Gaspipe

I've also seen the same behavior with jester as well. Target inside of 20 nm off the nose, ask him to STT enemy target ahead, and he comes back with unable and then I have to PAL. Has happened many times so far.

Yes PH definitely selected. Thanks Also, if it was a datalink target, can I hook that target and obtain a lock or do I have to wait for the radar to paint it again and get a lock that way?

Please remind me what PH is? Also, don't remember if it was a datalink or radar target. Will have to test again. Edit: Pretty sure it was a radar target as I had marked them as hostile on the CAP, but will test again.

I've been pouring over the manual and I have a couple of questions for those in the know. 1. Sometimes while in either TWS Auto or TWS Man, the AWG 9 will see a target(s) and put it on the TID with altitude on the left but without a launch prioritization on the right. I attempt Next Missile (unsuccessful), I try PDD STT (unsuccessful), and Pulse STT (Unsuccessful). This usually happens inside of 25 nm. Only way to get a lock it seems is the pilot going into PAL. Do I have to transition to RDR and then to the DDD get a lock or is there a way to obtain a TWS solution? 2. Regarding the above, I do not see a Mandatory Attack button on the CAP as stated in the manual (which would seem to tell the AWG 9 to assign a prioritization to the target). 3. Target track symbols seem to blink way outside or prematurely of the "Target in Optimum Missile Launch Zone", or otherwise defined as "In TWS and STT symbols, launch zones and firing order numerics of target tracks blink when time to optimum missile range is less than 8seconds". Thanks

Does it occur to you that the Jepps chart and the AIP chart are the same? Where's your apples and oranges coming from? They are the same thing. One more time. On a QNH defined approach, which is the chart you listed and my Jepps chart is the same, you must use the QNH altimeter setting as all minimums are based on your QNH altimeter setting. The decision height numbers in parentheses are simply reference numbers for height above ground and you would not use those numbers. They are for reference only and only come into play for CAT 2 or CAT 3 approaches which would use the radar altimeter for decision height. You would not use the altimeter at all, QNH or QFE, it doesn't matter. If you used your method of simply flying the parentheses numbers as a QFE setting on the altimeter, which are only 4 meters difference, it would work but it's not legal. What happens in the event of a missed approach? The missed approach altitude is 1200m and does not have any parentheses numbers associated with it. What would you do, dial in the 1196? You can't do that. On a QFE defined chart, for example Almaty (UAAA), you need to set the QNH setting and then convert that to QFE on the altimeter and fly the approach from there.

Seriously? Conversation over as you just don't get it

Nothing to do with QFE. Per the Jepps chart legends: 14— Decision height shown in feet Above Ground Level based on the straight-in approach reference datum And you don't have to be rude. Do you even have a instrument rating?

Your Official government regulation: 2.2.2 At aerodromes where transition heights and transition levels are established: QFE shall be used for flights at or below the transition height specified in the Aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level. Where exactly on that Lishe chart you provided does it specify Transition Height? Cuz all I see is Transition Altitude which would fall under your other government regulation: 2.2.1 At aerodromes where transition altitudes and transition levels are established: QNH shall be used for flights at or below the transition altitude specified in the aerodrome Altimeter Setting Regions; 1013.2hPa shall be used for flights at or above the transition level. You incorrectly stated you could use QFE procedures on the Lishe chart and I tried to explain to you why you cannot. Even your own published regulations say you cannot. So what exactly speaks for itself?

Well you keep arguing that I'm just plain wrong, then how have I survived for 30 years flying all over China, UK, Russia, Asia, Africa and everywhere else? Surely I must be doing something wrong or right, which one is it? :huh:

Yeah ok. 30+ years experience doing this, you?

No regional specialties here, it's a PANS-OPS approach = ICAO. You fly what is published on the approach, which in this case is QNH. Has nothing to do with my company or country. And both your examples of Chinese and UK QFE (military aside) is for local VFR traffic below transition heights.

Right out of our SOP's, which are legally binding. 6.53 Determining MDA, DDA, DA, DH, or AH ( OpSpec C073 ) Approaches which use a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), Derived Decision Altitude (DDA), or Decision Altitude (DA) are based upon a barometric altitude. Barometric altitude must be used to determine descent minimums or the decision altitude. Approaches which use a Decision Height (DH) or Alert Height (AH) are based upon a height above the touchdown zone. Except where not authorized, radar altitude must be used to determine the DH or AH. CAT I (MDA, DDA, or DA); All CAT I approaches use barometric altitude. All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: A non-ILS approach with MDA minimums must be flown using a barometric DDA. To calculate a DDA, adjust the published MDA by adding 50 ft. All procedural references to the DA apply equally to a DDA. All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10 - Non-ILS DA/DDA Minimums: • Domestic and International : For LNAV/VNAV approach minima, a published DA may be used. For all other approaches, a DDA must be used for all published DA (H)/MDA (H). • Domestic VNAV Exceptions : For those approaches that have the ball note "Only authorized operators may use VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H)" and LOC (GS out) MDA(H) on ILS approaches with the glideslope out of service (while flying the associated LOC Nav database approach), VNAV may be used to treat an MDA as a DA (no need to add 50 feet to create a DDA). MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: On RNAV approach use the lower of LNAV/VNAV or LNAV minimums and treat as an MDA. For all other non-precision approaches minimums are an MDA. Notes MD-11 (FMS-923 with VNAV Option) is authorized to use a DA or DDA. Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) is a technique for flying the final approach segment of a Non-ILS approach in a continuous descent to MDA, DDA, or DA without level off. If unable “Continue” or “Landing” upon reaching MDA, DDA, or DA, a missed approach is executed. Countries may mandate use of CDFA technique. Refer to Jeppesen Airway Manual > Air Traffic Control > State Rules and Procedures. EU-OPS 1 member states are transitioning non-precision (NDB, VOR, LNAV, and LOC) approach charts to a CDFA standard, which depicts minima as DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H). Unless the DA(H) specifically states LNAV/VNAV, flight crews must consider these DA(H) minima as MDA(H). All aircraft except MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10: When flying these approaches using VNAV modes, a DDA(H) must be computed and referenced. LNAV/VNAV minimums are correctly depicted as a DA(H) and may be flown to a DA(H). MD-11 (FMS-923 with PROF to MDA Option)/MD-10must use an MDA(H). • CAT II (DA, DH) • Where RA NOT AUTHORIZED appears on the approach plate, the DA is determined using barometric altimeter. • In all other CAT II approaches, DH is determined from the radio altimeter (RA on approach plate). • CAT III (DH or AH); DH or AH is determined from the radio altimeter. DH is used if visual reference is required to land. AH is used when visual reference is not required. I think I understand what I'm talking about

Jesus bro I've tried to explain it to you multiple times. Let me know if China Airlines is flying a QFE approach into a US airport using the minimum in the parentheses or vice versa, a foreign airline flying into a Chinese airport using the same procedure. It ain't happening.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I have never heard QFE issued at any of the UK based airports that I've flown from, both military and civilian and that's most likely due to being on an IFR flight plan.

You cannot fly the approach that way, by dialing in QFE into your barometric altimeter for an airport that defines QNH, it's illegal in the US. Those numbers in parentheses are for the radar altimeter, plain and simple. Yes, I understand it aligns with the QFE settings and such, but when the QNH is defined as it is on the chart, you cannot deviate from that. Like I said, the only time, at least in the US 121 world, you can use the numbers in the parentheses, is for decision height based CAT 2 and CAT 3 approaches, that's it.

So what exactly are we talking about here? The main point I responded to was that QFE is not routinely used in the UK as stated and is only used in Russia and some surrounding countries. When I say that, I mean used in a controlled ATC environment, not low level uncontrolled VFR as that does not apply to the F-18C as this is the forum we are in. Low level, uncontrolled VFR you can basically do whatever you please, but as soon as you communicate with an appropriate ATC facility, you would be given the QNH setting, not QFE, which is my point. Using the AIP chart, you would not be legal flying the numbers in the parentheses as those are radio altimeter references or height above runway threshold as you previously stated and used for reference only. The only time you can use the numbers in the parentheses is during a CAT 2 or CAT 3 approach, which would be flown using the radio altimeter, not the barometric. My point again is that you would not be given a QFE altimeter setting at any airport other than the previously mentioned countries, hence you have to use the QNH setting for the baro minimums. 30+ years and 15,000+ hours of flying and I’ve used QFE less than 10 times.

China is all QNH as I was in Beijing last week. They do work in meters though. As for the chart vendors, i’ve Used both lido and Jepps and they publish in QNH. FMS databases use QNH as well. QNH is definitely the icao standard for altimetry. We use to have a fairly ridiculous process to convert to QFE for Almaty and it use to suck because the weather was always bad and Almaty is in the mountains. In Other words, don’t screw up the procedure or you will die.

So did the ATIS/AWOS or weather reporting facility at your departure airport actually report the QNE setting or did you put it in yourself? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of it officially reported or used outside of Russia.

I don’t believe you are correct. The only countries that I have ever used QFE settings are Russia and Kazakhstan. Everywhere else I’ve ever flown uses QNH (millibars/hectopascals or hundredths of inches of mercury). Instrument procedures will define a Transition Altitude for departures and a Transition Level for arrivals. All that means is that actual QNH is used below the transition altitude/level and standard QNH is used above (29.92 or 1013). QNH correspond to the airport elevation on your altimeter whereas QFE will show zero on your altimeter. There seems to be a bug in DCS where the Barometric altimeter setting equals the Radar altimeter. For example, if flying over the water in the Hornet at a constant altitude, if you adjust your altimeter setting, the radar altitude will also change. This is incorrect as the radar altitude will never change as it’s the distance above the water based on the antenna located on the bottom of the airplane.

You absolutely need to jettison the rocket pods as the Drag Index increases dramatically with them. For example, your drag index with a CL tank, (2) AIM-9's and (6) AIM-7's is 63.5. If you remove (2) AIM-7's and replace them with (2) Zuni's or 151's, your Drag Index goes to 184.5. That's ~3x the drag. If you remove (2) more AIM-7's and add (2) more rocket pods, you go to a Drag Index of 311 to 342, depending on how fast you fly. That's ~5x the drag.

For those interested (NAVAIR 00-80T-105 CV NATOPS): 4.12.3.1 Case I Departure. This departure may be utilized when it is anticipated that flights will not encounter instrument conditions during departures and rendezvous with weather conditions no lower than 3,000 feet and 5-nm visibility. 4.12.3.1.1 Jet/Turboprop Aircraft. After a clearing turn, proceed straight ahead paralleling the BRC at 500 feet until 7 nm. Aircraft are then cleared to climb unrestricted in visual conditions. 4.12.3.3 Case II Departure. For departure, visual conditions at the ship may exist down to a ceiling of 1,000 feet and visibility of 5 miles. Launch shall be on departure control frequency. 4.12.3.3.1 Jet Aircraft. After a clearing turn, proceed straight ahead at 500 feet paralleling the BRC. At 7 nm, turn to intercept the 10-nm arc, maintaining visual conditions until established on the departure radial. The 500-foot restriction is lifted after 7 nm if the climb can be continued in visual conditions. Jets shall maintain 300 knots until VMC on top. 4.12.3.4 Case III Departure. This departure shall be used whenever existing weather at the ship is below Case II departure minimums and during all night operations except as modified by the OTC or commanding officer. Case III departures are compatible only with Case III recoveries. The launch shall be on departure control frequency. A minimum launch interval of 30 seconds shall be used between aircraft. When possible, a 60-second interval will be provided when launching a jet aircraft following a turboprop. 4.12.3.4.1 Jet Aircraft. Climb straight ahead accelerating at 300 knots crossing 5 nm at 1,500 feet or above. At 7 nm, execute turn to fly the 10-nm arc until intercepting the departure radial. 4.12.3.5 Case II/III Rendezvous. Case II/III aircraft shall rendezvous between 20 and 50 miles from the carrier on the left side of the departure radial at a NAVAIR 00-80T-105 ORIGINAL 4-20 WARNING prebriefed altitude (for example, 1,000 feet above the cloud layer). This does not preclude other visual rendezvous procedures as directed by air wing doctrine.

Discussed this very topic with a real life Hornet Test Pilot based out of China Lake. His answer was "310"

Like I said, not trying to be an ass, but seriously, do you honestly think your fly by the seat of your pants method is better than the millions of flight hours those "golden rules" were predicated on? In real world applications, there is no such thing as "When you were told certain limits of your aircraft but how you approach things was completely up to you." Even test pilots who fly on the bleeding edge of physics and technology have "golden rules" they live by.

It is painfully obvious that you have literally zero real world flight experience or you would realize how ridiculous your post is. Not trying to be an ass, but as a 20 yr real world airline captain with 15,000 hrs of real world experience in over 15 types of airplanes, your post is senseless. Checklists, procedures and standards are in place for a reason, mostly derived from cowboy attitudes like yours which has resulted in some form of error or disaster. Technology has provided us with some amazing tools over the past decades with the HUD being one of them and to simply ignore these tools is downright foolish. I realize that this is a simulation, but maybe you should take a few hours and actually learn how to fly correctly. You might learn a thing or two.