I have heard it is very difficult for a pilot to land on a carrier deck.
I have read this question but it didn't really give me a sense of the challenges that pilots face.
This question lent me the insight that metal decks, themselves, have different properties (that I should have considered)... perhaps friction, changes due to thermal shifts (that asphalt does not exhibit), perhaps it 'gives' differently under touch-down pressure.
Can someone paint a more-complete picture? I'm sure there are also other factors, besides that the deck is moving.... but even then - perhaps there are 'different kinds' of movements of the deck that I haven't considered.
I've never done it IRL, but read about it lots, and Flight Simmed it many times, so I'll take a stab.
(until someone who has actually done it says better)
When landing on a fixed runway, your glide-path is pretty much right towards the end of the runway.
Its not like that at all on a Carrier. From up high, you are actually aiming for a point in front of the carrier. You're aiming for where the runway will be in 30 seconds. As you get closer, the carrier moves closer into position. But still not entirely in position until the last second. So you're always aiming for an invisible/imaginary point where the runway will be at the last second.
This is the best picture I've found of what I'm describing:
Notice that the flight path indicator (the little circle in the HUD) is well beyond the front of the carrier. If this plane was landing on a runway, the flight path would be aimed right at the numbers.
In a typical runway landing you flare out just before touchdown, "float" for a second and drop on to the runway.
In a carrier landing, you maintain your glide-path attitude all the way on to the deck. There's no flare or float. This helps you hit exactly the spot you're aiming for (the 3-wire), but in some sense you really are crashing into the deck at a not-inconsiderable descent rate.
Remember the glide path to the imaginary touch-down point? Because the carrier deck can be pitching or rolling in the waves, that imaginary touch-down point is not a fixed distance directly in front of the ship. As the ship bobs and weaves around, your touchdown point is moving around too. That makes it even harder to hit the point right. It can well be at the last second, as your plane is dropping quickly, the deck suddenly jumps up to meet you, making the impact even more violent.
The landing part of a carrier deck is the diagonal part on the back of the deck. It is angled about 20-degrees to the left, relative to the carrier. But it is moving directly forward with the movement of the carrier. This means the "runway" is not moving directly away from you, but slipping sideways.
I have heard it is very difficult for a pilot to land on a carrier deck. I have read this question but it didn't really give me a sense of the challenges that pilots face. This question lent me the insight that metal decks, themselves, have different properties (that I should have considered)... perhaps friction, changes due to thermal shifts (that asphalt does not exhibit), perhaps... there are 'different kinds' of movements of the deck that I haven't considered.
On the question of Are pilots armed?, one thing this made me think is: for the few that are armed, are they allowed to bring their weapon into, for example, the UK? What is the procedure? Does the gun stay in the cockpit or does it need to be checked by security once on the ground? Presuming a pilot had to fire a gun over EU airspace, is he breaking the law?
In 1963, the C-130 was tested by the US Navy for air carrier operations. Have there been any other comparable or larger aircraft that have landed and taken off from the deck of an aircraft carrier? By large, I am referring to two parameters: wingspan and weight.
Please note that I'm not asking about getting a certificate good enough for flying a wide-body passenger jet (see related question). Rather, I'm asking about getting from zero flying experience to an actual pilot/co-pilot job at a major US airline (AA/Delta/UA/Southwest). Perhaps some regulatory organization maintains such a statistics? Or even the airlines themselves? I'm well aware that people can have various career paths (from ex-military pilots to guys who paid for 10000 flights hours out of their pockets), but with 40,000+ pilots employed by major airlines there must
StallSpin's answer on the recent question about VFR traffic patterns has got me thinking about the "Remarks" section of the Airport/Facility Directory. We are all taught in training to review the AFD entry for airports we intend to visit (part of FAR 91.103's "become familiar with all available information" requirement), and to comply with any restrictions noted - typically things like "no touch-and-go landings", "Standard traffic pattern required of all aircraft", "Prior Permission Required for jet aircraft", etc. Aside from it being The Right Thing To Do, and avoiding the possibility
that they consider the training to have been completed in March. So what happens if a year passes and recurrent training is due. I don't make it in February or March, but the company schedules me for recurrent training towards the end of April. Is it legal for me to fly in April before I go to recurrent training? At this point, I don't meet 135.343 (because I am no longer within the required 12 calendar... this subpart completes the training in the calendar month before, or the calendar month after, the month in which that training is required, the crewmember is considered to have completed
Looking at the paths of the same flight on two different days, I noticed they flew very different paths. Short Path:1 YAY N184B TOPPS ENE PARCH1 Long Path:1 NIBAX G462 TUMAK UL602 ORSOL UL602... REGHI UN480 ETIKI NATD DOVEY LACKS BERGH L454 OWENZ CAMRN CAMRN4 I asked a similar question in the past. This is what I want to know: What are the reasons which can cause a commercial flight to change its path mid-route? How it is planed and executed? I am sure the captain is the final authority on this, but who else is informed? 1Route Source: FlightAware. P.S.: I could not understand
This question is somewhat related to this other one. I listened to this exchange between a helicopter and Newark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHNvXPbZ7WI The helicopter wants to land at Newark. The controller tells the helicopter to remain clear of the Class B. I'm aware that the controllers must give clearance to operate in certain classes of airspace, and the helicopter wasn't granted clearance to do so. Why was the helicopter denied (as far as can be deduced)? What should the pilot have done differently, either to get clearance to land at Newark or to anticipate not being able to?
I know that for land aircraft and seaplanes that they require separate endorsements to fly them. However, for the case of amphibians, what do you need to fly one? Do you need to have another, completely different endorsement, or just a seaplane and land endorsements? What about if you always fly it on water or land?
(Related to this question) Many pilots have told me that an IFR rating is the most valuable thing i can do to improve my flying and margin of safety. I know there are courses as quick as, "Get your IFR in 10 days!", but I'm unsure if that's quality training that will stick with me. How much should it cost for a robust, worthwhile IFR program for single engine land airplanes? What would distinguish a worthy program from one that merely meets minimums?