Carrier Landings, difference between Day & Night

Don't know if this is a re-post or not, but came across this video of side-by-side taping of a Night landing next to a Day landing.

Plane used for both is a S-3 Viking and the carrier is the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The Night landing looks a lot tougher and this was in relatively calm seas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5zgJFYFIRg]The Difference Between Day and Night - YouTube[/ame]

.

 

I read somewhere that the US is the only country that practices night carrier ops. The rest of the world think it too dangerous...

 

Can anyone blame them when you see that small dot of light surrounded by TOTAL blackness?

 

The rest of the world, in this case, means France and almost Russia/Britain/China. France was the only nation with a real carrier, flat decked with real jets. The others were small ski jump deals.

So right now there is only 1 real carrier outside of the US navy and that is the Charles De Gaullle. The brits are about to step up in a big way the HMS Queen Elizabeth, a (mostly) real carrier with F-35's.

see here -- Flickr: QEClassCarriers' Photostream



edit found this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier
US Navy, really the only game in town

 

He'll fixed wing guys have it easy, try putting a helicopter down on the deck with other helicopters turning in the front and back of you, Onto that moving ship weather calm seas or pitching and rolling Yeah pucker factor in full effect.

 

I'd be curious to know how much flying time the average pilot has when he starts carrier training. I'm assuming it's not as much as most people would think. Looks like fun to me. Looking back, I wish I would have done some military flying.

 

Lou,

I think I had about 55 hours in T-34C's. No real carrier training in T-34's. After T-34's we moved on to T-2's. As I recall, we start carrier practice right off the bat in T-2's at the end of most flights. I think I had about 70/80 hours in T-2's when we got our 4 traps in Intermediate jets. Another 80/90 hours in TA-4's when we get 6 traps.

So maybe 130 or so hours when we get our first traps. This is old info, as both T-2's and A-4's are gone.

Dogdish

 

I have noting but praise for you guys!

 

Sounds like they have you do it, before you realize how insane it is!

 

As someone who spent a lot of time at 200-400' AGL at 540-570 knots in the dark, sometimes even getting shot at while doing it, that night landing on a carrier looks scary as all get out. Even worse than tossing an LGB from low level at night.

 

mmmmm and here I am looking at 70-80 hours to get my PPL.....how many different ways do I spell inadequate ???


You boys are top notch

 

We used to have real carriers, that could trap Phantoms and Buccaneers, but then we decided ( well the socialist government did) that the national health service was more important than national defense. Easy to over look defense when Uncle Sam is protecting you I guess

 

Impressive what these pilots do, day or night.

Stupid question I'm sure, but why don't the pilots wear night vision goggles to help them see?

 

Many years ago I got to sit in an A-7 simulator at NAS Cecil Field as they ran a tape of a night carrier landing. It was amazing to start out with a tiny dot of light in the middle of the screen and realize that that's what you were going to be landing on! Even at the moment just before the trap, it still looked way too small.

 

I suspect it's more like an instrument approach rather than a visual approach. They are taught to follow the instruments and maybe specific approach lighting cues rather than making it a visual approach. There are some optical illusions that come with flying on NVGs that would make it even tougher. They probably want the guys focused on the instruments rather than checking things visually and having to transition back and forth.

 

We wear goggles in the helicopters.

 

I'm not sure NVG's would really help much at night. That may have changed in the years since I've been out. NVG's still need some light to amplify....and the ocean doesn't refect all that well. In the daytime, we have a lot of peripheral visual cues to help. I wouldn't the think the NVG's would help in giving us a discernable horizon like we have in the daytime.

The other problem back then was ejecting with NVG's wasnt a good idea. CG of my head/helmet combo moved way forward with them on...so that my head would get pulled down to my chest on the way out. We needed the CG of our head right over our (slender) spinal column. They were trying to come up with a way to eject the googles if you pulled the ejection handle.

Mark is correct.....an instrument approach until getting enough info off the ball (fresnel lens)...usually somewhere around a mile out.

The ILS was stabilized up to a certain amount of pitch and roll....so that helped. My "runway" and ILS were always moving to the right....sometimes with a bit of heave, pitch and roll thrown in for good measure.

Bill

 

I know they use NVG in C-130's for night ops at St Joseph, NE

Dunno how that transfers to carriers & ocean etc.

That video didn't seem like he was nose up enough to be riding the point of stall via angle of attack gauge.

 

St Joes does the AATTC tactics course which is like the junior quicky version of the c-130 weapons school.

NVG operations are standard for all C-130 crews, this includes NVG low level flying/navigation, airdrop and assault landings. I have never landed on a carrier, assault landings are about as close as it gets. Normally the minimum length for an assault landing zone is 3000 feet and you gotta put it down in the first 500 feet. For students a two mile final at 600 AGL is about right to get things lined up. For the J model with HUD they have the landing zone with a point on top of it and the pilot follows the computer glide slope down. For older H models the Navigator gives altitude calls to back up the pilot. In both cases the copilot will be backing the pilot up with lateral guidance and information on wind/drift.

With waivers the C-130 can go into shorter landing zones, minimum size is really dictated by the acceptable level of risk and the take off/landing data. I have been into some strips under 3000 which required careful fuel and cargo load planning.

 

Yeah, but that's just to look cool... like the guys in the movies...

 

Most all of us would be inadequate if we attempted to do night landings or day landings on a carrier...no matter how many "civy" hours we had. I learned a lesson from my little great grand son when his little sister was sad because she couldn't play her new harmonica right away. Her 7 year old brother looked at her and said, " Abbey, even the greatest harmonica player in world started out just like you."
Every one is a beginner and no one is an expert, keep up the good work.

 

I guess I was the only 1 to see this, good brakes;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84]USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials - YouTube[/ame]

 

That would be a piece if cake nowadays. The carbon brakes and more powerful engines would allow you to land with much greater cargo load. Not sure what they would need to haul off but you could at least go with a much greater fuel load.

 

As a side note I'm betting that with a software mod the C-130J could work really well with carrier ops. Talked to some guys today and the HUD does a great job of guiding the pilots down to perfect assault landings every time. The only thing it probably isn't set up for is a moving landing zone coordinates rather than fixed.

 

just bring back the F-14 Tomcats