6 ms·

This is interesting. I’ve been out of the cockpit for about 5 years, but we had what we called “mode 1” approaches back then where the carrier would lock onto o

This is interesting. I’ve been out of the cockpit for about 5 years, but we had what we called “mode 1” approaches back then where the carrier would lock onto our f-18. We could land without touching the controls. At the end of my time, they actually incentivized us to fly these approaches more frequently to develop unmanned systems more quickly. (Incentive was giving a perfect grade for a landing...usually Mode Ones were a “no count” in the grading rubric.) I guess the difference here is that an actual person (the LSO) is controlling the jet vice the computer?

moftz 9y ago
I'm not really sure what the benefit of having a remote operator landing the plane vs having a computer do it. I guess the remote pilot can be the third tier in who can land the plane (in-seat pilot, computer, ship remote pilot) and for UAVs (UAV pilot, computer, ship remote pilot). Is the automated landing system that crappy that they want to add in a remote operator? If they can already land a plane automatically, the the next step they should focus on is an automated air traffic control, landing and launching any planes within the 5 mile radius (assuming that doesn't already exist). Imagine a smaller carrier like a LHD totally devoted to UAVs that launch and land without anyone on the tarmac.
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  I think the idea is that UAV operators/pilots might not even attempt landings. There's a future where assume control of UAVs as they approach station, and release as they return to base. In that scheme, they were probably expecting the UAVs to land automatically on the carrier, with something like ATARI being the backup. This way they can leave their operators focusing on mission tasks instead of recovery.
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    Seems like a small gain for a small chance of the loss of a $100 million asset. Wouldn't it be good to give pilots practice landing in adverse conditions just in case this "autoland" fails similarly to how Tesla and Uber's autopilot screws up fatally when the road lines are a bit faded? On the other hand, landing probably is an easier task than driving given the small amount of ways it can go right versus wrong.
    - Gravityloss 9y ago
      Is the actual hardware so expensive? I've heard it's the systems, and increasingly, in them, the software. So mostly the number bandied around might be just development and for total cost, upkeep costs, divided by the number of airframes. So losing one isn't so hard, if it's unmanned.
    - JackFr 9y ago
      That's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots. How much of the hardware is devoted to keeping the pilot alive? Once you remove that, the hardware might be a whole lot simpler and cheaper.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Unmanned, with autonomous carrier take offs, landings, and aerial refueling.
      - kirse 9y ago
        That's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots. There's always going to be a need for humans in the loop. In any sort of major wartime scenario countries will be shooting, disabling, and jamming any form of comms and guidance they know about.
        goldenkey 9y ago
        What about autonomous drones that fallback to using stars and the moon positions for navigation if comms/guidance are jammed? I know this wouldn't work during sunny daytime hours but it's an interesting technique isn't it?
        castle-bravo 9y ago
        We're at the point now where you could put all the software required to control such a thing on a single-board computer the size of a credit card.
- philip1209 9y ago
  I suspect that landing on aircraft carriers is a skill that they do not want people to forget. For example, the military has recently started teaching officers celestial navigation because GPS can be jammed [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-back-navigation-by-the-stars-for-officers https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-bac...
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    A few years ago, I saw Captain Cook-looking gear at a friend's house. I knew he like boats, so I thought these were collectibles. Turns out that he was a sea scout, as a kid. Civilian GPS wasn't available in the early 2000s... at least not to amateur navigators. I think it only became standard for airlines in the 90s and militaries in the 80s. That GPS is new is not surprising. That one tech-generation back is "celestial navigation" with a sextant is shocking (at least it was to me). It was like discovering that before smartphones the closest thing available was signal fires.^ Good reminder that tech can work in big leaps, and that a good technology can last a long time. Moore's law has been such a factor for digital technology, that we can forget it is not the norm. BTW, the alternative to GPS (unless you have a terrestrial signal) for airlines is computerized dead reckoning, the equivalent of throwing a log tied to a rope overboard and counting knots, but a computer counts the knots.
    - philip1209 9y ago
      Fun fact: the SR-71 spy plane uses computer-based celestial navigation https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics-nas-14v2-astroinertial-navigation-system https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics...
      - dalbasal 9y ago
        This is a fun fact.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
dfsegoat 9y ago
Yes, my impression is the LSO can correct / guide it in ultimately. However, I am wondering what happened to all of the technology that they put together for the X-47B - which I believe was fully qualified to land itself in most weather conditions: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/x-47b-unmanned-combat-air-system-carrier-ucas/ https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/x-47b-unmanned-com... btw: Thanks for your service.
dmix 9y ago
yep: > During testing, the ATARI system operators controlled an F/A-18 aircraft using a joystick, while a safety pilot sat in the cockpit as backup. The technology is capable of taking over an aircraft from up to five miles away.

moftz 9y ago

I'm not really sure what the benefit of having a remote operator landing the plane vs having a computer do it. I guess the remote pilot can be the third tier in who can land the plane (in-seat pilot, computer, ship remote pilot) and for UAVs (UAV pilot, computer, ship remote pilot). Is the automated landing system that crappy that they want to add in a remote operator? If they can already land a plane automatically, the the next step they should focus on is an automated air traffic control, landing and launching any planes within the 5 mile radius (assuming that doesn't already exist). Imagine a smaller carrier like a LHD totally devoted to UAVs that launch and land without anyone on the tarmac.

icegreentea2 9y ago
I think the idea is that UAV operators/pilots might not even attempt landings. There's a future where assume control of UAVs as they approach station, and release as they return to base. In that scheme, they were probably expecting the UAVs to land automatically on the carrier, with something like ATARI being the backup. This way they can leave their operators focusing on mission tasks instead of recovery.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Seems like a small gain for a small chance of the loss of a $100 million asset. Wouldn't it be good to give pilots practice landing in adverse conditions just in case this "autoland" fails similarly to how Tesla and Uber's autopilot screws up fatally when the road lines are a bit faded? On the other hand, landing probably is an easier task than driving given the small amount of ways it can go right versus wrong.
  - Gravityloss 9y ago
    Is the actual hardware so expensive? I've heard it's the systems, and increasingly, in them, the software. So mostly the number bandied around might be just development and for total cost, upkeep costs, divided by the number of airframes. So losing one isn't so hard, if it's unmanned.
  - JackFr 9y ago
    That's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots. How much of the hardware is devoted to keeping the pilot alive? Once you remove that, the hardware might be a whole lot simpler and cheaper.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Unmanned, with autonomous carrier take offs, landings, and aerial refueling.
    - kirse 9y ago
      That's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots. There's always going to be a need for humans in the loop. In any sort of major wartime scenario countries will be shooting, disabling, and jamming any form of comms and guidance they know about.
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        What about autonomous drones that fallback to using stars and the moon positions for navigation if comms/guidance are jammed? I know this wouldn't work during sunny daytime hours but it's an interesting technique isn't it?
        castle-bravo 9y ago
        We're at the point now where you could put all the software required to control such a thing on a single-board computer the size of a credit card.
philip1209 9y ago
I suspect that landing on aircraft carriers is a skill that they do not want people to forget. For example, the military has recently started teaching officers celestial navigation because GPS can be jammed [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-back-navigation-by-the-stars-for-officers https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-bac...
- dalbasal 9y ago
  A few years ago, I saw Captain Cook-looking gear at a friend's house. I knew he like boats, so I thought these were collectibles. Turns out that he was a sea scout, as a kid. Civilian GPS wasn't available in the early 2000s... at least not to amateur navigators. I think it only became standard for airlines in the 90s and militaries in the 80s. That GPS is new is not surprising. That one tech-generation back is "celestial navigation" with a sextant is shocking (at least it was to me). It was like discovering that before smartphones the closest thing available was signal fires.^ Good reminder that tech can work in big leaps, and that a good technology can last a long time. Moore's law has been such a factor for digital technology, that we can forget it is not the norm. BTW, the alternative to GPS (unless you have a terrestrial signal) for airlines is computerized dead reckoning, the equivalent of throwing a log tied to a rope overboard and counting knots, but a computer counts the knots.
  - philip1209 9y ago
    Fun fact: the SR-71 spy plane uses computer-based celestial navigation https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics-nas-14v2-astroinertial-navigation-system https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics...
    - dalbasal 9y ago
      This is a fun fact.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

dfsegoat 9y ago

Yes, my impression is the LSO can correct / guide it in ultimately. However, I am wondering what happened to all of the technology that they put together for the X-47B - which I believe was fully qualified to land itself in most weather conditions: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/x-47b-unmanned-combat-air-system-carrier-ucas/ https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/x-47b-unmanned-com... btw: Thanks for your service.

dmix 9y ago

yep: > During testing, the ATARI system operators controlled an F/A-18 aircraft using a joystick, while a safety pilot sat in the cockpit as backup. The technology is capable of taking over an aircraft from up to five miles away.