Field Landing Pattern

wow, you read somewhere the FA-18C is a hundred years old?

That's amazing, well done

Really you fly your war jet by what you read in a book? And everyone does that, but those idiots in RL video cockpit capture in their RL FA-18's

 

And you do that from your couch on a laptop, because you know that's the right thing to do .. ?

 

You're quite the champ, what a hero.

Carrier aviation has been around for over 100 years.

Yes, you do it by the book seeing as the NATOPS was written in blood by aviators for aviators.

Please stop thinking you know what your talking about. You have 0 credentials or credibility on the topic and are being very defensive because you were called out for being incorrect. What makes you think that you can do just whatever you want? You're flying a multi-million dollar jet at very high speeds, low altitudes, and extremely exacting. You don't just learn it one way in training then stop doing it, you do it for specific reasons; safety and uniformity.

Carrier aviation has been around for over 100 years.

 

Yes, you do it by the book seeing as the NATOPS was written in blood by aviators for aviators.

 

Please stop thinking you know what your talking about. You have 0 credentials or credibility on the topic and are being very defensive because you were called out for being incorrect.

Yep, what would you know Taylor. Not like you have done it for real. Oh wait, that's right you have LOL.:D

Are you liking the new landing config FM? Seems good to me for this type of jet, but what would I know....

For the OP if you are still reading this at an military base it really depends on local procedures.

In the Falklands the run in and break is done at 250ft and as fast as you like as long as you don't drop a boom. It's a climbing turn to 1000ft which helps reduce the energy so you can make the turn onto final. The only caveat is don't mess up.

I use the example just to say you are overthinking it for DCS. Unlike a Case 1 you are gonna put it down on a piece of concrete so you can be a lot more flexible.

If you break from.low and climb you lose energy which makes the whole process faster as it means you can arrive in the pattern faster. It takes more practice to do it right but gets you down on the deck quicker. The ideal break gets you on the ground as quickly as possible and if you have all your ducks in a row you roll out of the final turn at 50ft and touchdown.

Yes Nellis is boring 1500ft break height at 350 kts.

At RAF stations in the UK it was normally 500ft and 450kts.

DCS I like to break from about 50ft and 600kts ish climbing to 1000ft downwind.

Hey it's a Sim and you won't end up in front of the Station Commander so have fun with it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Thank you guys for your replies, i think i'll just stick to the normal pattern iV'e been doing for a while and when i want to vary my landings, i'll simply go try out more « Shit Hot Breaks » over the carrier. :)I was just curous at how the thing was done when higher than the 800 ft break, was more a personal inquire, since it's a Sim and if you feel like doing always a 800 ft pattern no one will chew your ass off from doing it.... well, maybe that guys on multi-player that doesn't pay attention to whats going on around an airfield and goes doing a supersonic pass perpendicular to the runway and smashing into people trying to impress them by a 10 ft away pass. :P

course rules apply!!! They may be different different military airfields due to population, structures, etc. Left downwind, Normal pattern is 1000-1200'AGL brake, 600-800'AGL downwind. The "enroute supplement" has details!

This held true though my 26 year USN service!

Carrier aviation has been around for over 100 years.

 

Yes, you do it by the book seeing as the NATOPS was written in blood by aviators for aviators.

 

Please stop thinking you know what your talking about. You have 0 credentials or credibility on the topic and are being very defensive because you were called out for being incorrect. What makes you think that you can do just whatever you want? You're flying a multi-million dollar jet at very high speeds, low altitudes, and extremely exacting. You don't just learn it one way in training then stop doing it, you do it for specific reasons; safety and uniformity.

Don't want to be a dick since now everyone is telling me you're a F18 pilot, but

a. there's NATOPS diagrams where the break states 'on speed level turn' where this turn is depicted from going from 1200' to 600', what’s with that?

b. there’s another diagram taken from NATOPS that clearly states:

“ ..

10- Roll out on groove and adjust height with power .. Combat recovery 8 seconds in the groove or 12-16 seconds for standard groove time. .. ”

with the depicted F18 at 450ft in the final turn and appears to be on the glide sloop at ~350ft, which is what I was conveying, and is a recognition to the accompanying “ .. Combat recovery 8 seconds in the groove .. ”.

Ttaylor did you land your F-18 on any carrier during occasions or the exercise under the “Combat recovery” protocol .. ? F-18 'combat recovery' exercises are on the schedule I presume? That I would find interesting to hear.

I’m a lawyer and a blue water sailboat skipper for fun, and I just want to clear the air.

 

I’m a lawyer and a blue water sailboat skipper for fun, and I just want to clear the air.

 

I feel boring with my job besides you and ttaylor ...

I don' wanna sound like a dick .. i'm just a digital graphic artist, but

a. Your blue title is missing a dash in between F/A and 18C

b. Space is missing between SPEEDBRAKE and your brackets (as required)

c. I would had aligned the « T of circuit « F/A18c NATOPS...» with the « f » off « 8000... switches off »

Had to say something trying to be funny since you two jobs looks cool and mine is basic :P (poke)

I don' wanna sound like a dick .. i'm just a digital graphic artist, but

 

a. Your blue title is missing a dash in between F/A and 18C

b. Space is missing between SPEEDBRAKE and your brackets (as required)

c. I would had aligned the « T of circuit « F/A18c NATOPS...» with the « f » off « 8000... switches off »

 

Had to say something trying to be funny since you two jobs looks cool and mine is basic :P (poke)

How's your Dutch for that is my native language. How's your proficiency in French or German?

Let's have a go at that.

How's your Dutch for that is my native language. How's your proficiency in French or German?

 

Let's have a go at that.

In German all i can say but dunno how to spell it is Gutten Tag, as Dutch, Denken Wel, only thing i remember from my cousin's wife taugh me, had a great time for few weeks i went in Leiden, but i can't even remember how to say « Two beers please » Sad that year Russian eliminated Dutch in Euro 2008 :( Pour le français si tu veux, on peux en discuter toute une journée, ça ne me dérange pas du tout, je passe la majorité de ma vie à parler français depuis ma tendre naissance, and most of my day at work speaking and writing english. :thumbup: From what i remember French is one of the language you are taught at school since lots of Dutch in Neitherlands spoke french when i went, and most of then knew Quebec/Montreal/Canada is a French/English bilingual province.... if you seen my Location below my Avatar left of our posts you would had figured out i speak french, well that cute woman at the Info booth in Den Hagg's train station knew right away when she asked me what language i was speaking to my cousin and i replied her French from Canada, she replied quite away « Oh, Montreal, Quebec? » so i presumed you knew i spoke french and you asked me how my french was to tease me right?

Oh yeah i just also remembered, « Straat » means streets, so would be easier to aks my way if i got lost knowing the street names :)

PS: i Was just teasing you witht hose things in your diagram :)

Don't want to be a dick since now everyone is telling me you're a F18 pilot, but

 

a. there's NATOPS diagrams where the break states 'on speed level turn' where this turn is depicted from going from 1200' to 600', what’s with that?

 

b. there’s another diagram taken from NATOPS that clearly states:

 

“ ..

10- Roll out on groove and adjust height with power .. Combat recovery 8 seconds in the groove or 12-16 seconds for standard groove time. .. ”

 

with the depicted F18 at 450ft in the final turn and appears to be on the glide sloop at ~350ft, which is what I was conveying, and is a recognition to the accompanying “ .. Combat recovery 8 seconds in the groove .. ”.

 

Ttaylor did you land your F-18 on any carrier during occasions or the exercise under the “Combat recovery” protocol .. ? F-18 'combat recovery' exercises are on the schedule I presume? That I would find interesting to hear.

 

I’m a lawyer and a blue water sailboat skipper for fun, and I just want to clear the air.

 

https://i0.wp.com/sim-deck.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FA18cCarrierCircuitNATOPSscreen.gif

I’ve never heard of the combat recovery being used.

The break is a level turn, you’re correct there, but it’s from 800’(which you actually have in your picture). You descend from 1200 (initial) to 800 after the initial for case I Ops. That picture does seem to be misleading, the 450 is the 90 altitude (rhinos actually use 500’, which comes from the 450’ 90 altitude + the 50’ deck height of the boat to keep you above glideslope). Using math you can realize that rolling out in the groove at 370’ would mean you’re over a mile from touchdown, which would be a ~25-30s groove length. You want the radalt tone to go off at 370, which should coincide with crossing the wake at the 45 position as a spot check, you’ll roll out at the start lower than that obviously. As far as the groove itself goes, it’s just 15-18s, not necessarily 3/4 mile, reason being is the ball is so sensative that you need time to establish yourself on the ball and energize it (move it up and down). It becomes 16x more sensitive from the start to touchdown (16’ cell height to 1’) so you want to force it up and then bring it back down. This comes from the CV natops, and is engraved in pilots from day 1 in jet training.

So just to reiterate, 1200’ at the initial, descend to 800, break, sow to on speed gear/flaps down, descend to 600’, 180 is wherever you need to turn for the 15-18s groove length (usually LSO platform to rounddown), 450-500 at the 90, 370 crossing the wake, roll out on glideslope, bump it up, slowly bring it back on at touchdown. Never be low.

I’ve never heard of the combat recovery being used.

Since you apparently are an ‘active F-18 pilot’ what on earth does that mean ‘I’ve never heard of the combat recovery being used.’

I can SEE the combat recovery being used by Wags, in real live YT, in the CASE1 video by A.E. W. CASE1 the latter who was an F-18 pilot 16 years ago.

The NATOPS diagram above SHOWS a 'combat recovery' by the numbers and specifically explains the ‘combat recovery’ by numbers as part and partial of that part of the manual.

So what's up with that? What is going on here? Your up-to-date NATOPS is different? Doesn’t mention 'combat recovery'? You’re not NAVY?

Like I mentioned I am a lawyer and I know when I am perfectly well in my rights to ask the questions of reason.

If you are the supposed ‘expert’ (like the expert witness) as some mention you to be, this doesn't change anything to my suggestions nor to my questioning.

‘Never heard of combat recovery’ when I discover a NATOPS diagram which is the exact ‘by the book’ you’re repeating yourself to be adhering to.

'Never heard of a combat recovery’ doesn’t quite make the cut, I'd say.

I’d suggest you do us all a favour and you go find your copy of your NATOPS, or mention ‘combat recovery’ in the mess since apparently there’s where you are every day, and let's see what happens.

Since you apparently are an ‘active F-18 pilot’ what on earth does that mean ‘I’ve never heard of the combat recovery being used.’

 

I can SEE the combat recovery being used by Wags, in real live YT, in the CASE1 video by A.E. W. CASE1 the latter who was an F-18 pilot 16 years ago.

The NATOPS diagram above SHOWS a 'combat recovery' by the numbers and specifically explains the ‘combat recovery’ by numbers as part and partial of that part of the manual.

 

So what's up with that? What is going on here? Your up-to-date NATOPS is different? Doesn’t mention 'combat recovery'? You’re not NAVY?

 

Like I mentioned I am a lawyer and I know when I am perfectly well in my rights to ask the questions of reason.

 

If you are the supposed ‘expert’ (like the expert witness) as some mention you to be, this doesn't change anything to my suggestions nor to my questioning.

‘Never heard of combat recovery’ when I discover a NATOPS diagram which is the exact ‘by the book’ you’re repeating yourself to be adhering to.

 

'Never heard of a combat recovery’ doesn’t quite make the cut, I'd say.

 

I’d suggest you do us all a favour and you go find your copy of your NATOPS, or mention ‘combat recovery’ in the mess since apparently there’s where you are every day, and let's see what happens.

Could it simply be the fact you use terms, names that doesn't exist, and you simply confuse him totaly? In other words, open the A1-F18AC-NFM-000 and do a PDF find of « Combat Recovery » and just show him the page you mean.... cuz on my side, i have not a single page that contains combat recovery, so simply clarify us what you mean by this or you just change the names and make them up your own ways and then try to be smart with him with your own personal terms?... anyways i think the guy has nothing to proove to you, someone that open a thread about taxing on a carrier deck with his hook down and wondering why he catch wires. As most of the time you seem like having a fun arguing with people on your many posts. I personaly don'T even know why you came in my threads and arguing with him as he brought way much more answers to my questions that you did.

I did fly the hornet. Talk to me on discord and i will answer all the questions you have.

https://discord.gg/eVtu42R

Could it simply be the fact you use terms, names that doesn't exist, and you simply confuse him totaly? In other words, open the A1-F18AC-NFM-000 and do a PDF find of « Combat Recovery » and just show him the page you mean.... cuz on my side, i have not a single page that contains combat recovery, so simply clarify us what you mean by this or you just change the names and make them up your own ways... anyways i think the guy has nothing to proove to you, as most f the time you seem like having a fun arguing with people on your many posts. I personaly don'T even know why you came in my threads and arguing with him as he brought way much more answers to my questions that you did.

The DIAGRAM NATOPS that MENTIONS the 8s 'combat recovery' PROCEDURE, I simply found on the internet with a search. That obviously is a NATOPS diagram.

If its not in NATOPS anymore, that doesnt mean the historically its correct. This a about a flightsim not a NAVY F-18 flght school, you still need to adhere to reason.

So, what exactly is your beef?

(I know what is my beef, being confronted by guys who think they are in the military which either they are not, or bring their military entitlement to the civvy's, which is uncivilized. And mind you, real officers don't behave like that)

Don't want to be a dick since now everyone is telling me you're a F18 pilot, but ...

Have you considered stopping?

The DIAGRAM NATOPS that MENTIONS the 8s 'combat recovery' PROCEDURE, I simply found on the internet with a search. That obviously is a NATOPS diagram.

 

If its not in NATOPS anymore, that doesnt mean the historically its correct. This a about a flightsim not a NAVY F-18 flght school, you still need to adhere to reason.

 

So, what exactly is your beef?

(I know what is my beef, being confronted by guys who think they are in the military which either they are not, or bring their military entitlement to the civvy's, which is uncivilized. And mind you, real officers don't behave like that)

...I guess not.

Last time you clearly hadn't referred to NATOPS I pointed it out and you insulted me for it for no reason. Given your continued demonstration of ignorance and arrogance, you have no basis for calling anyone uncivilised.

Give it a rest.

Have you considered stopping?

 

...I guess not.

 

Last time you clearly hadn't referred to NATOPS I pointed it out and you insulted me for it for no reason. Given your continued demonstration of ignorance and arrogance, you have no basis for calling anyone uncivilised.

 

Give it a rest.

Don't forget, though...

Like I mentioned I am a lawyer

:megalol:

This dude is obviously a clown, best to just ignore him and move on with our days.

Don't forget, though...

 

 

 

:megalol:

 

This dude is obviously a clown, best to just ignore him and move on with our days.

Must be a tough shit to use rudder pedals with clown shoes :S:joystick:

Have you considered stopping?

...I guess not.

Last time you clearly hadn't referred to NATOPS I pointed it out and you insulted me for it for no reason. Given your continued demonstration of ignorance and arrogance, you have no basis for calling anyone uncivilised.

Give it a rest.

I didn't refer to NATOPS then I did, are you OK?

I'm PM'ing with TTaylor, we're cool.

So buzz off and be quite in mom's basement.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about others being 'uncivilised' when you're about the most disrespectful person I've seen on here in quite some time.

I would ask if you can bring anything to this forum other than insults, but given your last post I'm guessing not.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about others being 'uncivilised' when you're about the most disrespectful person I've seen on here in quite some time.

 

I would ask if you can bring anything to this forum other than insults, but given your last post I'm guessing not.

You're faux military disciple that is not, doesnt fly, not with you nor your mates

Can we then get back on topic, which is "Field (as in: not Carrier) Landing Pattern"?!

Case I Carrier procedures have been discussed, video-showcased and otherwise munched upon all over the place since we got the Hornet.

Doum76 inquired about any standards for F-18 ashore pattern flying in his opening post.

His query for "how to do it right" is valid, and knowledgeable answers here might make this thread a valuable source for other simulation enthusiasts.

Discussion of carrier ops and personality clashes are detrimental and should not have a place here.

As I highly appreciate SMEs Lex' and TTaylor's presence here and willingness to answer our questions despite being harrassed occasionally and uncalled for, I'd be interested in the following:

We seem to have found out and agree that there are different ways to fly a jet closed pattern at an airbase, mainly regarding feet AGL, tightness of pattern and maybe speeds, etc.

Reasons for these variations are most probably locally prescribed procedures/restrictions and airframe/aircrew capabilities.

None of those real-life considerations apply to DCS because of AI pilot & ATC inabilities and because of the uncontrolled, unstandardized wild-west environment that is DCS public multiplayer.

But I highly regard those who wish to add to their personal gaming experience by exercising this stuff beyond the game.

Same goes for the virtual squadrons' members who educate the community merely by own example on public servers.

Since the two linked videos here in the thread (Hornet GoPro @Miramar vs. Viper HUD tape footage) feature such a huge difference in "sportiness" (tightness, steepness) of their pattern technique, my questions to the SMEs are:

1. Have you been taught any standards for ashore airbase pattern flying in the Hornet when there are no or only partly locally prescribed procedures?

1. Is the Hornet pattern @Miramar in the GoPro video flown according to a published local procedure (if yes, do you know any parameters?) or mainly according to pilot's gusto?

2. When you went to other places ashore (VFR x-country nav training, ferry flights, etc.), did you encounter many variations in locally prescribed procedures?

3. Does the FAA or Pentagon publish visual jet approach & departure procedures for U.S. airbases like the German ones I linked in my post on page 3 of this thread?

If yes, do those follow any common (NATO standard?) guidelines in their design?

4. Did you often try to get approval to fly the low Case I practice pattern ashore (outside dedicated training sessions at dedicated training fields), to stay current for the boat?

How often were those requests denied for noise abatemant or other reasons?

5. Was there any competitive spirit in your fighter pilot community/career regarding "sportiness" of pattern flying ashore?

For the German Airforce crews and their european peers / visitors, despite having more or less sporty prescribed tracks and altitudes in the charts, I know of a certain competitive spirit in that regard.

Tornado fighterbomber pilots are being mocked by the air-superiority community (Eurofighter, ex-Phantom & Fulcrum) for their high-wingload swing-wing requiring a noticeably wider pattern, being aerodynamically unable for a tighter final turn.

And when allies visit with Vipers, Hornets, Mirages, Rafales, Gripen, etc. there seems to be some pride in flying it as tight as the airframe and traffic situation allows to showcase own capability & skill to the local hosts.

Thanks in advance for your insights!

I had some PM conversations with TTaylor and what I found out after some confusion what most likely is the 'by-the-book' NOTAPS procedure is that Diagram downwind 1200', '180 level turn on speed' to 600' at DME 1.3 behind the boat at the top of the groove, etcetera.

that you should or could use for practising ICLS landings for instance,

but that the diagram I found online and was referred to as 'combat recovery', is what real life sorties will fly returning to the carrier,

i.c. downwind leg at 600' and the first of the wing turning hard base-turn when crossing the stern line (or the open hanger doors, if these were in DCS), and heading for the intercept somewhere between 300-350' 8-12s from the deck.

This is what you actually see Wags and A.E. W. do in their CASE1 demonstrations, and we found out, after TTaylor did not know of any 'combat recovery’ terminology,

he actually calls this practise a 'shit hot break' (a what? a ‘shit hot break’),

and is how in particular the first of the flight, first of the queue coming in, flies his intercept.

(It appears many NOTAPS online with many diagrams and expressions from different periods and some obsolete)

I had some PM conversations with TTaylor and what I found out after some confusion what most likely is the 'by-the-book' NOTAPS procedure is that Diagram downwind 1200', '180 level turn on speed' to 600' at DME 1.3 behind the boat at the top of the groove, etcetera.

 

that you should or could use for practising ICLS landings for instance,

 

but that the diagram I found online and was referred to as 'combat recovery', is what real life sorties will fly returning to the carrier,

 

i.c. downwind leg at 600' and the first of the wing turning hard base-turn when crossing the stern line (or the open hanger doors, if these were in DCS), and heading for the intercept somewhere between 300-350' 8-12s from the deck.

 

This is what you actually see Wags and A.E. W. do in their CASE1 demonstrations, and we found out, after TTaylor did not know of any 'combat recovery’ terminology,

 

he actually calls this practise a 'shit hot break' (a what? a ‘shit hot break’),

 

and is how in particular the first of the flight, first of the queue coming in, flies his intercept.

 

(It appears many NOTAPS online with many diagrams and expressions from different periods and some obsolete)

Thanks man for the input and glad you two shaked hands. :)

But i've done all this, i did about over 200 Carrier landings trying to get it almost perfect, which i doupt will ever be lol, i think i landed more the Hornet since it came out than i've droped bombs, i wasted the Virtual Armed Forces tired depot inventory faster than the Armory depot. :)

So did i with the Shit Hot Break, coming in at 500 KIAS, 500 ft. breaking as i reach the boat's stern etc... I was just doing it a few times to get out the the usual 800/600 usual pattern i was doing, just to learn or try new stuff, it'S even knew i am using the ICLS, i usualy tried to go with numbers. Specialy the runway in persian gulf i found out to practice, it'S nice and causy :) But has no ILS, no Tacan, not even a ATC Tower, so i created a Waypoint to act as a Tacan, so it's basicly just praticing VFR landings and trying to get the numbers or sorta. I'm clumsy so i'll never ever get my stuff dead on as the real pilot that'S for sure. :)

As i said, i've been practicing VFR stuff a lot, the best i could, so far i am not interested in Case III, i love seing the landscape as i fly, and night flying in VR gets a bit... boring from my point of view. As you can see on those videos, not perfect at all, but here's a few different approaches i'Ve done and tried, and why i am trying to get a new way to land as per not 800 ft/600 ft.

As seen here i even tried to practice Holding patterns down to the deck, Spinning..

Shit Hot Break, that i just tried for the heck of it, but only done it a few times, not something i do often but wanted to try to see how fast i would kiss the boat's rear end and swim around the boat. :)

And trying out a Carrier altitude pattern on an airfield with 20 kts crosswind, which was harder than i'Ve thought on my side. :) I even made the wind blowing from left to right to make me adjust the other side of the carrier's effect of moving constantly right, to practing adjusting the otehr side.

They are not perfect and i never or will never claim being able to do them perfectly, but i wanted tu try a new not perfect approach just to break my routine.

Nice ship Break.

The land one in DCS is tricky cos DCS adds a load of shear to the wind, way more than is normal IRL, That's why your drift angle on final needs constant adjustment, makes strong crosswinds harder than it should be.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk