PDA

View Full Version : Cable break aboard USS Eisenhower flight deck


OldCessna
12th Jul 2016, 00:04
Holy crap! These guys were lucky!

Navy: Human error to blame for March cable break aboard USS Eisenhower flight deck | Local Military | pilotonline.com (http://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/navy-human-error-to-blame-for-march-cable-break-aboard/article_c4675c54-6cdc-5882-867a-68f961145c9d.html)

https://youtu.be/r-EHwYOfY94

pattern_is_full
12th Jul 2016, 02:11
I know we aren't supposed to get too "aviation-related" in Jet Blast.

But what is that - about 20 feet/6 meters from the point of cable break/end of deceleration, and the end of the deck?! Quite the STOL recovery! I wonder if there were water stains on the wheels.

Sue Vêtements
12th Jul 2016, 02:39
I'm surprised they still use cables. Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to just have a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction at just the right speed?

Gordy
12th Jul 2016, 02:59
water stains on the wheels

Nope but I bet there are some other stains in their flight suits.... Adrenalin is really brown....

skyking1
12th Jul 2016, 04:50
On topic, that plane settled right down into ground effect. I recall hearing about a few heavy transports have used ground effect way back in the day (40s 50s) after losing an engine, to complete an overwater flight, but can't find any documentations. Maybe these things are just not talked about? :)

vapilot2004
12th Jul 2016, 05:00
The article said 125 landings per 'cable'. I seem to remember it being 100. Not that fatigue was the issue here, but are government cutbacks stretching the safety margins a little far?

I've visited the Ike and a few others that were stationed in Norfolk and San Diego. Incredible ships with crews that are also usually top-notch.

sitigeltfel
12th Jul 2016, 06:30
I know we aren't supposed to get too "aviation-related" in Jet Blast.


A thread on this incident has been running on the Mil forum for the last few days.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/581390-video-cable-snaps-uss-eisenhower-during-landing.html

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 14:11
I'm surprised they still use cables. Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to just have a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction at just the right speed? I think they tried that but found that the non skid cracked too often going round the rollers at each end, resulting in FOD in the gears/bearings of the rollers and frequent failures. :E

hiflymk3
12th Jul 2016, 14:42
Lucky the freeboard was that high. Now if the carrier could go fast enough to match the speed of the aircraft...

G-CPTN
12th Jul 2016, 14:44
Where was the rescue helicopter?

Or is escape from a Hawkeye not possible?


It seems that there are hatches for the front two seats,but nothing for the rear occupants other that the usual entrances.

QEkYqL9n7vo

maliyahsdad2
12th Jul 2016, 14:49
The Hawkeye is part helicopter, they hide the Rotorblades in the cover thing, that is how it managed to avoid hitting the water.


Unless it works like this?

GYhwLnIzSEY

hiflymk3
12th Jul 2016, 14:51
Even if they could escape from the aircraft I doubt whether they could have escaped from the aircraft carrier bearing down on them.

fleigle
12th Jul 2016, 16:08
G-CPTN
The rescue chopper is usually a little further astern of the bow, maybe 2/3rds back, on the left side.
BTW, there will be a PM for you in a few.
f

ehwatezedoing
12th Jul 2016, 17:40
I'm surprised they still use cables. Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to just have a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction at just the right speed?
Portable conveyor belt running the opposite direction it should be!

They were getting close to the idea with a XB-36 :p

Ah! Direct video doesn't work...
This should do it:
XB-36 track landing gear test flights. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCgMlomhvM)

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 18:03
Where was the rescue helicopter?
In the starboard delta pattern, where it always is during launch and recovery.
Or is escape from a Hawkeye not possible?
You're kidding, right?
Even if they could escape from the aircraft I doubt whether they could have escaped from the aircraft carrier bearing down on them. Please read up on a concept calle "angled deck."
The rescue chopper is usually a little further astern of the bow, maybe 2/3rds back, on the left side.
No, on the starboard side.
What is the Starboard Delta Pattern? (LHD NATOPS (https://quizlet.com/9093855/lha-lhd-natops-notecards-flash-cards/))
Right turns, 300' AGL, between the 045° and the 110° bearing lines. The upwind leg is 1 mile abeam. The downwind leg is 3 miles abeam and oriented on the BRC.

pattern_is_full
12th Jul 2016, 18:47
Or is escape from a Hawkeye not possible?

You're kidding, right?

Good one LW50! Let me draw him a picture - complete with nice large yellow "RESCUE" placard.

http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/26jan12E2D-7.jpg

Um... lifting...
12th Jul 2016, 19:52
G-CPTN, I think you'll see another hatch aft if you look for the yellow RESCUE arrow. If memory serves, normal ingress to the aircraft is on the left, with the door more or less at the wing's leading edge.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/E2DAdvancedHawkeye/Documents/pageDocuments/E-2D_Cutaway_Poster.pdf

hiflymk3
12th Jul 2016, 20:30
Lonewolf 50, I was being tongue in cheek with my remark about the carrier bearing down on escaped crewmen. As you probably know the angled flight deck was developed by the Royal Navy, along with the steam catapult and optical landing aids.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 20:45
Lonewolf 50, I was being tongue in cheek with my remark about the carrier bearing down on escaped crewmen. Ah, I didn't catch the tone, sometimes in a text based medium it doesn't register.

hiflymk3
12th Jul 2016, 20:51
You just saw it from a different angle.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 20:58
You just saw it from a different angle.
From Vultures' Row. :cool:

hiflymk3
12th Jul 2016, 21:02
An interesting read. The Development of Angled-Deck Aircraft Carrier. Innovation and Adaptation. Thomas c. Hone, Norman Friedman, and Mark D. Mandeles.

Sue Vêtements
13th Jul 2016, 00:03
If the first trials had been from a ship instead of sand dunes . . .




. . . they would have invented the Wright Angled Deck

galaxy flyer
13th Jul 2016, 02:56
hiflymike,

Care to compare and contrast the USN's CVN fleet to the RN's? Maybe those features were developed by the RN, they were perfected by the USN.

Any war decided by landings on ships, I'm all in for the USN.

GF

hiflymk3
13th Jul 2016, 11:50
Yep, us Brits are pretty good at inventing things, like the industrial revolution, but for various reasons not developed to their full potential. As for aircraft carriers, after WWII we were skint and a world power in decline, although it took some time for us to realise that. We built a few carriers post WWII but perhaps the nuclear threat made them redundant.

As the US took on responsibility as protector of the west, some mobile muscle was needed to deal with more globally localised threats where a carrier is ideal for the job.

Just my 1/2p worth.

57mm
13th Jul 2016, 12:00
Was it not the late Eric "Winkle" Brown who suggested the angled fight deck?

G-CPTN
13th Jul 2016, 12:03
Was it not the late Eric "Winkle" Brown who suggested the angled fight deck?
Angled flight deck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck#Angled_flight_deck).

John Eacott
13th Jul 2016, 12:35
In the starboard delta pattern, where it always is during launch and recovery.

You're kidding, right?
Please read up on a concept calle "angled deck."

No, on the starboard side.
What is the Starboard Delta Pattern? (LHD NATOPS (https://quizlet.com/9093855/lha-lhd-natops-notecards-flash-cards/))
Right turns, 300' AGL, between the 045° and the 110° bearing lines. The upwind leg is 1 mile abeam. The downwind leg is 3 miles abeam and oriented on the BRC.

The RN used to have the planeguard helicopter in the hover on the port side. For launches it would hover adjacent to the aircraft due to be launched, doing a port side safety check to complement that from Flyco. For recoveries it would sit in the port wait, aft of the round down about 150ft out. Recovering helicopters would sit outboard in the port wait, in echelon.

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1784-1/Bucc+trapping+no+2+wire+Eagle.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1974-1/Vixen+recovery+Eagle+from+port+wait_+Wessex+1+_amp_+5+alongs ide.jpg

I know this is about a USN CVA, but planeguard from the port wait was SOP for us.

DirtyProp
13th Jul 2016, 12:55
I know this is about a USN CVA, but planeguard from the port wait was SOP for us.

So you people drive AND fly the wrong way then.
Oh, the madness...
:}

Ethel the Aardvark
13th Jul 2016, 14:48
lucky the Brits invented the angled deck or the Americans would still be using the Brodie landing system :E
Mind you the Brits did experiment with the old wheels up technique on a big slab of rubber :{

Sue Vêtements
13th Jul 2016, 14:59
I've always thought it a little disconcerting to see the big holes in the side of aircraft carriers. It never seemed to catch on with other types of ship.

Lonewolf_50
13th Jul 2016, 15:09
The RN used to have the planeguard helicopter in the hover on the port side.
That wastes a bit of gas, doesn't it? :E If you fly a race track at max conserve, plane guard can stay on station longer and have better fuel reserve.
I know this is about a USN CVA,
:cool: Actually, it's not about a CVA. It's about a CV, more specifically a CV(N). CVA hasn't been used for nearly 40 years. (It was obsolete when I was a midshipman in the 1970's, at which point all of the CVS were gone, and all CVA's became CV's or CV(N)'s which soon became CVN). ;)


/pedantry mode off.

TURIN
13th Jul 2016, 15:11
Watching a program about Scotland at War on BBC4 last night this gem popped up.

https://65.media.tumblr.com/f4e9701135ca22c62ebb001b6549fda7/tumblr_nznw91RMOr1s7e5k5o1_500.jpg

HMS Furious. First deck landing by Sq Cmdr E. Dunning.

On 2 August 1917, while performing trials, Squadron Commander Edwin Dunning landed a Sopwith Pup, believed to have been N6453, successfully on board Furious, becoming the first person to land an aircraft on a moving ship. On 7 August, he made one more successful landing in the same manner, but on his third attempt, in Pup N6452, the engine choked and the aircraft crashed off the starboard bow, killing him. The deck arrangement was unsatisfactory because aircraft had to manoeuvre around the superstructure in order to land.[14]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/wb7chy/Flight%20-%20WWI/SquadronCommanderEHDunningsSopwithPupduringhissecondandfatal attempttolandonHMSFURIOUSwhileunderway.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wb7chy/media/Flight%20-%20WWI/SquadronCommanderEHDunningsSopwithPupduringhissecondandfatal attempttolandonHMSFURIOUSwhileunderway.jpg.html)

John Eacott
13th Jul 2016, 15:44
That wastes a bit of gas, doesn't it? :E If you fly a race track at max conserve, plane guard can stay on station longer and have better fuel reserve.

:cool: Actually, it's not about a CVA. It's about a CV, more specifically a CV(N). CVA hasn't been used for nearly 40 years. (It was obsolete when I was a midshipman in the 1970's, at which point all of the CVS were gone, and all CVA's became CV's or CV(N)'s which soon became CVN). ;)


/pedantry mode off.

As a mid in the 60s and on CVAs in the 70s: they were CVAs :p

Planeguard wasn't fuel starved, only airborne for the launch/recovery cycle and then back on 3/4 spot for a quick visit to the ACRB before back for another hovering exercise. Loitering alongside at 30kias wasn't much different to a racetrack fuel burn anyway, probably fairly close to min burn.

We sometimes wandered over to the USN and joined their Sea Kings in the stbd racetrack. It seemed 'odd' not to be in a more immediate (and more observable) position, but I'm sure that they made it work as well as we did with 'our' way :ok:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1376-2/USN+Sea+King+pair+USS+Independence+04.JPG

Lonewolf_50
13th Jul 2016, 15:49
As a mid in the 60s and on CVAs in the 70s: they were CVAs :p I will remind you that this thread is about a CV in 2016, and that in 1979 when I was on America it was CV-66 and had been for some time. I can find out what year the switch formally took place. (navy trivia, gotta love it!)
EDIT:
Forrestal was reclassified from CVA to CVS in 1975. (As were the others).
I became a mid the following year. (40 years ago, last week, in fact). So depending upon where in "the 70's" one was, we are both aligned correctly and you are an older salt than I am.

KenV
13th Jul 2016, 19:07
Lucky the freeboard was that high. Now if the carrier could go fast enough to match the speed of the aircraft... Wind over the deck is limited by the people on the flight deck being able to do their jobs without getting blown off the flight deck.. Typically greater than 25 knots and less than 40 knots. I understand that the experimental U2 landings on the Forrestal were nearly at zero deck speed.

KenV
13th Jul 2016, 19:28
I'm surprised they still use cables. Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to just have a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction at just the right speed? A conveyor belt running in the "opposite" direction would would have the opposite effect of what you are intending to achieve, which, BTW, is impossible anyway. Think about the physics. A conveyor belt would only effect how the tires spun up and have zero effect on landing distance. Instead of a conveyor belt, imagine using an electric motor in the wheels to spin up the tires to match the ground speed. There would be no tire skid at touch down, but it would do essentially NOTHING to effect the landing distance of the aircraft.

hiflymk3
13th Jul 2016, 20:24
KenV, again, I was being tongue in cheek about the carrier going fast enough to match the speed of the aircraft. I appreciate the deck crew would have problems if the carrier was travelling at the landing speed of the aircraft... unless they wore magnetic boots. :-}

Lonewolf_50
13th Jul 2016, 22:31
KenV, again, I was being tongue in cheek about the carrier going fast enough to match the speed of the aircraft. :-} Guess you never saw the Enterprise (CV 65) at high speed. :}

John Eacott
13th Jul 2016, 22:57
Forrestal was reclassified from CVA to CVS in 1975.

And in 1972 I did my last landing on her. It's called thread drift, L_50 :ok:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7674-2/824+Sea+King+loading+cross+deck+party+from+Forrestal.jpg

G-CPTN
13th Jul 2016, 23:16
Guess you never saw the Enterprise (CV 65) at high speed. :}
I've just been reading about the capabilities of USS Enterprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)).

Things such as a speed of 33.6kn (38.7 mph; 62.2 km/h) and unlimited range (20 to 25 years) and radar capable of detecting large targets at 400 nautical miles (aircraft at 200 nautical miles) are impressive to say the least . . .

Sue Vêtements
14th Jul 2016, 00:23
A conveyor belt would only effect how the tires spun up and have zero effect on landing distanceI feel bad now :(

Lonewolf_50
14th Jul 2016, 08:27
And in 1972 I did my last landing on her. It's called thread drift, L_50 :ok:
John, I believe I see an A-3 Skywarrior (Whale) behind and to the left of your Sea King, next to the Hawkeye. What I don't see is the proper attachment of your landing gear in prep for a shot off of the bow cat! :)
We used to have to land on Spot 3, over on the port side; never got to land our helicopters up front like that. (You guys must have been VIPs, or honored guests). :)