Proper procedure for timing racetracks

Let them talk. They are always complicating things. I try not to comment anymore and just read for the lol’s. Fly the hold at the published speed and use your eyeballs and common sense to exit in a 20 second window. Not trying to be rude but somehow the book readers and pro simmers seem to know better ways.

The speed isn't (clearly) published, hence why this thread exists in the first place. I've checked three official documents and can't get a clear-cut answer.

I also agree with the other posters. Knowing and not teaching is arrogance, and all you do is gloat about "knowing."

The speed isn't (clearly) published, hence why this thread exists in the first place. I've checked three official documents and can't get a clear-cut answer.

 

I also agree with the other posters. Knowing and not teaching is arrogance, and all you do is gloat about "knowing."

That would be max conserve out at sea waiting in the stack. That's why they stick the gas guzzler way up high lol.:)

A1-F18AC-NFM-200 - NATOPS Flight Manual Performance Charts

All The NATOPS Flight Manuals download

That's something that will be shown in one of the future DDI pages, right? I think someone mentioned maintaining a certain AoA works as well, though that's much more difficult to maintain in a turn than speed. At least for me.

Appeal to authority.

 

You are not source.

Not sure what that even means.

Every squadron has a rep in CATCC on every Case 3 recovery. We, CAG, Squadron CO, flight leads, mission commanders, everyone knows exactly who, what and where and what ground speed each aircraft is at push time. It’s a debrief item and a point of pride for a professional Aviator.

I’ve sat in the wardroom while ships ATC controllers counseled pilots, and we had CAG Staff make an A7 driver give a lecture on CCTV on proper Marshall procedures when he kept fouling it up. The guy actually Marshalled 180 out from everyone else one night and had to be vectored to a random recovery (you know what that is, right?).

It was a slight relief to see lights of other aircraft show up in the stack with you.

[...]

I also agree with the other posters. Knowing and not teaching is arrogance, and all you do is gloat about "knowing."

Totally agree. Not the first time BSS_Sniper exhibits this attitude. Good there are knowledgeable people around here who behave differently and who add value to this community and our discussions.

Listen to the "Night Carrier Landings" episode of The Fighter Pilot podcast. They essentially end all of the speculation in this thread.

If I'm understanding them correctly the CASE III holding pattern can occur on any radial from the carrier, but is typically somewhere behind the ship. It's the marshall point that has to be on a 180 radial from the ship.

Pilots are assigned a designated TOT of sorts at the Marshall point, and are expected to hit that marshall point very closely. The podcast made it sound as if they typically hit this down to the second, or very close to that.

Pilots do orbits in the holding pattern and use standard rate turns, half standard rate turns, and quarter standard rate turns and do math in the cockpit that enables them to be on the correct bearing and speed at the exact right time so that they arrive at the marshall point as directed.

Don't skewer me if the manual says this is incorrect, I'm just telling you what two Navy pilots with actual night trap experience said on one podcast.

Listen to the "Night Carrier Landings" episode of The Fighter Pilot podcast. They essentially end all of the speculation in this thread.

 

If I'm understanding them correctly the CASE III holding pattern can occur on any radial from the carrier, but is typically somewhere behind the ship. It's the marshal point that has to be on a 180 radial from the ship.

 

Pilots are assigned a designated TOT of sorts at the Marshall point, and are expected to hit that marshal point very closely. The podcast made it sound as if they typically hit this down to the second, or very close to that.

 

Pilots do orbits in the holding pattern and use standard rate turns, half standard rate turns, and quarter standard rate turns and do math in the cockpit that enables them to be on the correct bearing and speed at the exact right time so that they arrive at the marshal point as directed.

 

Don't skewer me if the manual says this is incorrect, I'm just telling you what two Navy pilots with actual night trap experience said on one podcast.

That's pretty wild. I checked in on that podcast (https://fighterpilotpodcast.com/21/015-night-carrier-landings/). 23:53 in he says "So I need to be at the 2-7-0 radial at 21 miles at 6000' heading 090 at exactly time 04." They chatted up a case where even they were holding on different radials.

Not super clear but it sounds like they are departing their individual marshal fixes at EETA. I'm a little surprised at the notion of radials 240, 300 they mention. Is the CV TACAN relative to magnetic north or to bow? 180 is always the stern, magnetic compass be darned, right?

By the way these guys must be of a vintage where 10nm is their config change DME.

If consecutive marshal points are troublesome I figure the pointy heads ship side know not to sequence planes from marshals that subtract spacing if spacing is critical. These guys are talking 2 minutes normal interval. Maybe 22nd century SH crews can do 60 seconds.

Radials are referenced to north, not the ships course.

That's good to know. Makes sense radials 240 & 300 being symmetrical thirty degrees offset either side of the approach radial. It dove tails with their 090 inbound on the 270. I got a distinct wrong impression that the carrier TACAN was decoupled from the normal convention.

Listen to the "Night Carrier Landings" episode of The Fighter Pilot podcast. They essentially end all of the speculation in this thread.

 

Except they didn't say what airspeed/bank angle to achieve timed turns....Only through sheer experimentation did I find out that 30° bank at 250kts and 4,000 feet nets 180° of turn in about 55 seconds. I haven't had time to test at other altitudes. Nor do I have sufficient aeronautical knowledge to say that it would even change at different altitudes. I have no idea whether turn rates are based on KIAS, TAS, or GS. Max conserve won't be useful in this case until the DDI page gets implemented.

Only through sheer experimentation did I find out that 30° bank at 250kts and 4,000 feet nets 180° of turn in about 55 seconds.

There's something seriously wrong here since a 180° turn with this speed (IAS) and AOB requires 71.5sec, a turn radius of 9630ft and a 1.2 G load.

Not sure what that even means.

 

He means you are depending on a logical fallacy -- relying on authority (yourself and your practical experience) -- to dispute the point of EAT wiggle room.

Which in and of itself relies on the interesting notion that for a standard of conduct, there exists a standard in a manual that should be preferable and holds authority over a standard in practise. I think he has subscribed to this notion as a philosophy to suit his practise, but that'd be me speculating on his motivations.

It's all kinds of epistemological philosophy up in this forum now...

Ingame 180 turn:

 

30 aob, 250 kias at 4000ft qnh and 20*C will give ~79sec

 

30 aob, 250 ktas at 4000ft qnh and 20*C will give ~75sec

At 236kias the turn should last 67.5sec. Looks like there's something wrong with either the flight model and/or the flight instruments.

The truth is that there as many techniques to hitting your approach time as there are naval aviators doing it. Try some techniques until you hit on one that works for you. Some people nerd out and do all sorts of crazy calculations to hit it. Personally, I've found that flying a constant ground speed and one-minute turns account for all of the variables and can give you nice whole-minute turns in marshal. Note that 240 kts ground as *roughly* 4.5 miles/minute.

The book says +-10 seconds. In real life, you're expected to hit your time +-1 sec or so. Since everyone is altitude de-conflicted in the stack, you have 30 radials on the holding side and 10 radials on the non-holding side of protected airspace to play with (since you need to be on altitude by those limits). If you find that you are ahead for example, you can start S-turning within that protected airspace to give yourself a few seconds, etc. That can help you hit your time.

At the end of the day though, it's just a simulator. You're not going to anger anyone on the virtual carrier if you are within 20 seconds every time. If you are trying to be as true to life as possible, strive for being within at least a couple seconds.

If you want the exact bank angle for a given rate of turn there's a closed form equation for it.

Tangent (B) = (2 pi V w) / (360° G)

or

w = 360° G Tangent (B) / 2 pi V

B, angle of bank

V, velocity

w, angular rate (° per sec)

G, gravity

Checking previous examples:

30 AOB turn at velocity 271 and 250 knots is 2.328 dps (77.33s per 180) and 2.523 dps (71.34s per 180). It makes sense that demonstrated times are longer since it takes time to establish and unestablish the bank angle.

He means you are depending on a logical fallacy -- relying on authority (yourself and your practical experience) -- to dispute the point of EAT wiggle room.

Which in and of itself relies on the interesting notion that for a standard of conduct, there exists a standard in a manual that should be preferable and holds authority over a standard in practise. I think he has subscribed to this notion as a philosophy to suit his practise, but that'd be me speculating on his motivations.

It's all kinds of epistemological philosophy up in this forum now...

or... he completely failed to understand what victory205 meant, that when trying to land a real aircraft at night, with the real you on it and other real aircraft with real people all around you, it's probably unsafe to accept being ten second late, and you should strive to be exactly on time.

no epistemology as you can see, just common sense.

Inviato dal mio S2 utilizzando Tapatalk

You can call US navy and report them that their own manual is unsafe.

 

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/contact-us.asp

You can call US navy and report them that their own manual is unsafe.

 

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/contact-us.asp

Or you could accept that there is a difference between manuals and reality across the spectrum of aviation. Any pilot understands this. We didn’t sit around quoting manuals and fondling ourselves.

It’s like a nitwit who eats a SAM because the intel on envelopes says that he is out of range.

This phenomenon has been the case for decades in the sim world. It explains why so few aviators waste their time with those who don’t know what they don’t know, and aren’t interested in learning.

You can call US navy and report them that their own manual is unsafe.

 

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/contact-us.asp

You are embarrassing yourself.

=4c=Nikola fails to realize that ± values are given to measure the bare minimum standards of success rather than the actual goals or targets, and don't often give consideration to the real world situation.

Just because the book says you can be ±15 seconds from TOT for a CAS attack doesn't mean you should be. If you're 15 seconds late, that's 15 additional seconds some poor guy on the ground has to be exposed to enemy fire observing the target waiting for someone who thought their attack was "good enough" to pat themselves on the back.

Tell that to the guys on the ground triple-checking their watches after the TOT comes and goes. Or the guy pushing precisely 30 seconds behind what your push time was supposed to be to ensure they could capture the target without debris from the first attack obscuring their view of the target area.

It's one thing to DCS-ify things for the game's sake. It's another to claim you know better about the real procedures than the folks who actually did them.

There's a reason that every NATOPS begins with the phrase that it cannot "address every situation completely or be a substitute for sound judgment."

Guys, calm down.

In the fighterpilotpodcast they already talked about night landings. Every pilot tries to be as precise as possible.

The given time window isn't just a measurement when things may get complicated with the interval, but also a limit for the pilot when to communicate that he/she is late/early. Jello explained that some pilots would announce that they are commencing even when they weren't at their fix at their assigned EAT. He also talks about how he flew the marshal.

CV NATOPS

Departing Marshal

Each pilot shall adjust his holding pattern to depart marshal at the assigned EAT. Early or late departure shall be reported to marshal control immediately so that control adjustments can be accomplished if required.

Podcast @23:00

There's something seriously wrong here since a 180° turn with this speed (IAS) and AOB requires 71.5sec, a turn radius of 9630ft and a 1.2 G load.

If I recall correctly, my G load was indeed 1.2G. According to ZTOD in the HUD it only too me about 55 seconds though. I'll have to play around with it again.

Is this working for any of you:

2.13.4.3 Electronic Attitude Display Indicator (EADI). The electronic attitude display indicator is available for display on the left or right DDI as an alternative to the attitude display on the HUD (figure 2-23). A small circle is displayed on the ball to represent the zenith and a circle with an inscribed cross is displayed to represent the nadir. The pitch ladder is displayed in 20° increments with MC OFP 10A AND UP, or 10° increments with MC OFP 13C AND UP. A turn indicator which displays FCS yaw rate is provided below the ball. A standard rate turn (3° per second) is indicated when the lower box is displaced so that it is under one of the end boxes. The EADI display is selected by pressing the ADI pushbutton on the MENU.

I noticed that the turn rate is higher than standard with the aligned boxes.

You're still missing the point.

It doesn't matter if it's a CAS attack, you're being paid to hit a TOT precisely and being late can have negative or dangerous consequences particularly if the guy behind you is early, and vice versa.

A TOT is a TOT. "Barely unacceptable" is barely acceptable or flat out unacceptable in practice.

Having helped write these kinds of documents and sponsored changes, revisions, and rewrites, it's not an appeal to authority to say that you don't have a clue what the precepts of these working groups actually are or what sound judgment applies to (it's not just uncharted territory), and much less what changes are actually worth making that won't potentially be in conflict with tens of other publications that you don't have any individual control over. They aren't designed like you think they are.

=4c=Nikola fails to realize that ± values are given to measure the bare minimum standards of success rather than the actual goals or targets, and don't often give consideration to the real world situation.

 

Just because the book says you can be ±15 seconds from TOT for a CAS attack doesn't mean you should be. If you're 15 seconds late, that's 15 additional seconds some poor guy on the ground has to be exposed to enemy fire observing the target waiting for someone who thought their attack was "good enough" to pat themselves on the back.

 

Tell that to the guys on the ground triple-checking their watches after the TOT comes and goes. Or the guy pushing precisely 30 seconds behind what your push time was supposed to be to ensure they could capture the target without debris from the first attack obscuring their view of the target area.

 

It's one thing to DCS-ify things for the game's sake. It's another to claim you know better about the real procedures than the folks who actually did them.

 

There's a reason that every NATOPS begins with the phrase that it cannot "address every situation completely or be a substitute for sound judgment."

You have no idea what you are talking about. Every procedure is designed to account for possible deviations from normal parameters. I guarantee you, there is no procedure in the world without allowed deviations.

 

I work with procedures and revisions everyday... minor and major ones that has to pass qc and government check and it has to be compliant with higher order documents and lower order document authors has to be notified for changes. If you cannot deconflict with other publications you shouldn't do the job.

have you considered that the whole misunderstanding could just be a cultural issue? you see, i work with procedures everyday day too, but the same sentence quoted by CheckSim applies to every single procedure, directive or doctrine publication I deal with.

reading how you describe the rigid revision workflow that you use in your line of work, i can assure that this is not how it works where I'm from, where top-down directives are mostly general policy, while the "how to apply the policy to the problem at hand" is a low level responsibility.

maybe you would be luckier with Soviet Navy Case III procedures.

Inviato dal mio S2 utilizzando Tapatalk

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

Am I?

Yes... :no_sad: