3 wire OK why?

[petescheu]

Greater bringback means less taxpayer money dropped into the ocean if it isn't dropped on some stupid terrorist and it's out of limits for asymetry or overall max trap, and it also means more gas on the ball. And that's never a bad thing.
And I love my IFLOLS... IFLOLS trained, IFLOLS cripple...

 

[A4sForever]

Perhaps the most difficult noncombat maneuver in military aviation is landing a jet aircraft on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier. The pilot has to enter a 5- by 20-foot window at 120-140 KIAS---depending on A/C type---often in darkness and/or bad WX.

Again, unless you boys know more than the boys @ the LSO school ..... (and I'm sure many of you do ..... ) :

When a pilot approaches a carrier, the Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS) displays glide-path information as a yellow ball centered between two fixed green datum reference bars. After having established airspeed early in the approach and fixing lineup using the flight-deck marking and lighting, the pilot maintains the ball in a centered position to keep the proper glide slope. Having more precise glide-slope information will make landing ..... "easier". Engineers at STV's Jackson, N.J., office worked closely with their counterparts at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Lakehurst, N.J., to support development of the new system. The Navy designers used digital control, internally stabilized topics, and precision glass lenses to increase the range and better the performance of IFLOLS over the older, established Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS) that I and my predecessors used.

Unlike FLOLS, which uses servomotors to move the entire indicator assembly, IFLOLS is a stationary box that moves only the lamps and image-forming fiber-optic blocks to compensate for the pitching and rolling of the carrier.

IFLOLS was initially successfully tested on the USS George Washington and certified for fleet use. The new system proved to be one-and-a-half times more sensitive than its predecessor, with a range of up to 1.3 miles from the ship, as opposed to 0.75 mile for the FLOLS.

Bring-back (did you miss/couldn't find your target??) and increased landing weights on "possible" A/C acquisitions were a secondary by-product of the original, upgraded, IFLOLS system. Not the other way around ....

 

[A4sForever]

Why would people expect the Super Hornet to bring back more ordanance?

Because it misses/can't find its target(s) ??? .... ouch.

 

[Screamtruth]

Perhaps the most difficult noncombat maneuver in military aviation is landing a jet aircraft on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier. The pilot has to enter a 5- by 20-foot window at 120-140 KIAS---depending on A/C type---often in darkness and/or bad WX.

Again, unless you boys know more than the boys @ the LSO school ..... (and I'm sure many of you do ..... ) :

When a pilot approaches a carrier, the Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS) displays glide-path information as a yellow ball centered between two fixed green datum reference bars. After having established airspeed early in the approach and fixing lineup using the flight-deck marking and lighting, the pilot maintains the ball in a centered position to keep the proper glide slope. Having more precise glide-slope information will make landing ..... "easier". Engineers at STV's Jackson, N.J., office worked closely with their counterparts at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Lakehurst, N.J., to support development of the new system. The Navy designers used digital control, internally stabilized topics, and precision glass lenses to increase the range and better the performance of IFLOLS over the older, established Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS) that I and my predecessors used.

Unlike FLOLS, which uses servomotors to move the entire indicator assembly, IFLOLS is a stationary box that moves only the lamps and image-forming fiber-optic blocks to compensate for the pitching and rolling of the carrier.

IFLOLS was initially successfully tested on the USS George Washington and certified for fleet use. The new system proved to be one-and-a-half times more sensitive than its predecessor, with a range of up to 1.3 miles from the ship, as opposed to 0.75 mile for the FLOLS.

Bring-back (did you miss/couldn't find your target??) and increased landing weights on "possible" A/C acquisitions were a secondary by-product of the original, upgraded, IFLOLS system. Not the other way around ....

Ok. Let me see if I have this. I understand the use of the ball, similar to a VASI or PAPI, right? So how do you line up on the centerline? Is there a type of localizer or visual indicators? I always thought there to be more to the IFLOLS than just glideslope, but I guess even at my airport, all we have is a VASI, then of course the huge a$$ centerline down the length of the runway, but on a carrier with the deck angle and a moving centerline, I was curious if there are any type of approach aids for the pilot.

 

[DanMa1156]

I understand that you can't bring back more than you started with -- but I wasn't aware that the Super Hornet had a heaver landing weight nor did I know that the Legacy birds just drop off their ordanance for landing weight very often if I am understanding correctly. Thanks everyone.

 

[Schnugg]

Tomcat max trap 54k.
Lineup is done by simply looking down the angle...big white stripe inthe day Using the drop lights and centerline lights at night. Kind of like driving a car you stay in the middle of the lane by looking down the lane. Pilots are told to look down the angle for lineup. Also a back up LSO will hawk lineup on the in deck PLAT camera that they see on the platform.

Meatball, lineup, angle of attack.

Have never physically flown the ball but have helped a lot of nuggets get aboard day and night from 6' back.

r/
G

 

[Fly Navy]

Have never physically flown the ball but have helped a lot of nuggets get aboard day and night from 6' back.

r/
G

"Please don't kill me, please don't kill me, please don't kill me"

What is that like, flying with a new nugget who may be a bit shaky?

 

[A4sForever]

First of all, I'm not trying to say that I know more than the guys at the LSO school. I was just told by the LSOs on the Reagan that the A-12 was the reason for three wires when I landed there.

Second, I can't agree that increased bring-back is a result of the IFLOLS. That just doesn't make sense. Increased bring-back is a result of A/C design improvement. And the A/C wasn't desinged based on the IFLOLS. Increased bring-back is not always the result of a poor aviator that couldn't find the target (if I'd missed it I wouldn't still have it would I?). Just one example is unforseen cloud cover covering the area on a target designated for a laser-guided bomb. There are a lot of reasons to bring $$$expensive$$$ unused ordnance back on board.

Finally, if you're going to copy and paste an article and pass it as your own work, at least give the original author a little credit:
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/november97/departments/newsnote/news_note.html

And of course: :icon_smil

Hey, throttle back, Jack. I'm not raggin' on one of my favorite Nuggets. Not even close. Actually, I wasn't even thinking of you when I said "some" think they know more than the boys @ the LSO school --- I know you're more level headed than that .... right???

Pass it off as my own "work"??? I don't remember saying it was "mine" -- just putting out some information for all to understand the system . And I didn't attribute nor post a link because I only used part of the article and put a little of my own stuff in it, hoping to edit out some of the dry stuff and (perhaps?) make it more understandable to the non F-18/non Aviators amongst us. The original stuff was buried in a long collection of articles that had nothing to do with USS BOAT nor IFLOLS. Besides, it was late and I didn't want to take the time --- and what was the point?? To put out information or to have people herein kiss my ring ??? Certainly not to pat myself on the back, may I assure one and all. I have no pride in authorship from using some else's stuff --- especially when that "stuff" is available for any/all to see with a quick web search -- wouldn't make too much sense, would it?? That's a pretty weak criticism of my post .... ??? Especially when you've seen me post links and attribute quotes to others in the past .....

If you don't like it or just disagree, then just say so --- but really, who cares??? I'm just passing on what the boys @ LSO school said to me --- personally. They don't post their stuff online, otherwise I would have used their "stuff". Would I have "attributed" ... probably, as I just did (again). They know more about the current state of USS BOAT than anyone on this website. Now how's THAT for "author" attribution --- does THAT meet anyone's "journalistic test"?? Or does anyone care ... ???

And "misses/can't find" (both visual "misses" in the sense of flying by it .... i.e., not "finding" it) was suppose to be something of a joke. A joke, you know ??? Even though it's happened in reality. Can't remember the year ... early/middle 90's (? ... we used the event as justification of the A-6 system) during Southern Watch when 8 targets (each) were given to A-6's and F-18's. Weather was a factor ... the A-6's killed 7 of 8 targets, the F-18's killed 1 of 8. Bad day for 7 of 8 ragheads in the A-6 crosshairs and a bad day for some F-18 drivers ....

A joke .... wow, who could know??? Oh, yeah, BTW ... I put AW "smiles" in things because I dislike the whole " " concept in our society --- kind of a satire, if you will --- not because I "like" 'em.

This site is not worth "Comrades in Arms" (even though our timing was a little off) arguing or taking shots @ one another over most of the stuff we post herein .... would you agree ??? I guarantee you it's not worth it to me.


Merry Christmas, boys ....

 

[mules83]

I got bored and went through navy.mil pics and found these pics showing FLOLS and MOVLAS. I thought it was interesting. After reading about it, the MOVLAS (Mobile Visual Landing Aid System) backs up the FLOLS if it craps out.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/040430-N-0119G-001.jpg

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030320-N-4142G-002.jpg

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/050118-N-4757S-023.jpg

 

[petescheu]

They also use it when the deck is moving too much due to the sea state and the normal lens can't keep up and gets all out of whack...

 

[kmac]

Or when the airwing needs their grades to improve.

Also, I heard the A-12/3 wires story back at Pax River. Now let me ask, if each individual cell on the source of the IFLOLS changes, is there a roll angle still?

 

[Punk]

Or when the airwing needs their grades to improve.

Also, I heard the A-12/3 wires story back at Pax River. Now let me ask, if each individual cell on the source of the IFLOLS changes, is there a roll angle still?

Yes, there is.

One drawback still to the IFLOLS because of its increased sensitivity (got this from our LSO's who flew it in the fleet, pretty much anything I say on this board concerning anything ball flying/day VFR pattern is what was taught to me by my LSO's, so no, I wouldn't, nor would I think I know more than the LSO's ) was that during excessive deck movement, the gyros couldn't keep up with the ship's motion.

 

[kmac]

Yes, there is.

One drawback still to the IFLOLS because of its increased sensitivity (got this from our LSO's who flew it in the fleet, pretty much anything I say on this board concerning anything ball flying/day VFR pattern is what was taught to me by my LSO's, so no, I wouldn't, nor would I think I know more than the LSO's ) was that during excessive deck movement, the gyros couldn't keep up with the ship's motion.

I'm referring to the roll angle associated with different hook-to-eye distances; not deck movement.

 

[A4sForever]

I'm referring to the roll angle associated with different hook-to-eye distances; not deck movement.

Yes, and .... yes, I think.

In any case, roll angle is always associated with hook-to-eye --- different for each A/C type --- while deck movement is supposed to be compensated for by the gyro stabilization of the lens --- it's not a new concept --- been doing it for decades. The ship frequently pitches, rolls, and heaves out of limits for the lens, however, and that's when the LSO's earn their money.

My first night CQ on the Ticonderoga consisted of calling the ball and the LSO responded: "Dont' look at the ball, the ship's pitching out of limits, don't look at the drop-lights, she's rolling out of limits ..... just listen to me ..... " I thought: "What in the hell am I suppose to look at???" So I just stared into the pinpoints of light in the darkness and listened .... and trapped. 6 times that night. No fun.

When waving, we would use MOVLAS (Manually Operated Visual Landing Aid System, if memory serves me) to target certain wires when we had less than 4 wires .... also when the ship was pitching out of normal FLOLS limits (which happened all too much --- think Sea of Japan or even San Clemente channel). Sometimes we would just use it to maintain our LSO currency, train new LSO's, and keep the pilots "wired" to respond to MOVLAS ball visual images and movement. It's diffenent and requires the max coordination and trust between the LSO and pilot.

 

[KBayDog]

My first night CQ on the Ticonderoga consisted of calling the ball...

...and the LSO responded: "Dont' look at the ball, the ship's pitching out of limits, don't look at the drop-lights, she's rolling out of limits ..... just listen to me ..... "

I thought: "What in the hell am I suppose to look at???"

So I just stared into the pinpoints of light in the darkness and listened ....

and trapped. 6 times that night.