Forum: F-35 Avionics

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 27, 2012 - 10:36 PM; edited 1 time in total

Yes I understand that UAVs have to fly to the deck without a pilot onboard. Very Happy

However with a pilot in such circumstances when he is completely blind - night, fog, no nuttin' - then doing a 'blind' carrier landing is going to be a big ask. Anyway here is some perhap old now input into what it does take:

Approach / July, 2003
Bad-weather CV approaches - ORM corner - operational risk management and constant velocity by Brian Schrum

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 109130560/

"Let's stop right here and ask the question, "With the weather minimums continuing to drop, just how far along an approach can we wave an aircraft without a paddles contact?"

"Paddles contact" refers to a call the LSOs can make to "grab" an aircraft from CATCC and talk him down to the landing area. To help answer this question, here are some ORM controls for the bad-weather hazard:

1. Weather minimums for our approach.
a. For an ACLS approach and ILS with PAR
monitor, the minimums are 260 feet, one-half-mile
visibility. [extra 60 feet is for the flight deck height above the waves]
b. If ACLS and ILS are not working, minimums
are 660 feet, one and one-quarter miles for jets
and 460 feet, one mile for props.
2. CAG and squadron paddles experience levels.
3. Individual pilot training and experience levels.
4. CATCC equipment and crew experience.
5. LSO platform equipment.
6. Ship's instrument-approach equipment.

What was the status of these controls during our recovery? Approach minimums, like those we fly with at our destination airfields back home, are hard and fast. Just like at the field, if we don't see our landing area and cannot complete a safe landing, we wave off--as mandated in OPNAV 3710....

...How about Hornet pilots flying a Mode 1 approach (basically an autopilot approach to the carrier deck)? The letter of the law states that even Mode 1s can only be flown to ACLS approach minimums. A deviation would require a waiver from higher authority...."

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 27, 2012 - 10:35 PM; edited 2 times in total

As a reminder of the future perhaps (and I agree with 'neptune' it is very likely to come about).

‘Bedford Array’ May Have F-35C Uses After All

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... caj#201204

SCROLL DOWN to specifically:
WHAT THE FUTURE BEHOLDS... VX-23 Salty Dogs

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (1.7Mb)

"C-2, E-2, and Prowler pilots, have you ever made fun of a Hornet guy for declaring an emergency at the boat for a HUD failure? Doesn't everyone realize that the HUD is our primary attitude reference? Have you ever thought less of someone for doing a Mode I? Well things are about to get better or worse, depending on how you look at it. This month's article is about the Tomorrowland projects coming down the pipe...."

Complete text with explanatory graphics on the thread page.

Salute!

@ neptune

There's the "abort" button for the drone pilot. I assume the drone goes to some alt and course for the next attempt. And remember, "drones are fearless".

For all:

Sometimes the cosmic systems make things easier when the old stuff fails.

To wit:

So one day with solid WX from 15K down to maybe 1500 feet, started down to a st-in ILS approach at the Beach. About 12K the airspeed began to increase from 300 kt and altitude remained at about 12K. The pitot-static heaters had failed.

Not to fear. The inertial data was independent and still good. So used basic power setting for the descent and flight path vector in the HUD and on the ADI. Groundspeed data from inertial was still valid, so I didn't get slow or fast.

About 5 or 6K the air data came back and no big deal. If the freezing level had been down real low, then the HUD would have been critical.

Gums sends...

Gums, you remind me of the recent Air France accident when pitot icing brought down the aircraft with pilots unaware of the bad situation they were in. Anyway I have a mass of stuff so bear with my often late additions of extra info to threads. Here is an F-35 front panel graphic from the LSO Newsletter July 2011 showing the actual position of the SFD Standby Flight Display:

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ly2011.pdf (3Mb)

This July 2011 LSO Newsletter is referred to in the first page of this thread about 'Bedford Array' and potential use in USN etc.:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ham#199972
_____________________

I did not realise that the Main Display has the 'HUD' in it as shown from same newsletter above PLUS zoom of the HUD portion added.

How many billion has been spent on this Bird? And that's the best graphics they could come up with??? Doh

More graphics requires more coding, more CPU power to display, more energy to process, and more money.

No thanks

I'm hoping it's a dumbed down version for display only.

meatshield, perhaps you might think about the process under which the graphics above have been processed. I would guess that a hand held camera took the F-35 PCD photo not under ideal conditions. Then it was used in Microsoft Publisher to make a poor quality PDF (yes I can tell these things from the LSO newsletter PDF). Then I have zoomed into the PDF on screen to make a screenshot which has then been made into a .GIF graphic. No wonder the quality is CRAP! <sarcasm> Oh and I forgot once the .GIF graphic is uploaded to this website it is displayed in a dumbed down way - not the same as if one would download the graphic to view on your own computer. Of course real life viewing would be best but I cannot arrange that - not even for myself.

IF you refer to the quality of the symbology seen then keep in mind that it can all be zoomed by the pilot and adjusted for suitable viewing. What is really important will be displayed on the HMDS whilst the PCD is for 'head down' flying only. Computers find/select suitable targets and screen out irrelevant material. The pilot is familiar with what is displayed whereas we do not have that same familiarity. It is all meant to be recognisable (with training) in an instant. Go back to previous page to read about quality/brightness and presumably quality of display.

Of course no one would expect to fly (except in a warbird) with such woeful instrumentation today but it was useful to ponder with head down instrument flying that one's hand on control column obscured the Attitude Indicator (this is the one with Gyro Precession - the later Sea Venom did not have this problem)! This JPG is of the dual Vampire trainer setup. The three needle altimeter was also an acknowledged killer. It was easy to misread the smallest thickest needle if it happened to be obscured by the others - hence possible to misread altimeter by 10,000 feet which is likely what happened to one chap over the water at night on an instrument approach back to NAS Nowra.

For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

alloycowboy wrote:

For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

Shack.

Would also add that excessive light and/or poorly conceived cockpit lighting create reflections on the inside of the canopy that can diminish NVC/NVG performance.

Cowboy's pics show some representative 'admin' displays only. Important to note that each 8x10 can be divided into as many as six separate display tiles (one larger on top, 2 smaller at the bottom -- times 2), one large display on each 8x10, or combinations thereof.

Hopefully helmet fires will be a thing of the past with the F-35.

Quote:

Hopefully helmet fires will be a thing of the past with the F-35.

I've heard of fighter pilots in the older jets flying around with their 'hair on fire'. Shocked

alloycowboy wrote:

For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

Yep I get that.

I work in heavy industry(power station) and we used similar type of graphics for our HMI 20 years ago! We also had a light pen instead of a mouse to use it. My point is modern HMI in industry today are light years ahead for what those screens look like. Current Fighter pilots might like it that way for a reason but I bet the next generation coming out of school today will look at that and think they can get a better display on a nintendo!

I read an article about the upgrades to the SH and the displays in the PR stuff showed colour 3d screen showing threats from ememy radar. Display was simple, clear, modern and 3d. I thought the F35 would have something like that.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone but if bought a f35 for .............(insert price here!) then I would have thought the displays were going to be cutting edge.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 29, 2012 - 02:13 AM; edited 1 time in total

'meatshield' how about you show us (or show us where to get it) this SH PR stuff display to illustrate what you mean? Thanks.

Here is a video screenshot about a HORNET trainer - I don't know fidelity of display though.

F/A -18c Cockpit Module
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... p_8GV-HvVg

Forum: F-35 Avionics

Helmet-mounted displays