Greenie Board Possibilities?

[micro]

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.

[SpazSinbad]

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...."

[SpazSinbad]

Gif Graphic from PDF below:

http://www.wings-of-gold.com/cnatra/instructions/CNATRA3740.9Dwch1234%20-%20Pumpkin.pdf

[micro]

ok

[micro]

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?

[SpazSinbad]

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?

[SpazSinbad]

Finding more photos of the PALM in use would be handy.    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..."

[nicka117]

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

[Tregarth]

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

[Sludge]

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

[SpazSinbad]

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.

[texxasal]

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?

[Sludge]

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

[Paddles]

...
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...  

[SpazSinbad]

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.”