pattern performance
-larger font for LSO grade and score, if it could also look hand written that would be cool (I know I am pushing it)
-add carrier profiles to debrief windows, see my earlier post for pics
Mission
- add LSO, plat, air boss cams
- mission 2 does not work, I continue to get waved off but I am on and on.
- an FCLP mission or a T-45 mission would be cool
- is it possible to add any support ships, usually a ship is several miles behind the carrier on guard
- Alternate LSO calls, looks like you are preparing for this based on sound files.
Thanks again, the alpha version is already a huge succes IMHO, really enjoy it!
Capt
-
"- add LSO, plat, air boss cams"
great idea, a pryfly "flyby" view as well as for the LSO would be marvels.
this is only vLSO 0.1a
it is likely to go through many changes and alpha releases, in my little opinion.
-
My lateral debrief shows a curve way to the left of the carrier, even when I make a point coming from the far right.
Johan
-
My lateral debrief shows a curve way to the left of the carrier, even when I make a point coming from the far right.
Johan
I think the same for me.
-
definitely would love to get the air boss, PLAT, LSO cams
-
My lateral debrief shows a curve way to the left of the carrier, even when I make a point coming from the far right.
Johan
It is likely due to the combination of having both a moving AND angled deck.
Stabilizing slightly left is a natural tendency, performing a constant slip to the right is not...
-
So do we start vLSO first or FSX first?
wonderful program by the way!!!
-
So do we start vLSO first or FSX first?
wonderful program by the way!!!
I usually start FSX first and then add vLSO. I agree, wonderful program.
Johan
-
I was doing it backward...
must be why I was getting screen messages but no voice...
tks!
-
Two more inputs Serge:
-Keep tracking lateral and vertical paths for debrief windows for a wave off. Would be nice to see wave off performance in debrief, currently path stops tracking on w/o.
-Not a fan of the computer voice LSO calls, little fast, little slow, others. I will see if I can find some audio clips, or if you have some to replace the computer voice calls, I think it would be better.
-Capt
-
I was doing it backward...
must be why I was getting screen messages but no voice...
tks!
David, make sure the vLSO.exe file is in the same folder as the sound folder (LSO audio calls) when being launched. Also make sure "Full" talking level is selected in vLSO program.
-
Two more inputs Serge:
-Keep tracking lateral and vertical paths for debrief windows for a wave off. Would be nice to see wave off performance in debrief, currently path stops tracking on w/o.
-Not a fan of the computer voice LSO calls, little fast, little slow, others. I will see if I can find some audio clips, or if you have some to replace the computer voice calls, I think it would be better.
-Capt
Agree about the automated "you're fast, you're fast." Even if we couldn't find a real clip, we just record our own voice. We could sound like a real LSO better than the computer...we could put a little emotion and inflection into it.
-
Has anyone managed to find the solution to the carrier stopping after the first trap?
-
BZ! I get the new version of Dino's T-45 and now this in one week! Agree about the audio calls, there are many vids on the Tube for samples, a screaming LSO for "power, Power, POWER!" call would get one's attention quick! Throw in a few "easy with it's".
-
Simon...
I haven't found the cause or a solution, but you might wanna try to fly a trap first, then hook up to the cat and do a longer-than-normal take off and BRC runout before your turn back to recip, as I've done this and it works for about 4-5 traps extra. Dont ask me how, but the boat will STOP after you trap and then it will START UP again after you launch off the boat?
I may try doing it WITHOUT the vLSO program, and it PROBLY WON'T make a difference, but at this point, I have NO IDEA why its not working... so I'll give anything a try.
Here's a shot of my best pass so far for glideslope and linup windows.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Dont know if this is a TRUE FIX, but when I launch off cat 3 and 4 (waist cats), right before I hook up, the total wind over deck on my shift-z screen increases to around 36 (where its supposed to be) and so I can do a regular pattern. When I land, after I catch the wire, the boat slows down to where there is just wind speed. Now, when I did the same pre-hookup with Cat 1/2, nothing... the wind stayed at 15 knots. Hook up, wind still at 15 knots. Launch off the boat from CAT 1 and 2, once I drove out for a little while to about 1.2 on BRC, then turning downwind, I'd look back and sure enough the boat started (the wake started to trail out) but I could tell I it was taking a bit to get up to steam. Maybe it ALSO activates at the call "cleared downwind" if launching from Cat 1 or 2? Just some late night/early morning obvserations, could be wayy off on this, but thats what I seemed to experience.
For everyone that flies, whether you have this problem or dont. To test and help Serge, when you fellas fly the mission, can you do your first two traps from 3 and 4, while having your shift-z RED INFO LINES up? Note the wind speed while youre stopped before hooking up to the cat. Then launch, do a pattern, get a pass in, trap; as the hook is coming up take note of the wind speed while you are stopped. Is it holding about 35-38 kts? Is it slowing? Then do the same thing with Cats 1 and 2, and let me know the results.
This will help determine if its a mission "activation zone" issue, that somehow the mission and/or the vLSO program are causing the boat to inadvertently STOP until the person lines up behind cat 3 or 4, or if its a machine problem that me and a few others are having right now.
Much appreciated fellas.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Hey Sludge thanks for the info glad to know its not just me ......will fly some patterns and post the results
as soon as I can.
Sonofabeech out
-
Simon...
No worries. Ive had this problem since the start of the missions and thats been my biggest critique so-far that has stopped me from posting other critiques on the actual program itself.
Once you get a few traps though, on the same missions, its alot of fun. On the .FLT missions startup data, I changed the time to 1130 or something like that, as I need a full up sunny day, along with not having to worry about sun angle coming across my view in the pattern.
Interesting to find out your testing results.
Later
Sludge
-
My lateral debrief shows a curve way to the left of the carrier, even when I make a point coming from the far right.
Johan
Hi Sludge,
I see the debrief curves you posted are quite good. Did you have a problem with the lateral or is it just me?
Johan
-
Johan...
Yeah, but Im still wondering if thats part of the carrier not at the right speed (having gone from 0 to 22, from cat launch)? Or its just me having trouble maintaining my lineup geometry?
Im guessing that ideally, one wants to be within the "OK" boundaries at startup, then proceeding to center up and stay there. As a real world cheat (Hornet pilots have said as much), once lined up, I keep the v/vector on the "crotch" of the ship (portside v-junction between the waist and front cats) until Im past in-close, then I maintain that lineup and meatball focus.
Also, on a bit of a side note, see the WRONG Wind and Groove time? I take about 20 secs (a tad long but far closer to optimum), and the wind should be 35-37 knots, so Im wondering IF that ties into the ship problem some of us have been experiencing?
Later
Sludge
-
I will try these little "tricks" tonight. Thanks for the hints.
Johan
-
I am also getting the carrier problem (stopping intermittently). Here is a trap with the carrier at speed/underway (37kts WoD). I get a little fast at touchdown, but I think this is due to the nose coming down after catching a wire (AoA decreases/ indicates fast). I have still not been able to fly the lateral portion down the centerline, getting better, but always off to left. The last picture is a mockup of version 10.0 vLSO, includes PLAT Cam Playback, and 2D aircraft view for debrief/playback ;)
-Capt
-
wow, very interesting
-
CAPT...
Yeah, I have that problem but to a lesser extent. Do you put your v/vector on the crotch once you get lined up? I know that helps me, especially once I'm In-The-Middle... all the way to A-R... then I just shoot for a centerline lineup and fly the meatball. AoA doesnt even get into my pattern at A-R, its pretty much set. I do know if you try to put your v/vector on the "expected" touchdown point thru the whole pass, it wont work. Another thing you can try is fly a complete VISUAL LINEUP, old school without real-world HUD "cheats". Meaning fly the plane to keep the angled deck and extended lineup stick on the back of the boat lined-up throughout the pass... So your scan pattern goes something like this:
x- meatball, SHIP LINEUP, AoA; IM- meatball, ship lineup, AoA; IC- meatball, ship lineup, AoA (last quick glance); AR- meatball, ship lineup; IW- hold what ya got.
Dont know how you fly the approach using the HUD lined up at "expected" touchdown, using the HUD v/vector "crotch cheat", or "actual ship lineup", but the two I mentioned a try and let us know what your results are. My posted results are using the HUD "crotch cheat" method. I'll be using the "ship lineup" method to see what the vLSO reports.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks Sludge,
I typically fly using the method you describe, putting the VV in the "crotch" position (mock up picture attached below, which shows what I aim for). Sometimes I have to put the VV even further to the right to get lined up. I think this is due to my Start (X) technique.
When you are completing your turn from the 90, to start the approach and enter the groove, do you compensate by flying a litter further to the right of percieved centerline to account for the runway offset and movement away from you? Or do you turn to line up with the centerline at the start? I included a picture below to illustrate what I mean.
Finally a question for Serge when he returns from vacation, how is the "time in groove" calculated? I thought 15 to 17 seconds was a good time, but I keep getting ~30 seconds, even with a tight turn into the groove (0.7NM start).
-CAPT
-
capthaltli, to answer your question about line up during approach. There is no 'drifting' (gradually coming back to centreline to be there at the ramp for example). As has been said 'meatball, line up and airspeed (Opt. AoA)'. There is no other (HUD for part of the way I would suggest is used by experienced pilots rather than newbies as I understand). Technique is to be on or getting very quickly to the three parameters.
The angle deck is moving forwards and because of the angle the angle deck is moving to the right of any aircraft lined up - all the time. Necessarily to stay on centreline the aircraft has to 'nibble' (make small wing downs) to the right all the time. Keep all the parameters as close to ideal as possible all the time. If out of alignment then get back ASAP and stay there. Yes I know easier said than done but that is carrier aviation. ;D
ADDITION: Also 'crossing the wake' is important before lining up on centreline of angle deck (see illustration attached)
The reason for 'no drifting' is that if you can manage to use this land based airforce technique then you will be at the ramp with the nose of the aircraft not pointing down the angle deck. The LSO will have waved you off anyway but if you do arrest it is likely you have a bad off centre arrest causing perhaps problems for your aircraft and others.
Yes 15-20 seconds in groove is ideal AFAIK. Probably the shorter the better.
If and when F-35C automatic landings become standard during the day then JPALS would have to be in use (not available yet) and it would need to be done from this kind of day circuit most likely unless somehow a long straight in approach with successive aircraft being close together is devised, using the precision of JPALS. Having short time landing intervals is critical during the day to get aircraft aboard expeditiously so that the carrier can do other things off the BRC or whatever.
-
CAPT...
I dont think I intentionally over-compensate to the right but I'll have to check on that when I do more patterns to give you a more thought out answer.
BTW, as you can see from my pics, I also have the overly-long time in the groove. I've counted and its actually around 20 secs, so have to find out from Serge when he gets back, how thats counted.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks, Sludge and Spaz.
I flew several approaches last night, I think I am close. I also noticed the carrier did not stop the entire time I was flying Serge's mission, not sure what I did differently.
Below is a picture of a more centered flight path (lateral) from the LSO debrief, and also a 2D HUD view after my start in the groove. Does my sight picture/ line up look correct, or should I be more to the right?
Everytime I fly I think of something new for Serge, this time I was thinking after trapping XX amount of times with acceptable passes, the vLSO could trigger an LSO call which says you are qual'd. If you have too many wave offs or one wires, the LSO should tell you to shut down or RTB.
-CAPT
-
From the 'lineup' screenshot you are a little bit left - perhaps lined up with the left side/edge (ladder?) of the angled flight deck rather than lined up with the centreline.
-
I am geting scoring from the lso but I have no sound from lsa calls......tried starting lso first , fsx first and still the same thing. The sound file in in the vLSO file folder that was placed in FSX
-
Tom,
Regarding your LSO sound issue, first do you have the on screen messages checked, and do you see the LSO text messages on the top of the screen ? Second, I would move the entire vLSO folder, which contains the vLSO.exe (this is important) and sound folder (as well as other files), from FSX to your desktop. If you run the vLSO.exe file directly from the main vLSO folder the sounds should work. I moved the vLSO.exe out of the folder at first, and had no sounds until I moved it back to the main folder. The only other thing I can think of, is you might want to check your sound settings in FSX, make sure "voices" volume is set to high.
-Capt
-
T-45C Rear Seat View Carrier Approach from Base Turn - crossing the wake - short final (about 15-7 seconds?) .WMV Video Zipped attached
-
SpazSinbad,
Amazing video; I am surprised by how close to the ship the plane is at the start and the speed with which the landing is completed.
Thanks for the post.
Tregarth
-
One can be too close - in which case the LSO will call 'waveoff'. However one can fly the ball in the last part of the turn before wings level. Carriers like good, short successful landing intervals between aircraft so that the carrier can do other stuff and not just flight ops.
-
An 'oldie but a goodie'.... (zipped .WMV video) An A-4B Deck Lands on USS Randolph with the mirror on the starboard side. Note the aircraft is turning before reaching abeam the LSO and it is a short 'seemingly high' approach (depends on where the camera is and zoom setting probably). Note the short straightaway. Note the nose movement and ball in mirror.
N.B. This video is so old that the A-4B may not have had an AoA Indexer, relying on airspeed only. Cannot be certain of details of the clip etc.
-
Serge, just wanted to say I really like that every time you fire up the vLSO and fly you get a new set of LSO audio clips. Last night I flew with the LSO with the nonchalant "Roger ball", he almost sounds upset, or indifferent about you flying the approach.
One thing I noticed flying a couple passes with the hook up, I never got any Bolter, Bolter calls from the LSO, has anyone else had this happen?
Capt
-
During CQ or as required (keeping current) it is legitimate to do 'hook up' carrier approaches. These 'touch and goes' or 'crashes and dashes' (usually terms for runway landings) are not 'bolters'. Bolters occur when the hook skips over the wires after touchdown in a hook down approach. Hence reason for going to full power in case this happens - it is unpredictable and not always caused by the pilot - just part of the landscape.
-
I've heard this call on several carrier qual PLAT cam tapes in the US, when the aircraft flies the approach with the hook up, usually the first two passes, the LSOs calls Bolter Bolter after they touch down. Obviously the touch and go is expected by all (pilot and LSO) but maybe the call is still made for habit or pattern recognition, for example if the LSO didn't say Bolter after touching down it would be more similar to catching a wire, even though the pilot response is the same, apply mil power.
Have you heard differently for us navy ops?
-
Can you point to those PLAT tapes online please? Seems unusual to me. Perhaps it is done (hook up bolter call) as a precaution. It seems that the LSO is assuming the pilot is really dumb. The pilot may well be. ;D
-
Spaz I have them on DVD, sorry.
Serge, ignore my earlier comment, i am now getting the Bolter calls, thanks.
-
During CQ touch and go’s are required to simulate bolters. In the past there have been s#!t-hot SNA’s who did trap every time with their hook down and never got to experience a bolter. So the “bounces” are required so that everyone knows what its like to not catch a wire. Now, LSO’s can decide to make the experience even more like a real bolter by calling out “bolter” when the jet hits the deck. From what I understand, it’s really just a matter of preference to the people on the platform.
-
This is not the case. Firstly usually two touch and goes are done for first ever deck landings then the arrests/cats follow. It is a big deal to put the hook down and then arrest and catapult for the first time. The touch and goes are for the pilot to get a look at the deck for the first time and LSO to look at the student doing that safely.
__________
Good story here by a now 'old/bold' NeptunusLex (just now getting back to civvie/military aviation after retiring as a Captain USN with time at 'TopGun' & as LSO):
First CQ
"Hook up for two touch and goes..." & "...Then the order from the Air Boss: "925, hook down." I lowered the tailhook, and started my third approach...."
&
"...Three more landings just like that and I would be done, a qual.
I don't remember any of them. It is all a blur of violence and noise.
But that was the point of all the training at the field, the simulators, lectures and flights. They taught us to be predictable, to listen to the LSO's unhesitatingly, to operate a high performance jet on an almost instinctual level, on brain stem power.
But I do remember hearing four short words just after my last cat shot, and my "bingo" to the beach: "925 you're a qual."
No sweeter words were ever heard."
http://homepage.mac.com/lexl/iblog/C744401703/E226842115/index.html
___________________
Becoming a Tail-Hooker Apr 1, 2011 By Fred George | San Diego
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/04/04/AW_04_04_2011_p86-303846.xml&headline=Becoming a Tail-Hooker&channel=awst
"...Eight seconds after the lead aircraft broke left, Thompson also snapped his Goshawk into the overhead break. He extended landing gear and flaps, and led down to 600 ft. on the downwind leg. But he left his tail hook retracted. The first two landings on the Nimitz would be touch-and-goes to give the landing signal officer (LSO or “paddles”) final checks of Thompson’s flying skills before OK’ing his first attempt at an arrested landing...."
&
"...After the second touch-and-go pass, he heard, “Three two zero. Hook down next pass,”
from the LSO, confirming Thompson was ready for his first “trap” on the boat...."
-
Gif Graphic from PDF below:
http://www.wings-of-gold.com/cnatra/instructions/CNATRA3740.9Dwch1234%20-%20Pumpkin.pdf
-
ok
-
Fine, for the fun of it lets break it down:
This is not the case.
Really? What in your references contradicts what I said?
Firstly usually two touch and goes are done for first ever deck landings then the arrests/cats follow.
Yep, I kind of mentioned that.
It is a big deal to put the hook down and then arrest and catapult for the first time.
No kidding. So do you think practicing a bolter PRIOR to that by doing a touch and go might be important? Furthermore, if you have a "firstly" in your argument you should have a "secondly", which you do not.
The touch and goes are for the pilot to get a look at the deck for the first time and LSO to look at the student doing that safely.
So the hook being up somehow increases the level of saftey during the approach? No. If the pilot isn't flying it right, they get waved off, period. Hook down or not.
You seem to have a tendancy to tell people on this forum that "this is not the case", or "you are lined up wrong", or whatever you choose to criticize on that particular day. This, in combination with your obsession with the hook bypass switch, is earning you a place very near James Chams on this forum. How about you stop trying to pick fights? Or are you going to prove your point with yet ANOTHER PDF file?
-
Secondly I'll ignore irrelevant comments made (Chams & Hook Bypass - whatever).
Your first sentence: "During CQ touch and go’s are required to simulate bolters." is incorrect. If you look at the Gif graphic from the PDF mentioned you will see 'T&G Trap'. 'T&G' is shorthand for Touch and Go - not 'simulated bolter'. This is one definition of a 'bolter' from a reliable source, I'm sure you can find others:
Bolt, Bolter http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm#B
"A carrier landing attempt in which the tailhook fails to engage any of the arresting wires, requiring a “go-around,” and in which the aircraft landing gear contacts the deck."
If your definition of 'CQ touch and go's' stands then all FCLP passes are 'simulated bolters'. A touch and go ashore or afloat is what it is - not a bolter.
I hope this clears things up for you. And yes here is another 'big deal' story for putting the hook down for the first time.
My First Carrier Landing/Trap Aboard the Navy's T-45, Goshawk trainer By Michael C. Biemiller, US Navy
http://www.biemiller.com/fstrap.htm
"...We finally were cleared into the break at 800 feet over the water. The break is the way you enter the carrier landing pattern. I lowered my gear and came in for my first landing. The first two passes you make during Carrier Qualification are hook-up touch and go's. You just fly a normal approach and become airborne again when you touch the deck....
...My first pass with the hook down was the biggest adrenaline rush I've ever had. It felt like my entire body was vibrating. I probably had enough adrenaline running through my system to allow everyone reading this to go outside and lift your car over your head and spin it on your little finger. It was intense. I just concentrated on "flying the ball" just like I've always done on the field...."
Firstly I'll be happy to apologise for my manner of communication on this forum. It is not intended to offend. And who is James Chams and yes I provide references for my statements - do you?
-
Finding more photos of the PALM in use would be handy. ;D Photos without context or text describing the scene can be easily misinterpreted if features otherwise unknown. To me the metal spiral rings are easily seen.
However to me it looks like the hard cover spiral bound notebook has colour graphs inside which the LSOs are consulting. OK. Bear in mind I have not seen a PALM handheld device for about a decade. What happened to them anyway. Mobile phones and BlackBerries took over eh.
Quote above from PAGE 5 of this thread: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4138.60
Palm Pilot in use: http://www.biemiller.com/v20-3-palm.jpg
From: http://www.biemiller.com/fstrap.htm Relevance is to earlier pages referencing images of 'Palm Pilots' in use.
"...the photo above is Navy Lt. Mike Biemiller, now a seasoned pilot and landing signal officer for Sea Control Squadron (VS)-38, recording a landing evaluation on his Palm..."
-
Micro and Spaz,
Having read posts from both of you, I've learned a lot. You guys are very knowledgeable and I know both of you have "real world" experience. No reason for the pissing contest.
Nick
-
Nick, I quite agree.
The object of the thread is to impove the pleasure and challenge of a carrier deck landing using amazing software which peole have generously donated free.
It would be a great shame if two very knowledgable people spoiled it by, as you say, getting into a pissing contest. Can I please ask that the thread returns to the subject of producing a really good "Greenie Board" by building on FSX NP's marvellous work?
Thanks,
Tregarth
-
Tree and Nicka...
Yes, we need to get back to more discussions about how to improve the vLSO program and the other things, but I think the point Micro was making is that he has a VERY VALID point of view and Spaz just bullied the discussion HIS WAY. This is ridiculous. Now I wouldn't go so far as to call him Chams, as thats a long thread in and of itself, but Spaz does need to understand that others have valid points of view and to NOT SHUT THEM DOWN.
This is not the case.
OK, who made Spaz the all-seeing/all-knowing US Naval Aviation God? It would've been far different if he would just say he disagrees, cite his articles, and moves on. But no, he attempts to SHUT DOWN Micro by just telling him what you just said isnt true. No, that's not how things should work.
And I of all people know about this recently, as I had to "go it alone" about the NATOPS approach speed vs. FSX approach speed vs. REAL-WORLD videos and Hornet pilot reported approach speeds. I thought I had it figured out but a good post from JR got me back in the right frame of mind and re-questioning whether LEF/TEF AUTO-FLAPS was right. It wasn't and I never posted back to JR or anybody else in a way that was condescending or bullying, even though I was sure I was on the right track.
Later
Sludge
-
I'm very surprised that my claim that 'this is not the case' has everyone riled up. Perhaps a poor choice of words. I make no other claims however. I'm very happy to learn from this forum and I have. Thanks.
-
Pardon the inquisition, but has this thread (along with accompanying project for VLSO) "gone the way of all flesh" and just died out from lack of interest and/or squabbling about "whose is bigger"?
Anyway, on the off chance that anyone is still out there, I pose the following situation and question:
I am working with the beta software and using the VRS superbug to fly the patterns.
The problem is that no matter what the configuration (wt, flaps, etc.) the VLSO consistently waves the bird off for "Speed a little high". This despite I am quite frequently indicating near stall for the weight as indicated in the A1-F18EA-NFM-200 Landing Approach Speed chart XI-9-4.
Is this being considered, approached, researched or explained. It just seems that the VLSO doesn't know the wt of the airplane, and hence applies some "arbitrary" speed target value.
Just wondered about this, and also if the project is still going on in stealth mode somewhere else?
-
TEX...
The thread hasnt died 'cause of a squabble, its died 'cause most of the stuff is now being discussed on the "vLSO Alpha" thread now. Come on over there, post your questions there, and let Serge know what's happening with your passes.
Later
Sludge
-
...
It just seems that the VLSO doesn't know the wt of the airplane, and hence applies some "arbitrary" speed target value.
...
texxasal,
getting 'a little fast' means that your AoA is not optimal and is somewhere between 7.4 and 6.9. An optimum AoA for carrier landings is 8.1, as per NATOPS Flight Manuals for both Hornet models.
PS. Don't worry, the thread (as well as the vLSO project) is not dead. Just remember, most of us spend our spare/free time for this and other projects. That's because some 'delays' may occur from time to time... :)
-
There are references to 'iPARTS' in this thread so I think it is useful to see how it has progressed to date from JUNE 2012 LSO PADDLES MONTHLY NEWSLETTER:
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJune2012.pdf
iPARTS Goes To Sea...
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJune2012.pdf
“As part of the Limited Objective Evaluation (LOE) for the Improved Performance And Readiness Training System (iPARTS), three members from the project team joined VFA-122 aboard the USS John C. Stennis for an FRS CQ Detachment. The objective was to observe and respond to issues presented by training squadron LSOs while using iPARTS to record and document CQ. Paddles response to iPARTS during CQ was overwhelmingly positive.
During the CQ evaluation, Paddles used the iPARTS handheld for approximately 4 hours per day on the platform and the iPARTS laptop for an unknown amount of time in the ready room to analyze the data and to prepare reports. Except for a few small bugs, iPARTS reliably performed as expected. Of note, the robustness of the Yuma handheld device endured not only long hours of continued operation but also stood up to the ship’s Air Search Radar electromagnetic radiation bursts; a concern since most COTS devices are not heavily shielded against such EMR. The LSOs were not hindered in their ability to enter passes during any of these issues; in-stead, iPARTS was working sufficiently well and reliably during the entire CQ detachment. Beyond the evaluation in the context of the LOE, Paddles quickly took a liking to iPARTS and embraced its features and conveniences.
Although iPARTS cannot currently be used as the sole recording system due to its current lack of accreditation, the LSO School is actively pursuing a sponsor to make it a permanent program of record.”