NEWS Big surprise, OBOGS back in the news.

[nittany03]

I remember hearing the comments that OBOGS would be a significant improvement over LOX systems because aviators would be on the mask from start up to shut down,. Guess that isn't how it's working in the real world.

Whoever came up with that argument should have interviewed more aviators. There's a time and place (i.e. the flight deck) where everyone more or less is and always shall be mask on/visor down. But everywhere else, it's a pipe dream to expect the crew to be wearing the nose hose 100 percent of the time. You sweat in it and need to wipe off your face. Sometimes your face itches. Doing a valsalva can be a pain, depending on how your nose is shaped. On long missions, you need to eat and drink. Sometimes it's just more comfortable to let it swing for awhile if you're not doing dynamic maneuvering.

 

[pourts]

This is really a nasty set of problems.

I can see DCS happening if the cockpit if significantly overpressurized at sea level, which would result in increased amounts of dissolved nitrogen in the circulation, which could then come out of solution at a lower altitude than expected. Do you know if that particular incident was investigated to see what the actual cabin pressure was and for how long prior to takeoff? Pushing additional nitrogen into the circulation is a time and pressure relationship that the dive guys have pretty much thought through.

I remember hearing the comments that OBOGS would be a significant improvement over LOX systems because aviators would be on the mask from start up to shut down,. Guess that isn't how it's working in the real world.

Do you know if anyone has sampled the air from the OBOGS and from the ECS during each phase of flight to see exactly what is in there and in what concentrations?

R/

Of course it was investigated... but the cabin pressurization gauge doesn't talk to the airplane, remember? There is a record of what the airplane THOUGHT it did, and the ECS would never screw up on purpose. So, it thought it was scheduling perfectly fine. What actually happened in the cockpit isn't measured.

Sample the air. Sure. sample it today, sample it tomorrow, its probably fine. Maybe you have to sample the air for 100 hours before you find an anomoly. Maybe there should be a hornet on a dyno somewhere (buno 164__1, linked up to a fuel hose with sensors on all the ECS outputs. We run the jet for 100 hours at a time and try to figure out if any chemicals are in the system. Then on day 1 of the experiment, a pilot gets hypoxia in a different airplane, buno 164__2. I understand when they say it is kind of like chasing a ghost.

 

[EODDave]

Our protocol at NUW is if a crewmember experiences any physiological event, they are evaluated upon landing, then if DCS is suspected, station SAR helo transports them immediately to a chamber.


Rhinos now have that capability with H10. It's in the jets now to play around with, but flight clearance is a few months away. You're 2-3 pushtiles away from direct to capability for world-wide DAFIF (more or less), airfield info (gear availability, RWY length), among other things. It's got a lot of potential.

I can't speak for the E/F folks, but Gs have civilian ILS capability. It goes in the ICLS rack, so you get one or the other. Currently, only the Exped VAQ squadrons have it.

Rhino RNAV's are non precision approaches. Look at our mins for RNAV. This is NOT a precision approach system for us.

 

[Python]

Rhino RNAV's are non precision approaches. Look at our mins for RNAV. This is NOT a precision approach system for us.

True. But still a HUGE development. Can get direct FIXXX and not have to wonder where the hell it is. And now can shoot an instrument approach at almost any single airport. Sure beats the feeling of going on Airnav or Skyvector and seeing no TACAN or radar approaches and ruling out the field. Yes, it's non precision, but still a huge increase in capability.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Rhino RNAV's are non precision approaches. Look at our mins for RNAV. This is NOT a precision approach system for us.

Precision RNAV (LNAV/VNAV) capability has been slated for the H16 Rhino S/W release. Coming soon to a fleet near you... probably about the time the F35C reaches FOC. Which only leaves the hurdle of certification...

 

[HAL Pilot]

Precision RNAV (LNAV/VNAV) capability has been slated for the H16 Rhino S/W release. Coming soon to a fleet near you... probably about the time the F35C reaches FOC. Which only leaves the hurdle of certification...

Precision RNAV is not an approach capability, it just means a more accurate RNP than Basic RNAV. The RNP (required navigation performance) for Precision RNAV is the same as GPS, DME/DME or VOR/DME or +/- 1 NM. B-RNAV was +/- 5 NM. There are "precision-like" RNAV approaches where you fly a programed glide slope to a DH in lieu of a MDA or a VNAV DH, but they are still non-precision approaches. Further, while so do, many do not take you down to the same minimum as a precision approach.

 

[Python]

Precision RNAV is not an approach capability, it just means a more accurate RNP than Basic RNAV. The RNP (required navigation performance) for Precision RNAV is the same as GPS, DME/DME or VOR/DME or +/- 1 NM. B-RNAV was +/- 5 NM. There are "precision-like" RNAV approaches where you fly a programed glide slope to a DH in lieu of a MDA or a VNAV DH, but they are still non-precision approaches. Further, while so do, many do not take you down to the same minimum as a precision approach.

So is flying an RNAV approach with a glide slope to LPV mins is still considered non-precision? Sorry, just trying to clarify.

 

[HAL Pilot]

LPV is not a precision approach. But don't confuse LPV with a LNAV/VNAV or VNAV approach. They use the same charts with different minimums but the electronics in the plane may be different. I doubt the F-18 will have LPV capability as it requires dual WAAS receivers and special maintenance tracking to ensure the required accuracy. Most air carriers fly LNAV/VNAV and not LPV. Most U.S. air carriers do not even have LPV authorization although the aircraft are capable.

Precision approaches are ILS, PAR and GLS (Ground Based Landing System - who, what or where, I haven't a clue). Everything else are non-precision. Within non-precision you have an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) subcategory. These are VNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LDA with VNAV glide path, and LPV.

 

[roflsaurus]

We don't shoot RNAVs to LPV mins in the P-8, so I'd be surprised if Rhinos would. We also shoot basically EVERY approach using vertical guidance, but still log everything except ILSs and PARs as non precision.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Precision RNAV is not an approach capability, it just means a more accurate RNP than Basic RNAV. The RNP (required navigation performance) for Precision RNAV is the same as GPS, DME/DME or VOR/DME or +/- 1 NM. B-RNAV was +/- 5 NM. There are "precision-like" RNAV approaches where you fly a programed glide slope to a DH in lieu of a MDA or a VNAV DH, but they are still non-precision approaches. Further, while so do, many do not take you down to the same minimum as a precision approach.

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was precision approach RNAV capability is supposedly coming in H16. Whether it will be certified down to LPV minima remains to be seen. Right now it's expanding our limited field approach options though, so I'm not complaining.

 

[Brett327]

Rhino RNAV's are non precision approaches. Look at our mins for RNAV. This is NOT a precision approach system for us.

I didn't say it was a precision approach, just that it has a lot of potential.

 

[TexasForever]

If it's ILS you want why don't we just use one of these for every non ILS capable platform?

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-sp-400-handheld-nav-com-aviation-radio.html

At this price why not get two of these bad boys for redundancy?

 

[HAL Pilot]

If it's ILS you want why don't we just use one of these for every non ILS capable platform?

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-sp-400-handheld-nav-com-aviation-radio.html

At this price why not get two of these bad boys for redundancy?

I am 100% positive those are not IFR certified.

 

[707guy]

So you guys need more instruments?

 

[sevenhelmet]

If it's ILS you want why don't we just use one of these for every non ILS capable platform?

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-sp-400-handheld-nav-com-aviation-radio.html

At this price why not get two of these bad boys for redundancy?

I am 100% positive those are not IFR certified.

Even if they were, shooting an approach in an F/A-18 with something like that would be dangerous and fucking stupid.

A better solution for a backup approach method would be an IFR-certified, handheld GPS unit with an external antenna that could be mounted to the inside of the canopy. There are some interesting private applications in development which use a similar concept for pos/nav inputs (think electronic kneeboard). However, getting big Navy to approve those concepts is difficult, and could take at least as long as H16 (or longer) to hit the fleet (if ever).

What's frustrating about this whole thing to me is that there is already engineering in place to fit a standard ILS on the F/A-18. The Blue Angels have had it for years, but the fleet can't get it.