Emergancy landing on a carrier?

[RFields5421 1]

What makes you think the deck would be clear enough to land?Have you even seen how many aircraft are parked on the back of the ship when they are not doing flight ops?Remember in the best case you are going to have to put that aircraft down and stop in less than 500 feet to be successful. On a deck which is about as slippery as wet grass for a set of small aircraft tires.More than likely the ship will be steaming with a stiff crosswind.Making an emergency landing on a carrier is a nice thought - butit would not save your aircraft from damage if successful,it would be a major risk of danger/ damage to the aircraft on the carrier deck, the men and women on the carrier, even to the survival of the carrier itself,it is a major risk of losing your life in a landing much more hazardous than ditching.The positive side of ditching - you get a soft landing rather than a hard crash,you as the pilot get to control when and where you touchdown,you will have several people in the water with you - experienced and trained at getting people out of downed aircraft and safely out of the water.Attempting to landing on a carrier is literally a choice between a 99% survival option - ditching; and a 10% survival option - the carrier.

[RFields5421 1]

The aircraft in this picture has a wingspan of a little over 77 feet - and you can see the parked aircraft are only about 15-20 feet from where the Whale flies.http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/wp1.jpghttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg12photos/fanpark.jpgHere are some more looks at carrier landings. One is catching the wire - note the aircraft on the other side of the landing area.http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/km2.jpghttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/indy-'62.jpghttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/ea-3bla1.jpgYour Cessna will have a wingspan of 36 feet - which means that you can only be off the center-line about 25 feet. This would be a more typical configuration of a carrier deckhttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg8photos/Forrestal7-8-61.jpgBelieve it or not - this is a good takeoffhttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg10photos/dave1.jpgThis is the "best" possibility - I got to sit in this seat once for a night landing on the FDR.http://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg13photos/a3no5.jpg

[RFields5421 1]

They did survive - diverted to Iwakuni - good thing they were close. No hydrualics, gear and flaps down - port wing bent 10 degrees. Estimated 5 kt wind gust as they crossed the stern.http://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg17photos/Adams11.jpghttp://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg17photos/Adams12.jpg

[RFields5421 1]

EA-3B BUNO 142257 R-11CREWNAMES: SURVIVED: (7) LT Dave Longeway (Pilot), LT. John Jones (Nav), LT Bill Lombardi (Eval), ADJ Ken Wallis (P/C), AMS2 Bob Delgiudice, (P/C), AQ3 Francis (EWOP) CTI1 Darrell Hawkins.On 03/08/1974 EA-3B was inbound to the USS AMERICA CV-66 in the west med. Aircraft made the landing and caught the #1 wire 5 feet right of the centerline. After 50 inches of cable run travel, the purchase cable failed approx 1 inch into the stbd socket. Socket assy separated from the cap upon reaching the tail hook point. Aircraft continued up the angle at max power unable to regain altitude and settled down in the water. All crewmembers escaped and the EA-3B floated for 5 minutes.----------------------------------------------------------------EA-3B BUNO 144850 R-12CREWNAMES: KILLED: (7) LT Alan A. Levine, Pilot. LCDR. Ronald R. Callander, Nav. LT Stephen H. Batchelder, Eval. LT James D. Richards, Eval. AT2 Richard A. Herzing, ESM OP. Note: Took flight from AT2 Rob Crair in order to get his 100 traps in the EA-3B. CTI3 Craig R. Rudolf, Intel. CTI3 Patrick R. Price, Intel.On 01/25/1987 EA-3B was attempting to land on the USS Nimitz CVN-68 at night during blue water operations off of Lebanon. Aircraft attempted to catch the arresting gear wire 5 times to no avail. During one of the bolters the EA-3B drop out of view below the flight deck almost impacting the water. After regaining altitude the aircraft was running low on fuel with less than 800lbs left, the aircraft then meet up with the A-7 tanker which would not work because the buddy store was spewing fuel every where (No Joy). Due to the low fuel state the EA-3B was unable to make it to a shore base and it was decided to launch the KA-6B tanker. It was then determined that the A-6 couldn't be launched due to it was blocked in on the bow by other aircraft from the last recovery. After a discussion between the aircraft, CAG and VQ-2 CO, It was ruled out for the crew to bail out or ditch into the cold Mediterranean water. The barricade was rigged, then it was discovered that a big wrench used to tighten up the barricade was missing, so the barricade was sagging 8 foot. The EA-3B made a really nice approach to the carrier descending toward the barricade at a high angle, once near the barricade the LSO told the pilot to "Cut, Cut" meaning kill the engines, the pilot failed to do so flying into the barricade really high hitting the nose landing gear on the sagging barricade ripping it back and slamming the A-3 into the deck then skidding down the flight deck and off the angle into the sea. The rescue Helo hovered above the A-3 not noting any movement inside; the helo SAR swimmers did not enter the A-3. After 13 minutes of floating the EA-3B sank with its 7 men crew to the bottom of the sea. Photos of both are on this web page - http://www.portlyautey.com/ECM-2.htm

[Mace 1,902]

>What makes you think the deck would be clear enough to land?>Well nothing makes me think that Reggie. All I meant to ask was, *assuming the deck was clear*, what's to stop a pilot from landing on a CV, short of shooting them down? RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Mace 1,902]

>>Look hope I didn't insult you or hurt your feelings, I am a>sailor and we're known for being straight to the point without>being politically correct.>haha, no I'm too old for that now. But really, my question stands, how can they not "let" someone land on a CV, other than shoot them down? Assuming, of course, that the deck is actually clear to where the a/c could get down. Sure the landing gear on the a/c would be toast. Sure the guy landing would get arrested, charged, etc. etc.But that's not my question. So what's to stop someone?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Mace 1,902]

Nice shots. Those look like Skywarriors. That's a pretty good sized carrier plane. Another biggie was the A5A Vigilante. You ever see any of those set down?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[RFields5421 1]

I think I've made about 60 landings on carriers.About 15 in an EA-3B Skywarrior, four in an RA-3B - three of those in the seat back to back with the pilot - one in the Nav seat.The others were in C-1 and C-2 aircraft.(I'm not counting about 200 helicopter landings/ horse collar drops on ships from carrier to FF-1052 class)I do NOT like carrier landings - and am firmly convinced that the people who do so for a living are terminally insane.It is just too different than a regular field landing, and too violent when successful.I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that my chances for survival would be much higher with a ditching.Yes, it is fun to speculate and pretend what if - but it would almost never happenAnd after the USS Cole - they will shoot you down.

[Mace 1,902]

>I think I've made about 60 landings on carriers.>>About 15 in an EA-3B Skywarrior, four in an RA-3B - three of>those in the seat back to back with the pilot - one in the Nav>seat.>That must be something, sitting back facing the front, not able to see out during the landing.>The others were in C-1 and C-2 aircraft.>>(I'm not counting about 200 helicopter landings/ horse collar>drops on ships from carrier to FF-1052 class)>Isn't the FF1052 a Knox class FF? I liked the looks of those ships. I have a wallpaper of one of them crashing through spray. It's even neater looking because it's a black-and-white pic.>>And after the USS Cole - they will shoot you down.Ah, yes the USS Cole. I bet the Navy doesn't take any chances now. One time, I talked to a CO on a Minehunter, one of that new class. He talked about how much he liked the ship. So I asked him, "If you could have any improvement on the ship, what would it be?" And he replied, "I'd like more guns.".As in small caliber guns, like 7.62 or 12.7 MG's. I guess for USS Cole-type attacks, that's a good defense.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[RFields5421 1]

Isn't the FF1052 a Knox class FF? I liked the looks of those ships. Yes the USS Knox is/was FF-1052. I've been dropped to her deck more than once - and I've been on her and her three sisters in the North Pacific in winter when green water was coming over the bow of the USS Midway. I though I deserved submarine pay for that week on the USS Lockwood (FF-1064).Wikipedia has a nice photo of the four stationed in Yokosuka with the USS Towers back in the 80's. Look for "Knox class frigate"

[Mace 1,902]

>>Yes the USS Knox is/was FF-1052. I've been dropped to her deck>more than once - and I've been on her and her three sisters in>the North Pacific in winter when green water was coming over>the bow of the USS Midway. I though I deserved submarine pay>for that week on the USS Lockwood (FF-1064).>Are you at all familiar with the Canadian Navy's "Beartrap" helicopter hauldown system?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[woodreau 0]

Nothing really. If someone is really determined to do something, you can't stop them - all you can do is mitigate the aftermath.The original poster wanted to know if he could land on a carrier if the engine stopped running and there was one nearby within gliding distance. The probability of successfully landing is very slim - a lot of things have to go right in order for it to happen.Pilots don't have training to land on a moving object, but they do have training on engine failures and have been taught how to ditch an aircraft into the water (now whether you remember how to ditch - that's another question - it IS in the private pilot PTS - it's just probably glossed over because most pilots don't fly over water.)Once the carrier realizes you're coming their way, it is going to try to ID you, figure out what you're doing - try to establish comms with you and warn you off. You can argue your emergency and demand to land on the deck, but there probably isn't enough time to set up any ad hoc procedure for the emergency landing. Is the rewards of successfully recovering you on the flight deck worth the risks involved to you, the ship and the sailors? Probably not. That is what is going on aboard the carrier and what is going to drive the decision to tell you to ditch close and we'll pick you up.We tell you no landing, ditch here, and you try to land anyway - we can always maneuver the ship - my standing joke with the air wing is: if you #### me off, I'll mess up your OK 3-wire - all I have to say is "left full rudder" at the opportune time (like when you're about 1/4 mile final.)No we can't outrun your light single. You fly around 65kts best glide - we can run at 30kts (or faster) - you'll have a 30kt overtake. The best we can do is maneuver the ship and force you to use up your altitude to chase us. A carrier is pretty maneuverable considering its mass. All we need to do is hold you off until you run out of altitude to trade for airspeed.We haven't talked about sending fighters and helicopters to get in your way. Haven't even thought about trying to shoot you down - that is a pretty serious decision and only three people in the US can authorize that one - we probably wouldn't have anything to shoot you down with anyway (off SOCAL).If you do have a working engine, and all you wanted to do is land on a flight deck, no, there is really nothing we can do to stop you from doing it other than to make it really unplesant for you.If we let you do it, with a fully working single, you can probably land successfully and still have a usable Cessna afterwards - you have to put up with a 30kt - 10 degree crosswind from the right - you've got to stop within 600ft - and your runway is moving away from you at anywhere from 10-30kts. Your relative "groundspeed" when you cross the theshold is about 25-30kts. Do you know of any flight instructors who can land and stop within one runway stripe on a very windy day? Every flight instructor I know has challenged their Cessna 152 students to land and stop on one runway stripe (200ft).

[Guest]

Hmm, this topic sure has attracted a lot of attention, as the OP, it was all just meant as a fun post after finishing the FSX mission, in it I was warned not to land on the carrier, so ditched beside it, but that gave me a mission failure result and the reason being was I never landed on the carrier!After a few more attempts, I managed to get the aircraft on the deck, but it was quite difficult, the carrier in FSX is steaming at a fair bit of speed.The only thing I don't quite understand here is why a light aircraft could not survive a landing the way military jets do? the procedure would be different, Jets come in fast and make a controlled crash, they need to land at speed in case they miss the wire and need to go round, in this *hypothetical situation* the light aircraft would not need to come down so hard, so long as its more fragile gear missed the wires, it should be able to stop in time. There is no reason it has to slam into the deck like an FA-18 does.But, yes, I fully understand what would happen if this was attempted in real life, but all I was wondering was, would it be possible if it were allowed.As a side note, what simulation do you guys think was the most realistic carrier landing experience? I have fond memories of the old Microprose F-14 Fleet Defender for jets and their 1942 Pacific air war for props, sometimes the older simulations did things really well ... yikes, I'd settle for those two with just updated graphics and nothing else.

[Murmur 3,941]

>As a side note, what simulation do you guys think was the most>realistic carrier landing experience? I have fond memories of>the old Microprose F-14 Fleet Defender for jets and their 1942>Pacific air war for props, sometimes the older simulations did>things really well ... yikes, I'd settle for those two with>just updated graphics and nothing else.IMHO the Pacific Fighters series.Doing a carrier landing in PF without breaking something is REAL, REAL hard (at least for me...) :)Marco

[RFields5421 1]

The only thing I don't quite understand here is why a light aircraft could not survive a landing the way military jets do?Some where around the web is some footage of old - pre WWII light bi-planes landing on carriers. If you can find it and watch it - that might give you and idea of how iffy a carrier landing is for a slow small aircraft.But angle decks were invented after that time.In the case of the plane who landed on the USS Midway - the ship slowed to just enough to keep the ship's rudder working. Had the weather been anything more than a couple kts wind and almost perfectly calm seas - it would not have worked.You mentioned the mission - which I haven't flown - and the speed of the carrier. What I've heard is the carrier is actually steaming a bit slower than normal.Yes - carrier landings are barely controlled crashes.A "perfect" landing is that the aircraft stalls just as your wheels touch the ground.No matter what you are flying onto a carrier you do not have that luxury. You have to hit the gear on a spot about the size or smaller than your bedroom. You have to stop FAST and in a very short distance.If you do not hit the deck hard - you miss the entire deck and go into the water.The carrier is moving on three axis.It's forward movement helps you with cutting down the speed difference between the aircraft and the runway.But that means you cannot aim for the deck and landing spot - you have to aim where the ship will be when you get there. An extremely hard skill to master.You will have a very strong crosswind - due to the speed of the ship and wind angle. Probably you will exceed the legal crosswind component of the aircraft.Vertical motion will be present - and this is one of the really big reasons that carrier aircraft come down so hard. On a good day the deck will change elevation only about 10 feet during the last 10-15 seconds of final. On a bad day - 40 feet of vertical motion will happen.If your aircraft is sinking and the deck is rising - it will break the gear off a small aircraft. Then the plane will not stop and slide over the deck into the water - probably too damaged to get people out.A very big problem for all aircraft is the "bubble" of air on the stern. Modern carrier aircraft punch through that air which will make your light aircraft balloon up somewhere between 20 and 100 feet.If I were a carrier CO, and I never was - only a Senior Chief - and I have to recover a light aircraft on the deck - I'd rig the barricade.That way the pilot would be flying into something like a tennis net.One thing which any carrier CO is going to assume is that the aircraft is a write off/ crash no matter what happens.He does not care about saving the aircraft - only saving the lives of the people in the plane.I think that's the big difference in our perceptions. From some of the other comments posted on here - I know these guys have seen carrier landings "up close and personal" - and at least in my case - probably others - carrier crashes.A crippled aircraft trying to land on a carrier almost never works usually someone dies.We learned very early to minimize risks and take the safest alternative if possible.One or two folks in a small plane - ditch is the best option. Maybe a disabled passenger, a couple infants or very young children - maybe ditching would not be best.