Helmet-mounted displays

[Gums]

Salute!

Good war stories.

Can tellya that I never had one HUD failure in my 1,600 hours of "HUD time".

I had a few inertial systems go tango uniform, but the basic HUD showed me speed, AoA, and altitude. So all I was missing was that flight path marker. BFD. Because the SLUF attitude was a function of the inertial, it depended on how bad the inertial was. If only the velocities were bad, but attitude was good, then even that showed up on the HUD. Besides, we had the doppler to help with the velocities, and then the "air mass" mode which used attitude and TAS for the flight path marker. Kinda amazing all we had back in 1970, huh?

I also did not trouble shoot when I lost my inertial data. I flew pitch on the steam gauge, cross checked with the HUD, and used basic power for the profile.

As much as I used the HUD, I always did steam gauge approaches every week to stay "sharp". Being very far-sighted, the HUD was easier to use when breaking out at low ceilings, as I didn't have to re-adjust my eyeballs.

I would really like someone who has actually flown with a HUD on a carrier landing to chime in here. I haven't seen anyone here yet, but hope there's somebody.

I repeat!!! I am not a dinosaur. I want the latest and greatest as much as anyone. OTOH, I want at least one back-up system I can trust with my life and that zillion dollar jet.

Gums sends...

[spazsinbad]

Gums, I have read that Hornet pilots will put the VelocityVector? on the 'crotch' (see diagram) during approach but in the middle or close (in close) they will transition to the IFLOLS because it is more accurate in that precise environment. Using ICLS needles is a NoNo also for same reason except to get in close or where the IFLOLS can be clearly seen for the precision approach aspect of 'meatball, lineup and airspeed'. There is a recent post about a nugget using ICLS at night instead of tradition to have a rampstrike. Did you see that post?

Last entry on this page: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... one#233738

In the same way inebriated carrier landing pilots will claim to be able to land onboard with no help from anything or anyone - there are some claiming to be able to do HUD only landings (no IFLOLS etc.). Yeah right. However apparently it is legitimate to use this method for lineup keeping until of course going IFLOLS etc.

“One of real world pilots tricks is using the "crotch" area as a cheat. They put the v/vector [HUD] in the crotch as they are working on landing. Its a visual trick that keeps them on a good lineup.” I would just look at the lineup and use that - no HUD required.

CROTCH Graphic from: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/ ... _CV_03.pdf

2nd graphic is a mashup of how a real world Hornet pilot using FSX would put the VV on the crotch as described with comparo of real world view. I don't use the HUD in FSX so it is all a mystery to me.

[Gums]

Salute!

You and I are on the same page, Spaz.

The HUD flight path vector and steering cues makes the intitial part of the apprach easier than the "old days". At least it shows that you are gonna hit the boat someplace or other. But then for the fine points at the end, those lights are what counts.

I only did a few traps in the Hornet sim at the McAir factory, but that's what I found worked best. Didn't like the auto-throttle doofer, as I preferred the old system of using power for descent rate/angle and stick for AoA/indexer. So may be my dinosaur habits from the A-7 prevailed. LOL. It was also nice to notice that the HUD flight path marker agreed with those lights for the impact point. This would be more helpful at night, best I can tell.

My feeling is that the F-35 pilots will be able to do just fine on the boats without the helmet doofer working up to speed. I just pray that the training will force them to be able to land time after time without the cosmic helmet.

We don't have any Cee pilots here to talk with, but maybe one will show up and I can get some intell. The A and B folks are happy as clams, and the sortie rate is ramping up every week.

Gums sends...

[sketch22]

Gums, as I'm sure you probably know, the F/A-18E/F can autoland on the boat, yet pilots rarely ever use it. I'm sure for the Super Hornet B-course the pilot has to land the aircraft in the sim with just the basics and no HUD/MFDs/JHMCS/etc.. I imagine the F-35 syllabus will be similar.

[spazsinbad]

On previous page 'Rules to Live by' are referenced for carrier approaches. Here are the rules and other LSO funnies...

“When I asked Paddles how to improve my grades:
LSO Answer: ‘Just fly a centred ball all the way to touchdown.’” LSOs are smartarses.
__________________

“Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS). My info is fairly old and may have changed but in a "Mode 1" approach the plane is completely coupled to the ships ACLS data link system. If you ever hear someone call the ball and add "coupled" to the end they are flying Mode 1 (the "auto" call is for when auto-throttles are being used). Mode 1 doesn't get used all that much for a few reasons. First of all, if the ship is even slightly moving around it is uncomfortable. Picture a laser beam being projected out from the 3 wire that represents the aircraft's proper glidepath. Now imagine what that beam does as the boat pitches and rolls in the water. ACLS will keep the jet on that beam, and it can make for a wild ride. Also, the pass won't count toward the pilots grade average. You will generally see guys using Mode 1 after long combat missions where they don't want to mess around and just want to get back aboard.”
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index. ... 1.msg0#new
_______________________

Rules to live by: (gleaned from a Neptunus Lex (also former LSO) story 'RYTHMS Part 13 to 15' [http://www.neptunuslex.com/2005/10/13/rhythms-part-xxxiii/ ] There would be variations perhaps in more 'uptodate' rules but the gist is there.

1) Never lead a low or a slow.

2) If you’re low and slow, add power and maintain attitude until the ball is in the center, then accel to on-speed.

3) Always lead a high or a fast.

4) If you’re high and fast, decel to on-speed and then work the ball down to the center.

5) Fly the ball to touchdown [t/d should be a surprise]. Don’t give up. [Just do it.]

[spazsinbad]

Another way to look at de rools...

‘Paddles Monthly’ June 2012 “TYCOM Corner”

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ne2012.pdf (1.5Mb)

"Flying the pass: As we’ve always been told, and what I’ve just reinforced, is that the pass starts long before the air-plane is in the break. That said, when in the pattern, your utmost concentration is required to constantly correct for any deviation before it puts you out of parameters. My personal advice on correcting deviations is to put LINEUP first in your scan…. This is the hardest to correct…. Secondly, make sure your AOA is squared away. If your lineup & AOA aren’t on, then the information from the BALL will be inaccurate.

A two unit fast or slow aircraft can change the hook position by several feet and often accounts for either bolters or 1 wires though there was a “centered ball”. Once you are receiving the good info by being on centerline and on-speed, you will be able to fly the ball corrections that you’ve been doing since the TRACOM. For high deviations, I submit that correcting for half the deviation works the best….Then, once the correction is complete and under your pro-active ball-flying control, start the process over again. Never correct a high ball to put it in the center. The lowest you should see it is cresting. If you continually work the half deviation corrections, you should never see it back to center. When on the low side, correct for half that deviation to the high side.... Remember, never lead a low! If you don’t lead a low, you will wind up high after correcting from the low. Once there, correct back by half.

This is a gameplan that will get you aboard every time if it is played the whole pass & nothing less than whole pass (translation: FLY the BALL ALL the WAY to TOUCHDOWN).
CDR George “Chum” Walborn, Former CVW-14 Paddles-"

[madrat]

Do the parking spots on the elevator 4 side have a nickname?

[spazsinbad]

I guess not....

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

"...-- The test team continued to work through technical problems with the helmet-mounted display system, which is deficient. The program was addressing five problems at the time of this report. Jitter, caused by aircraft vibrations and exacerbated by aircraft buffet, makes the displayed information projected to the pilot hard to read and unusable under certain flight conditions. Night vision acuity is not meeting specification requirements. Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy. Boresight alignment between the helmet and the aircraft is not consistent between aircraft and requires calibration for each pilot. Finally, a recently discovered technical problem referred to as “green glow” has been experienced when light from the cockpit avionics displays leaks into the helmet-mounted display and degrades visual acuity through the helmet visor under low ambient light conditions. The test team is planning additional, dedicated ground and flight testing to address these technical problems...."

[deadseal]

Gums, I have read that Hornet pilots will put the VelocityVector? on the 'crotch' (see diagram) during approach but in the middle or close (in close) they will transition to the IFLOLS because it is more accurate in that precise environment. Using ICLS needles is a NoNo also for same reason except to get in close or where the IFLOLS can be clearly seen for the precision approach aspect of 'meatball, lineup and airspeed'. There is a recent post about a nugget using ICLS at night instead of tradition to have a rampstrike. Did you see that post?

Last entry on this page: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... one#233738

In the same way inebriated carrier landing pilots will claim to be able to land onboard with no help from anything or anyone - there are some claiming to be able to do HUD only landings (no IFLOLS etc.). Yeah right. However apparently it is legitimate to use this method for lineup keeping until of course going IFLOLS etc.

“One of real world pilots tricks is using the "crotch" area as a cheat. They put the v/vector [HUD] in the crotch as they are working on landing. Its a visual trick that keeps them on a good lineup.” I would just look at the lineup and use that - no HUD required.

CROTCH Graphic from: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/ ... _CV_03.pdf

2nd graphic is a mashup of how a real world Hornet pilot using FSX would put the VV on the crotch as described with comparo of real world view. I don't use the HUD in FSX so it is all a mystery to me.

hope the cable can handle a crab!

picture didnt quote, but it looks like that dude is headed straight for the tower thingi(im not navy, so ill just call it the tower sticking out of the bo at

[spazsinbad]

The USN LSO will not tolerate an 'out of bounds' approach. However as I understand the 'crotch/HUD' method it is used only at the start or from a long way out approach to help keep lineup then it is back to basics/conventional method for 'at the ramp' (or earlier) and beyond. It is an aid to the method. As indicated earlier a nugget thought it was possible to use the ACLS needles as a substitute for the IFLOLS conventional method. ACLS needles are an aid to the method. Transition to the method is required otherwise 'waveoff, waveoff, waveoff'.

Inevitably there is always going to be a small amount of crab during the arrest. The angle deck at 9 degrees with the ship axial centreline moving in a different way to the angle deck ensures this. The task for the carrier pilot is to minimise the crab effect by being aligned fore and aft with the angle deck centreline - at the last second - without being dangerous doing that. Last minute lineup corrections are usually a no no (they introduce other penalties). So being on centreline as well as being within the other carrier landing limits ALL THE TIME (as much as is humanly possible) is the goal of the deck lander. Nothing else will do.

[count_to_10]

Inevitably there is always going to be a small amount of crab during the arrest. The angle deck at 9 degrees with the ship axial centreline moving in a different way to the angle deck ensures this. The task for the carrier pilot is to minimise the crab effect by being aligned fore and aft with the angle deck centreline - at the last second - without being dangerous doing that. Last minute lineup corrections are usually a no no (they introduce other penalties). So being on centreline as well as being within the other carrier landing limits ALL THE TIME (as much as is humanly possible) is the goal of the deck lander. Nothing else will do.

I've wondered for a while why the choice was made to go with an angled landing strip instead of just offsetting the landing strip to the left edge of the deck for deconfliction. Seems like that would be simpler, unless it is necessary for whatever reason for the impact point on the strip to be close to the center line of the ship.

[spazsinbad]

It amazes me how USN LSOs over the years have been attempting to get their pilots to do the perfect carrier landing - despite the pilots resistance. Sometimes there is such a 'perfect approach'. Often such a 'perfect OK underlined' is given only when conditions are difficult - such as during a real emergency approach which is successful. In the process of making life easy for the carrier pilot (probably doing it for themselves [LSOs] in fact) there are many gizmos for the use of.

Consider this. If angle decks are perceived as a problem (and apparently they are not) then why do not the USN go to 'STOP - then LAND' method - ala STOVL? Really - that is the easiest way to land on a moving deck. You are correct that having the landing spot near the least ship movement is a consideration in both VLs and conventional carrier landings. My PDFs about these matters make that clear.

As for having a separate axial deck on the port side - I would say this.... It will have been considered but due to sea keeping considerations - rejected because either the deck overhang was too great (USS Midway was famous for the extensive overhang [13.5 degree angle deck] after being converted from an axial deck carrier to an angle deck - it apparently holds the record for ship roll because of it) OR if the carrier hull was widened also to accommodate the extra deck space as described, then the ship becomes quite different in every aspect. Having a relatively conventional hull with minimal angle deck overhang was seen to be the solution. And of course GOING BIG! Go Big or Go Home.

BTW carrier aircraft these days are designed to handle (within limits) the stresses of being slightly crabbed for landing and slightly off centre arrests (the arrestor gear also designed to deal with this aspect). Go over the limits though and there be trouble. Hence the 'waveoff waveoff waveoff'.

[neurotech]

I guess not....

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

This sounds all sounds worse than it is. With the jitter its mainly a software fix. There are concerns over CPU load in the ICP, but they can upgrade the ICP boards if they really need to, assuming software alone isn't enough to solve the HMD problems/Display problems. The jitter is something that is being fixed, but slowly due to how the buffeting/vibrations are experienced in actual flight conditions. They can't duplicate the dynamic vibration on the ground, to perfectly match flight conditions.

I've previously commented, that the ICP boards don't have significant GPU acceleration, and that may be a factor in all this. There is also concern that the acuity issues are not be the camera itself, but the way the image streams are processed.

The fact is that the F-35 has more flight testing than any jet before it. All these issues are part of flight development. A YF-22 crashed due to a FCS bug and a F-22 crashed due to electrical glitch that hadn't been found in prior testing. Another F-22 crashed in follow-on flight testing.

[quicksilver]

The TIME writer was clearly steered toward the "25% increase in vulnerability" story by the serial leakers in DOT&E since it is not new (decided in 2008) and one of their long-standing pet-peeves. However, there's not really much going on here (in this report). Pretty straight forward recounting of a year of Developmental Test.

The real 'tell' of the report is on the recommendations. Notably they don't have much to carp about except issues they've been harping about for some years now -- removal of the PAO shutoff valves, the fuel-draulic fuses, and dry-bay extinguishing system. Some of the other language is DOT&E code for "we want more money spent in our empire...", in particular, for EW testing.

Follow-on jitter testing occurred after November and, aiui, largely complete. 'Green glow' is inaccurately described in the report and, similarly, testing complete.

Conspicuously they left out any mention of high AoA testing, which has gone exceptionally well.

[neurotech]

The TIME writer was clearly steered toward the "25% increase in vulnerability" story by the serial leakers in DOT&E since it is not new (decided in 2008) and one of their long-standing pet-peeves. However, there's not really much going on here (in this report). Pretty straight forward recounting of a year of Developmental Test.

The real 'tell' of the report is on the recommendations. Notably they don't have much to carp about except issues they've been harping about for some years now -- removal of the PAO shutoff valves, the fuel-draulic fuses, and dry-bay extinguishing system. Some of the other language is DOT&E code for "we want more money spent in our empire...", in particular, for EW testing.

Follow-on jitter testing occurred after November and, aiui, largely complete. 'Green glow' is inaccurately described in the report and, similarly, testing complete.

Conspicuously they left out any mention of high AoA testing, which has gone exceptionally well.

EW is a big issue for the air force. The EA-6Bs will be retired soon, and the EA-18s are still Navy jets.

It's debatable if the F-35B would have been better with a modest thrust increase, instead of trying to reduce weight in areas that effect service life or survivability