Carrier landings have long been considered the pinnacle of naval aviation skill. Landing on a carrier is one of the most difficult and stressful tasks in all of aviation, and the Navy has worked for generations to improve its safety and efficiency. In recent decades, one of the most significant advancements has been computer-aided landing systems. Today’s Precision Landing Mode is the latest and perhaps most significant.
After World War II, it was recognized that carrier landing accidents accounted for nearly half of all naval aviation mishaps. Subsequent improved communications and visual landing aids (the “meatball”) ameliorated these disheartening numbers, but not enough. Other landing-related problems surged. “Ramp strikes”—when an aircraft dips below the optimal three-degree glide slope—proved to be the most common mishap, with nighttime accidents triple those that occurred during the day. This resulted in the automated carrier landing system (ACLS).
The ACLS was designed to work in suboptimal conditions and gave the pilot automated commands to adjust pitch and bank. The pilot had the choice of using one of three modes:
Mode I—an onboard computer with inputs from an SPN-10 radar (now evolved to SPN-42) performed a fully automated landing.
Mode II—commands were displayed on a screen within the aircraft, while the pilot could adjust the plane manually or with computer assistance.
Mode III—the pilot received and manually followed commands from a radar operator on board the carrier.
The first plane to make a successful carrier landing at sea using ACLS was an F3D Skyknight on board the USS Antietam (CVS-36) in 1957.1 More recent advancements include the precision approach and landing system (PALS), a modernized version of which—Joint PALS (JPALS)—is used in all three F-35 models. JPALS uses relative GPS rather than radar.2 These automated landing systems have proven successful in adverse weather conditions, but they lack the capacity to land jets quickly enough.
The most recent innovation is the software originally known as Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (MAGIC CARPET), in testing since 2015. It is now known as precision landing mode (PLM). Surprisingly, it is not in fact an automated landing system. Instead, the software gives the pilot greater control of the aircraft while reducing the pilot’s workload—an invaluable asset to naval aviators. In the final seconds of landing an F/A-18 or EA-18 manually, a pilot might make as many as 300 minuscule adjustments to the flight controls. PLM can reduce this figure by an order of magnitude.
PLM does not replace the pilot in the cockpit or effectively transform the fighter into an unmanned aircraft. Rather, it is a semiautonomous tool that allows a pilot to return to the carrier more safely and efficiently. For example, as the pilot makes slight control adjustments to get on the desired glide slope, the pitch of the aircraft remains constant. With a nose that remains constant and steady throughout the final approach, flap adjustments are the only mechanism controlling lift; the pilot does not have to worry about maintaining an optimal angle of attack for the tailhook to catch the arresting gear wire.
Fleet Replacement Squadron VFA-106 demonstrated PLM on board the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in February 2021. VFA-106’s new pilots became the first to complete qualification with PLM. Their commanding officer, Captain Dan Catlin, observed the remarkable success of the new pilots’ landings—nearly flawless execution—thanks to the software aid. Pilots experienced with the system often require fewer than ten minor adjustments to the controls. Captain Catlin noted that the aviators experienced a clear decrease in stress and anxiety and increased self-confidence.3
PLM’s implementation in fleet replacement squadrons offers promising possibilities for increased efficiency in naval aviator training. The significant backlog in the naval aviation training pipeline is no secret. It can partly be attributed to constraints imposed by inclement weather, but less-than-optimal resource allocation also plays a role.
Putting PLM on the T-45 Goshawk trainer could significantly improve student naval aviator (SNA) training. The T-45 is one of the most difficult Navy jets to fly because it lacks the landing systems on fleet aircraft. At present, students at Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas, must complete 14 landings and 10 arrested carrier landings to receive their carrier qualification.5 Training with PLM should reduce the number of required landings for consistent, satisfactory performance and would not only expedite the winging of SNAs, but also reduce the amount of stress put on the T-45s.
Operationally, a winged naval aviator still must requalify on carrier landings from time to time. Each practice landing reduces an aircraft’s service life, and landing requalifications affect the entire strike group, interfering with the carrier’s ability to execute its mission. If flight times are extended because the tailhook misses the arresting gear wire—a “bolter”—Super Hornets sometimes must act as tankers to prevent jets performing a go-around from running low on fuel. In a total of 598 passes using PLM, only one boltered. Hard landings have also been nearly eliminated with its implementation, and successful overall boarding rates have increased from 92 percent to 98 percent.6 One of PLM’s most important breakthroughs is that it has substantially simplified landing an F/A-18E/F or E/A-18 with only one working engine.7
PLM will significantly reduce resource consumption caused by human error in the form of aircraft, fuel, and time. The quicker carriers can land their planes, the faster they can operate. More efficient landings will optimize the service life of fighter jets.8
While optimism about PLM is real, as with all technological advancements, PLM brings some concerns. If it is implemented throughout the naval aviator training pipeline, young pilots born into such a system will lack manual landing knowledge and skills, which the Navy may eventually lose entirely.9 Some might worry how pilots will be able to land with electrical problems, but the number of electrical defects required to affect the landing system would prohibit manual landings in any case. If PLM becomes the standard throughout carrier aviation, the capability to land jets manually could become obsolete.
Veteran aviators could argue that performing their first manual carrier landing has historically been a benchmark in a student aviator’s development, giving them a vital sense of self-confidence, something that will be missing because of the sense of comfort and security PLM offers. This self-confidence and the mental fortitude that comes with learning how to deal with the numerous stressors involved in a carrier landing are what give naval strike aviators their combat edge.
Test pilot reviews of the landing software also have been overwhelmingly positive. Landing on a carrier requires immense focus and is the source of much stress and anxiety for naval aviators, but it is not the aviators’ primary mission. It is the final step at the end of combat operations that last for hours, demanding substantial mental energy from already depleted pilots. PLM provides a safer way of returning pilots to the ship, for both the aviators and the ground crew.10 As the Navy’s trust in PLM grows with testing, carrier aviation will see impressive benefits in the form of increased efficiency and safety, in turn giving carrier strike groups greater utility.
1. CDR Edwin F. Stobie, USN, “The All-Weather Carrier Landing System,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 91, no. 7 (July 1965).
2. John D. Ellis, “A Review and Analysis of Precision Approach and Landing System (PALS) Certification Procedures,” master’s thesis, University of Tennessee Knoxville, August 2003.
3. Megan Eckstein, “Navy Brings ‘Precision Landing Mode’ Carrier Landing Assist Tool to New Fighter Pilots,” USNI News, 8 February 2021.
4. Sustainment Innovation Capstone Team, “Analysis of Fueling Alternatives for NAS Kingsville Using Simulation,” U.S. Naval Academy, May 2022.
5. “Ground Training,” Training Air Wing Two.
6. CAPT Robert Niewohner, USN (Ret.), “Chief Test Pilot of F/A-18 Super Hornets and PLM Developer.”
7. Inder Singh Bisht, “New U.S. Navy Flight Control Enables Smoother Carrier Landings,” The Defense Post, 18 December 2021.
8. Megan Eckstein, “Navy’s MAGIC CARPET Simplifies Carrier Landings; Interim Fielding This Fall,” USNI News, 30 June 2016.
9. Eckstein, “Navy Brings ‘Precision Landing Mode.’”
10. Eckstein, “Navy’s MAGIC CARPET Simplifies.”