Will This Rob Carrier Pilots Of Stick & Rudder Landing Skills?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
11,766
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
https://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/03/14/fleet-flies-magic-carpet/

While this kind of technology always sounds good, will it take away piloting skills in the long run? We saw what happened to the Asiana Air pilot at San Francisco. And more recently the Ethiopian Air pilots. Will that bleed over to carrier pilots if they become as dependent on this type of automation? Astro, what say you? If anyone can comment with accuracy on this, you can.
 
No. Carrier pilots will always be trained to land without these systems. In any case drones are going to make carrier pilots obsolete.
 
My older brother was a navy pilot., he put 10 years in and left for the commercial money . He says flying the jumbo jets is like driving a school bus compared to flying the jet he did in the navy .
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
No. Carrier pilots will always be trained to land without these systems. In any case drones are going to make carrier pilots obsolete.

I don't agree with either of those statements. Sure, "they'll be trained". But without constant practice pilots become rusty, and dependent on technology. And landing on a carrier is no cake walk in ideal conditions. It will make mediocre pilots look better. Too bad Kara Hultgreen didn't have this system available to her. She might still be alive today. Although it wouldn't have made her any better of a stick and rudder pilot.

Look at the Asiana Air pilot I mentioned. He crashed a perfectly good aircraft, in perfect weather because he didn't know how to land it. He became dependent on automation. While the final verdict isn't in yet, this whole 737 Max deal is running around automation problems as we speak. Both accidents happened to third world pilots. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pilots, along with well honed stick and rudder flying skills will never become "obsolete". They were saying that 50 years ago. And even if it were technologically possible, would you want to get on a pilotless aircraft? It's not a elevator, or a monorail taking you 1,000 feet from the terminal to the parking lot.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
BMWTurboDzl said:
I don't agree with either of those statements. Sure, "they'll be trained". But without constant practice pilots become rusty, and dependent on technology. And landing on a carrier is no cake walk in ideal conditions. It will make mediocre pilots look better. Too bad Kara Hultgreen didn't have this system available to her. She might still be alive today. Although it wouldn't have made her any better of a stick and rudder pilot.

Look at the Asiana Air pilot I mentioned. He crashed a perfectly good aircraft, in perfect weather because he didn't know how to land it. He became dependent on automation. While the final verdict isn't in yet, this whole 737 Max deal is running around automation problems as we speak. Both accidents happened to third world pilots. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pilots, along with well honed stick and rudder flying skills will never become "obsolete". They were saying that 50 years ago. And even if it were technologically possible, would you want to get on a pilotless aircraft? It's not a elevator, or a monorail taking you 1,000 feet from the terminal to the parking lot.


Automation will indeed make mediocre pilots look better, but only that "LOOK" As for he Asiana Ethiopian Etc I ut the BLAME solely on Boeing. They knew of the problem and told nobody, but also made the solution optional and very expensive, that's why some poorer airlines opted out. I'm sure had they known hey'd have spent te mocey for the additional software.
 
You all have precisely hit the nail on the head . What does the pilot do when the shiny new " toys " stop working ?

Whether military pilots ( or civilian pilots ) will become obsolete because of drones ? I do not know ( neither am I a pilot ) . I am guessing , for some missions , probably so .

A cruise missile is sort of a drone . Send it in on the highest risk missions . Fire and forget . No pilots risking life and limb ( and capture ) .
 
Technology is a wonderful thing, Till it doesn't work. Then we are crippled because we became dependent on it.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
No. Carrier pilots will always be trained to land without these systems. In any case drones are going to make carrier pilots obsolete.

I don't agree with either of those statements. Sure, "they'll be trained". But without constant practice pilots become rusty, and dependent on technology. And landing on a carrier is no cake walk in ideal conditions. It will make mediocre pilots look better. Too bad Kara Hultgreen didn't have this system available to her. She might still be alive today. Although it wouldn't have made her any better of a stick and rudder pilot.

Look at the Asiana Air pilot I mentioned. He crashed a perfectly good aircraft, in perfect weather because he didn't know how to land it. He became dependent on automation. While the final verdict isn't in yet, this whole 737 Max deal is running around automation problems as we speak. Both accidents happened to third world pilots. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pilots, along with well honed stick and rudder flying skills will never become "obsolete". They were saying that 50 years ago. And even if it were technologically possible, would you want to get on a pilotless aircraft? It's not a elevator, or a monorail taking you 1,000 feet from the terminal to the parking lot.


My understanding is that "Magic Carpet" is being used to dramatically reduce training costs.

Since it makes carrier landings so much simpler, then the Navy doesn't need to spend the money on practice landings, which took about 20% of the flying dollars, both at sea and on land in preparation for going to sea.

So, you're right, Bill, the development of the skills needed to fly aboard without this system will not take place. The technology makes it no longer "necessary" to be able to manually fly the airplane aboard the "old-fashioned" way; with line-up, pitch, power, and AOA control.

The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, top Admiral in the Navy) that approved this is a Submariner. He viewed this as a huge money-saving development. The new CNO (nominated yesterday) is a P-3 guy, so you cannot expect any advocacy for pilot skills from him (sorry, Mouth, but he's a land-based guy, never understood the CV environment).

I am deeply concerned about the direction Naval Aviation is taking with the Magic Carpet. The stick and rudder precision that Navy pilots are known for will no longer be taught, developed, or needed...

Until the technology goes south.

And in that moment, when stick and rudder skills are needed, they won't exist.

So, maybe all those dollars saved across hundred of pilots will pay for the carnage on the flight deck, or the loss of the airplane when the pilot has to eject because they're unable to land...

Perhaps that's deemed "acceptable risk" by the top leadership.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
No. Carrier pilots will always be trained to land without these systems. In any case drones are going to make carrier pilots obsolete.


We are still a very long way from drones (either remotely piloted, or autonomous vehicles) being able to fly fighter missions.

They can fly strike missions (deliver a weapon) and even refueling missions, but making decisions is not the drones' forte...

Air combat, between airplanes, is still a 100% human arena.
 
I see drones taking more and more missions away over the long haul. The new Boeing Wingman is a good example.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital...2/27/boeing-unveils-loyal-wingman-drone/


I wonder if the current carrier shortage is pushing these plans? The overall plan was to increase carrier strength but with the timing of overhauls on some carriers including the nuclear refueling and the troubles they are having with the newer EM landing systems on the Ford class, it appears to be affecting the number of available carriers.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
No. Carrier pilots will always be trained to land without these systems. In any case drones are going to make carrier pilots obsolete.

I don't agree with either of those statements. Sure, "they'll be trained". But without constant practice pilots become rusty, and dependent on technology. And landing on a carrier is no cake walk in ideal conditions. It will make mediocre pilots look better. Too bad Kara Hultgreen didn't have this system available to her. She might still be alive today. Although it wouldn't have made her any better of a stick and rudder pilot.

Look at the Asiana Air pilot I mentioned. He crashed a perfectly good aircraft, in perfect weather because he didn't know how to land it. He became dependent on automation. While the final verdict isn't in yet, this whole 737 Max deal is running around automation problems as we speak. Both accidents happened to third world pilots. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pilots, along with well honed stick and rudder flying skills will never become "obsolete". They were saying that 50 years ago. And even if it were technologically possible, would you want to get on a pilotless aircraft? It's not a elevator, or a monorail taking you 1,000 feet from the terminal to the parking lot.


My understanding is that "Magic Carpet" is being used to dramatically reduce training costs.

Since it makes carrier landings so much simpler, then the Navy doesn't need to spend the money on practice landings, which took about 20% of the flying dollars, both at sea and on land in preparation for going to sea.

So, you're right, Bill, the development of the skills needed to fly aboard without this system will not take place. The technology makes it no longer "necessary" to be able to manually fly the airplane aboard the "old-fashioned" way; with line-up, pitch, power, and AOA control.

The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, top Admiral in the Navy) that approved this is a Submariner. He viewed this as a huge money-saving development. The new CNO (nominated yesterday) is a P-3 guy, so you cannot expect any advocacy for pilot skills from him (sorry, Mouth, but he's a land-based guy, never understood the CV environment).

I am deeply concerned about the direction Naval Aviation is taking with the Magic Carpet. The stick and rudder precision that Navy pilots are known for will no longer be taught, developed, or needed...

Until the technology goes south.

And in that moment, when stick and rudder skills are needed, they won't exist.

So, maybe all those dollars saved across hundred of pilots will pay for the carnage on the flight deck, or the loss of the airplane when the pilot has to eject because they're unable to land...

Perhaps that's deemed "acceptable risk" by the top leadership.



Wow. Well that's just dumb but wouldn't be the first time. How is this new system different from ACLS or is it an upgrade?
 
Last edited:
I can't even begin to imagine how a pilots hands sweat, or his heart pumps, while trying to land a $30+ million supersonic fighter on a pitching and rolling aircraft carrier in bad weather, at night. About like trying to drive a Cadillac into a dark closet without headlights. About the only thing crazier, would be to think you can replace the skill it takes to do it with automation. Just to try and save a few bucks.
 
Lots of buzz about drones. Don't underestimate AI and its development. It is accelerating exponentially. IMO drones will rapidly take over defensive roles and recon. Then it's only a matter of time until they start supplementing, then replacing human pilots.


Could be faster than you think...
 
Look at the 737 problems we are having .. The "brains" muscle memory then will always return to the electronics. Watch people with their cell phones.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14


My understanding is that "Magic Carpet" is being used to dramatically reduce training costs.

Since it makes carrier landings so much simpler, then the Navy doesn't need to spend the money on practice landings, which took about 20% of the flying dollars, both at sea and on land in preparation for going to sea.

So, you're right, Bill, the development of the skills needed to fly aboard without this system will not take place. The technology makes it no longer "necessary" to be able to manually fly the airplane aboard the "old-fashioned" way; with line-up, pitch, power, and AOA control.

The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, top Admiral in the Navy) that approved this is a Submariner. He viewed this as a huge money-saving development. The new CNO (nominated yesterday) is a P-3 guy, so you cannot expect any advocacy for pilot skills from him (sorry, Mouth, but he's a land-based guy, never understood the CV environment).



Astro,

No offense taken, and I MOSTLY agree with you.

I don't think it was your intent, but I want to stress that the VP (land based Maritime Naval aviation) community still takes great pride in our pilot training and proficiency. With our history of CFIT, mid air's (VP-50), engine fires and ditching (ADAK, Masirah), Pago Pago (over confident aviator) and our current transition to the P-8 with it A2A refueling we still value stick and rudder skills, critical thinking and NATOPS knowledge of the aircraft.

I however have no illusion that any of that translates to a knowledge or understanding of CV(N) based tailhook fixed wing aircraft by a MPRA aviator. Phasing out training and replacing it with automation is in my opinion always a terrible idea, new capabilities are great, removing the ability to accomplish the task without the automation is asking for trouble.
 
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Lots of buzz about drones. Don't underestimate AI and its development. It is accelerating exponentially. IMO drones will rapidly take over defensive roles and recon. Then it's only a matter of time until they start supplementing, then replacing human pilots.


Could be faster than you think...


The problem I can see with anything that needs communication equipment to operate is it can be hacked and taken over. Nothing is immune as we all know.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14

My understanding is that "Magic Carpet" is being used to dramatically reduce training costs.

Since it makes carrier landings so much simpler, then the Navy doesn't need to spend the money on practice landings, which took about 20% of the flying dollars, both at sea and on land in preparation for going to sea.

So, you're right, Bill, the development of the skills needed to fly aboard without this system will not take place. The technology makes it no longer "necessary" to be able to manually fly the airplane aboard the "old-fashioned" way; with line-up, pitch, power, and AOA control.

The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, top Admiral in the Navy) that approved this is a Submariner. He viewed this as a huge money-saving development. The new CNO (nominated yesterday) is a P-3 guy, so you cannot expect any advocacy for pilot skills from him (sorry, Mouth, but he's a land-based guy, never understood the CV environment).

I am deeply concerned about the direction Naval Aviation is taking with the Magic Carpet. The stick and rudder precision that Navy pilots are known for will no longer be taught, developed, or needed...

Until the technology goes south.

And in that moment, when stick and rudder skills are needed, they won't exist.

So, maybe all those dollars saved across hundred of pilots will pay for the carnage on the flight deck, or the loss of the airplane when the pilot has to eject because they're unable to land...

Perhaps that's deemed "acceptable risk" by the top leadership.


The 20% metric is an interesting one. It's relatively small, I would have assumed that carrier ops training to stay sharp would be a more significant fraction, given its criticality. I'd have also thought that every carrier landing is a chance to train for the worst.

The one thing that the recently departed CNO would understand is risk acceptance and nested risks. The NR philosophy is all about how many steps to a credible event. I would expect that the aviation community wouldn't be that far behind in redundancy and numbers of failures that would have to occur to hit a certain condition.

Sure, I understand that the controls can be hacked, fail, or take battle damage. The first one is a changing threat, the second is a reliability issue that I'd assume would be the case in an FBW platform, relative to actuation capabilities. I would think that the third would be contingent upon design precepts, such that if the damage got to the controls, the platform wouldn't be able to fly.

So I'd think that a product like this would make pilots lives easier. Remember that S2F is an ONR program that is intended to rapidly provide tech based upon Navy/USMC direct input. This isn't the type of thing where a bureaucrat or contractor had a good idea that they just had to sell. They are asking for this. The policy and doctrine to keep training for contingencies, every time there isn't, seems to me to be a different matter, what's stopping them?
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by Astro14

My understanding is that "Magic Carpet" is being used to dramatically reduce training costs.

Since it makes carrier landings so much simpler, then the Navy doesn't need to spend the money on practice landings, which took about 20% of the flying dollars, both at sea and on land in preparation for going to sea.

So, you're right, Bill, the development of the skills needed to fly aboard without this system will not take place. The technology makes it no longer "necessary" to be able to manually fly the airplane aboard the "old-fashioned" way; with line-up, pitch, power, and AOA control.

The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, top Admiral in the Navy) that approved this is a Submariner. He viewed this as a huge money-saving development. The new CNO (nominated yesterday) is a P-3 guy, so you cannot expect any advocacy for pilot skills from him (sorry, Mouth, but he's a land-based guy, never understood the CV environment).

I am deeply concerned about the direction Naval Aviation is taking with the Magic Carpet. The stick and rudder precision that Navy pilots are known for will no longer be taught, developed, or needed...

Until the technology goes south.

And in that moment, when stick and rudder skills are needed, they won't exist.

So, maybe all those dollars saved across hundred of pilots will pay for the carnage on the flight deck, or the loss of the airplane when the pilot has to eject because they're unable to land...

Perhaps that's deemed "acceptable risk" by the top leadership.


The 20% metric is an interesting one. It's relatively small, I would have assumed that carrier ops training to stay sharp would be a more significant fraction, given its criticality. I'd have also thought that every carrier landing is a chance to train for the worst.

The one thing that the recently departed CNO would understand is risk acceptance and nested risks. The NR philosophy is all about how many steps to a credible event. I would expect that the aviation community wouldn't be that far behind in redundancy and numbers of failures that would have to occur to hit a certain condition.

Sure, I understand that the controls can be hacked, fail, or take battle damage. The first one is a changing threat, the second is a reliability issue that I'd assume would be the case in an FBW platform, relative to actuation capabilities. I would think that the third would be contingent upon design precepts, such that if the damage got to the controls, the platform wouldn't be able to fly.

So I'd think that a product like this would make pilots lives easier. Remember that S2F is an ONR program that is intended to rapidly provide tech based upon Navy/USMC direct input. This isn't the type of thing where a bureaucrat or contractor had a good idea that they just had to sell. They are asking for this. The policy and doctrine to keep training for contingencies, every time there isn't, seems to me to be a different matter, what's stopping them?



We also have to remember that the pilots are not the only ones benefiting from carrier landing and takeoff ops. The carrier flight deck crew and support crew also get experience.
 
Just watch his hands and control inputs from the 1:00 point to touchdown. And remember, this is during the day, with beautiful weather, good visibility, and all but calm seas. Now imagine the same thing at night in bad weather, with very low visibility in rough seas, with the boat pitching and rolling, after his automated, "Magic Carpet Ride" takes a dump. Would you want to be in the back seat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top