Using "throttle for GS and stick for AOA" when landing

[SnappShot]

I see, but this usually works only for small single engined GA planes. Once you are flying twins and anything heavier/faster, it's easier (and common practise) to stick to one method.

 

AoA indicators don't play a role because it makes zero difference if you fly the correct speed or the correct AoA during the approach.

The advantage AoA flying is that you don't need to know your precise actual weight and hence you don't need to figure out the corresponding correct approach speed.

 

so you dont need to calculate airspeed for on speed aoa in case one of the two aoa probes is damaged or decieving you?

[bbrz]

so you dont need to calculate airspeed for on speed aoa in case one of the two aoa probes is damaged or decieving you?

If there is no failure it's not needed. It's good airmanship (and IMO essential) to know the actual weight, but we are not talking about the failure case.

 

Furthermore if the pitot tube is e.g. blocked you don't have a correct ASI readout and have to rely on AoA.

 

If both, the AoA sensors and the pitots fail than you have to revert to basic attitude and power flying.

[sdflyer]

I see, but this usually works for small single engined GA planes. Once you are flying twins and anything heavier/faster, it's easier (and common practise) to stick to one method.

 

AoA indicators don't play a role because it makes zero difference if you fly the correct speed or the correct AoA during the approach.

The only advantage AoA flying has is that you don't need to know your precise actual weight and hence you don't need to figure out the corresponding correct approach speed.

 

I have share fare of flying twins as well. And more than often I care about approach speed since some instrument approaches require time on the approach. In turn approach speed (usually 1.8 Vs0) puts aircraft in different categories of approach speed bracket which may yield different different minimums on IAP. (Not to mention that in beautiful world of congested airspace where ATC often request reduce or increase approach speed )

 

By the way my friend who works for American Airlines. He used to drive MD82 before airline retired them all and switched to 737 NG. I believe AA requires pilots to shoots approaches manually/ or semiautomatic with autothrottle in order to save big bucks on certification for CAT III approaches. Captain side equipped with HUD while FO doesn't have it.

 

For low vis approaches AA requires captain to use HUD and follows flight directors that provide glideslope solution all way to the minimums. According my friend he must be fully configured for landing before certain altitude and maintain Vref through the whole approach.

 

Although flight detectors do provide nice pitch solution for given airspeed vs glideslope it is not quite AOA riding . 737 has noticeable lag from throttle input, so maintain altitude with thrust is too much hustle.

 

So to sum up. I don't know really know what to call that type of approaches I guess they could be call hybrid of "power for altitude - pitch for airspeed" and "pitch for altitude - power for airspeed"

[bbrz]

So to sum up. I don't know really know what to call that type of approaches I guess they could be call hybrid of "power for altitude - pitch for airspeed" and "pitch for altitude - power for airspeed"

Exactly. Hybrid is the perfect word. We had this discussion already a while ago and I always said that if it's about small corrections on the GS there is no method one or two as they usually both need to be applied together.

Once it's about large corrections, e.g. a half scale fly up indication, it's essential that you know that power application will save the situation and not pulling back on the stick/yoke.

 

The option to finetune the approach with pitch changes doesn't exist on the F/A-18 (and most other carrier aircraft I assume) because they need to maintain a precise AoA down to the point of impact.

[SnappShot]

If there is no failure it's not needed. It's good airmanship (and IMO essential) to know the actual weight, but we are not talking about the failure case.

 

Furthermore if the pitot tube is e.g. blocked you don't have a correct ASI readout and have to rely on AoA.

 

If both, the AoA sensors and the pitots fail than you have to revert to basic attitude and power flying.

 

How do you not know there is a failure in the aoa, could care less about the pitot as its outve the scope of this discussion.

 

LDG Checks

3 down and locked

FLAS full or half

Hook up and light out

Anti Skid on or off (boat dependent)

On Speed xxxkts

 

Seems like more than airmanship

 

PS your civilian flying translates to nearly nothing here sdflyer

Edited February 27, 2018 by SnappShot

[bbrz]

1.How do you not know there is a failure in the aoa, could care less about the pitot as its outve the scope of this discussion.

 

2.PS your civilian flying translates to nearly nothing here sdflyer

1.If you have more than 1hr on this plane you know the approximate pitch/power settings and a good pilot realizes a faulty indication pretty quick by crosschecking.

 

2. A have no idea where your arrogance (and wrong assumption) comes from but I've been flying turbopros and jets in the military for a few years.

[SnappShot]

1.If you have more than 1hr on this plane you know the approximate pitch/power settings and a good pilot realizes a faulty indication pretty quick by crosschecking.

 

2. A have no idea where your arrogance (and wrong assumption) comes from but I've been flying turbopros and jets in the military for a few years.

 

I can tell none of the RL flight time is behind a boat by your responses. Answer me this, might have to find a copy of natops, what aoa split or less will not be indicated by a caution in the hornet? Example, you go and join on the maiden, basketslap both sides of your nose (whete aoa probes are), they both are jacked up, but the left right split isnt enuf, you recover back to the boat at night, imc, with incorrect aoa, bad time to find out it doesnt matter.

Edited February 27, 2018 by SnappShot

[bbrz]

I can tell none of the RL flight time is behind a boat by your responses.

That wasn't too difficult was it and I never claimed that.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I can tell none of the RL flight time is behind a boat by your responses.

 

Nothing you've said leads me to believe you have any real time behind the boat either

[Hog_No32]

it‘s an interesting discussion but could we please refrain from getting personal? Thank you!

[sdflyer]

There was South Vietnamese pilot who landed Cessna L-19 with his family on the deck of CV41 Midway during evacuation of Saigon. Now that what I call short field landing - not stinky recovery. No wires, no meatball just plain stick and rudder skills :)

 

Seriously guys please cool down. We all have a productive discussion here.

 

By the way F-18 is my all time favorite. Can anyone give me a ride in it? I see them a lot when I fly around Miramar

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Not the F18, but interesting none the less:

 

 

Some serious throttle movement going on; can the engine really spool that quickly to warrant such movement?!

[ttaylor0024]

Not the F18, but interesting none the less:

 

[YOUTUBE]hAqpKg9YXAA[YOUTUBE]

 

Some serious throttle movement going on; can the engine really spool that quickly to warrant such movement?!

 

No, you shouldn't need that much throttle movement. You can actually tell what's happening to his approach by his throttle movements. When you hear the power off but he jams it forward then off quickly he's trying to keep the engine spooled up while coming down on the ball from a high position. As he gets close to center you see him jam it forward for longer periods of time to prevent settling below the ball, which he likely does as the high power setting is there for awhile, which will lead to him again going high on the ball as seen by the low settings with the pumping of the throttle again, etc. There *is* an intermediate setting for exact glideslope control and your throttle movements should be bracketing as you come down to catch that, because large corrections in close to at the ramp will send the ball flying one way or another. But hey, it works for him so who am I to judge.

 

Carrier aircraft have a special fuel system that allows quite a bit of extra fuel to be introduced into the engine below certain altitudes to increase engine response. As long as you aren't at idle when you increase power (or have been popping the RPM by forward movements when coming down) the engine response is actually quite good for a jet engine. On top of that, the ball is so sensitive that you nearly immediately see the trend changing.

[Banzaiib]

Making it look easy: (

)

${1}

 

edit: not sure why the vid doesn't display, but the link is to an f-18F pilot makin' it look simple

Edited March 1, 2018 by Banzaiib

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Making it look easy: (

)

 

edit: not sure why the vid doesn't display, but the link is to an f-18F pilot makin' it look simple

 

Thanks for the video.

 

To embed a youtube video in your post, you only need the last part of the link (Sz7dluAFXb0) between the [YOUTUBE] brackets, like so:

 

[AMEDooley]

That dude is making that boat his bit**

[bbrz]

No, you shouldn't need that much throttle movement.... But hey, it works for him so who am I to judge.

Neither you or me have flown a Super Entendard so we don't know the aircraft or the engine characteristics, (or in this case wind/turbulence conditions) and I don't think that one can claim that he's doing it wrong.

 

Speed and range of throttle movement looks a lot like throttle movement during formation aerobatics in other planes like e.g. the F-5.

[ttaylor0024]

Neither you or me have flown a Super Entendard so we don't know the aircraft or the engine characteristics, (or in this case wind/turbulence conditions) and I don't think that one can claim that he's doing it wrong.

 

Speed and range of throttle movement looks a lot like throttle movement during formation aerobatics in other planes like e.g. the F-5.

 

I said you shouldn't need that much throttle movement because you actually don't need that much throttle movement. If you're high at the start you do have to keep it back and jab it forward and off again in order to keep the engine spooled up (you left that part out of my quote), so you can clearly see why he's doing that, however as mentioned he leaves power on too long going high again causing him to have to do that all again. You can pretty clearly see what's happening with the ball just by his throttle movements in this video, however I can understand that it's difficult to visualize without doing it before, as well as these guys always make it look easy, when in reality it's pretty difficult starting out. You have to have several hundred FCLP landings before you ever see the boat, and even then most are lucky to get one OK pass.

 

Ball flying is very very precise, and you leave power on for a fraction of a second too long, even just a tiny amount of power, and that's the difference between a trap or bolter. Again, there is a perfect power setting, and when coming down you should be bracketing your throttle movements in order to arrive at the ramp at that perfect power setting. It's much easier to try to find that setting than mis-time a power correction in close, or worse yet, not add power at the exact right time. Arrive at the start on to a little high, move the ball up slightly to see where you're at in relation to the ball (vertical displacement decreases as you get closer so it's important to know if you're on the high side of that or the low side so you don't bust out, essentially a VSI prediction), bring it back on, a little power to avoid settling, leave it on. Too big of power corrections leads to too much nose control, and leads to mediocre passes. Easiest way I've found is setting a predicted power setting for your weight/config, and adjust slightly from there till you have it. Sometimes you barely have to touch the power if you get it right.

 

The rhino video just posted is a good example as well, while you can't see his hand the entire time you can hear the engine and see the ball. You can see the biggest movements are quick when the ball is high as he keeps the engine spooled on the come down, however stops it from going low and brings it a little high again and continues to bring it down at the ramp to on. My entire point isn't he's doing it wrong, but as far as examples for new guys (especially in simulators), smooth is good.

Edited March 2, 2018 by ttaylor0024

[bbrz]

My entire point isn't he's doing it wrong, but as far as examples for new guys (especially in simulators), smooth is good.

Very good point. But since you can't feel the tiny accel/decel forces in a sim that are required to apply such small and/or rapid throttle changes, I assume that sim pilots quickly find out that smooth corrections are easier to apply.

 

A problem IRL is when turbulence etc. throws you out of this 'bracket'. Once you have to apply larger than normal corrections it's usually very difficult to find the sweet spot again in the small available timeframe.

Edited March 2, 2018 by bbrz

[Schwarzfeld]

This whole discussion seems an awful lot of mountain-ing out of a mole hill, overcooking a really simple point that finally clicked with me when I was learning tailwheel with a crusty old flight instructor outside of Houston in a Piper Cub, flying on a ~900 foot grass strip.

 

No matter the airplane, when landing, you control your airspeed with the nose (AOA controls airspeed), and as he taught "Power to the runway", ergo your throttle controls the angle of your slope on descent (your groundspeed as this thread titles it), ergo where you end up hitting the pavement.

 

No matter what you're flying, this applies, and its that simple, thats it and thats all, no sense arguing about it :)

[xgibbousx]

Guys,

 

If you are flying a fast jet on approach with proper glide slope, altitude, and airspeed/AOA; your airspeed starts to drop off due to wind, drag, etc.; don't pitch your nose down to get your airspeed back... think about it. You'll plummet to the ground like a brick, still slow, and be in a far worse situation (just try it out in the sim and see what happens). Use your throttle to get your airspeed back in that scenario.

 

In reality, you need to use whichever controls make sense at the moment. Generally, you always need to make a correction on both stick AND throttle to correct for altitude and airspeed deviations. In fast jets, it's much safer and easier to use throttle for airspeed as a rule of thumb on approach due to weight, drag, spool delay, lift-to-weight ratio, etc. Those who tout pitch for airspeed, throttle for altitude took some lessons in a Cessna (slow, light and floaty) at some point and think it applies everywhere. It doesn't.

 

Either way, try out both methods and see which one works best for you. BTW, in the recent video of the hornet landing on the carrier after the fast break, you can clearly see the pilot using his throttle to maintain his flight path marker within the AOA bracket (i.e. throttle for airspeed/AOA). He doesn't even touch his pitch because it's already optimal. Just look at his HUD in the left DDI.

 

Good luck!

[ttaylor0024]

Guys,

 

If you are flying a fast jet on approach with proper glide slope, altitude, and airspeed/AOA; your airspeed starts to drop off due to wind, drag, etc.; don't pitch your nose down to get your airspeed back... think about it. You'll plummet to the ground like a brick, still slow, and be in a far worse situation (just try it out in the sim and see what happens). Use your throttle to get your airspeed back in that scenario.

 

In reality, you need to use whichever controls make sense at the moment. Generally, you always need to make a correction on both stick AND throttle to correct for altitude and airspeed deviations. In fast jets, it's much safer and easier to use throttle for airspeed as a rule of thumb on approach due to weight, drag, spool delay, lift-to-weight ratio, etc. Those who tout pitch for airspeed, throttle for altitude took some lessons in a Cessna (slow, light and floaty) at some point and think it applies everywhere. It doesn't.

 

Either way, try out both methods and see which one works best for you. BTW, in the recent video of the hornet landing on the carrier after the fast break, you can clearly see the pilot using his throttle to maintain his flight path marker within the AOA bracket (i.e. throttle for airspeed/AOA). He doesn't even touch his pitch because it's already optimal. Just look at his HUD in the left DDI.

 

Good luck!

 

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling, because literally everything you wrote is incorrect in carrier aviation. Even the assessment of the "pilot using throttle to maintain the flight path marker inside the aoa bracket" is incorrect because that's not how that works. I suggest going through this thread in its entirety.

Edited March 2, 2018 by ttaylor0024

[xgibbousx]

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling, because literally everything you wrote is incorrect in carrier aviation. Even the assessment of the "pilot using throttle to maintain the flight path marker inside the aoa bracket" is incorrect because that's not how that works. I suggest going through this thread in it's not entirety.

 

Please look on page 17 of this thread at the video named "F/A-18F Carrier Break". That's a real hornet pilot, flying a real hornet, on a real carrier approach, to a real aircraft carrier using his throttle to control airspeed/AOA. It is unarguable and the pilot in that video nor I are trolling you.

 

Simply watch his HUD in the left DDI while on final approach. He is at a steady 5 degrees of pitch. When his velocity vector starts going low on the bracket, he adds power. When the velocity vector starts going high on the bracket, he reduces power. He clearly is using his throttle to control his airspeed/AOA.

[ttaylor0024]

Please look on page 17 of this thread at the video named "F/A-18F Carrier Break". That's a real hornet pilot, flying a real hornet, on a real carrier approach, to a real aircraft carrier using his throttle to control airspeed/AOA. It is unarguable and the pilot in that video nor I are trolling you.

 

Simply watch his HUD in the left DDI while on final approach. He is at a steady 5 degrees of pitch. When his velocity vector starts going low on the bracket, he adds power. When the velocity vector starts going high on the bracket, he reduces power. He clearly is using his throttle to control his airspeed/AOA.

 

And I'm letting you know that your assessment is incorrect. The smallest of turbulence can make the VV move around the bracket, in fact, from the top of the bracket to the bottom is ~2kts difference. AOA is controlled by the pitch (trimmed up on speed, the FCS actually accomplishes this in the hornet automagically, other carrier birds do not do this), and the altitude (on downwind/inside the 180) / glideslope (ball flying/ILS approach, etc) is controlled by the throttle. Myself and others in this thread have firsthand experience, and I ask you again to go back and read through all these comments in the thread because it explains everything about the topic. If you try to do this backwards you will not trap, simple as that.

[xgibbousx]

And I'm letting you know that your assessment is incorrect. The smallest of turbulence can make the VV move around the bracket, in fact, from the top of the bracket to the bottom is ~2kts difference. AOA is controlled by the pitch (trimmed up on speed, the FCS actually accomplishes this in the hornet automagically, other carrier birds do not do this), and the altitude (on downwind/inside the 180) / glideslope (ball flying/ILS approach, etc) is controlled by the throttle. Myself and others in this thread have firsthand experience, and I ask you again to go back and read through all these comments in the thread because it explains everything about the topic. If you try to do this backwards you will not trap, simple as that.

 

I don't understand. There's a video of a real hornet pilot modulating his real hornet's airspeed/AOA with his throttle on final approach to a real carrier and you state that my assessment is incorrect. You state that turbulence causes the VV to move around and the AOA bracket height represents a 2 knot variance. But, you make no mention of what the real hornet pilot is actually doing in the video.

 

Like I said, this is inarguable. Just watch the video. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with that real hornet pilot flying the real carrier operations in the video. That real hornet pilot seems to be pretty experienced too.