4 ms·

It likely isn't active because any event which causes loss of control of the aircraft will exceed the autopilots limits. As for crashed military, state side de

It likely isn't active because any event which causes loss of control of the aircraft will exceed the autopilots limits. As for crashed military, state side decades ago I did a shoulder to extended arm walk in the wood. Overseas a sister squadron deployed some guys to recover what they could and destroy the rest; that was in a "not so hostile" country.

Someone1234 8y ago
The autopilots flight envelope limits are somewhat artificial though. If you wanted to, you could design it to try and take over no-matter-what in the event of an ejection. The biggest question I'd have is: What would you even want the auto-pilot to try and do after an ejection? Assuming it somehow gained full flight control, then what?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You might eject when in control of the vehicle if it couldn't land, or there was an engine fire say. You probably want the vehicle to ditch where it will do least harm.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > You probably want the vehicle to ditch where it will do least harm. Not if it's a military aircraft with classified equipment over enemy territory.
    - Crespyl 8y ago
      In that case, "least harm" might mean "find the least accessible location and crash in whatever manner does the most damage to sensitive components", assuming "go to nearest allied country and crash-land" isn't an option.
      - solarkraft 8y ago
        How would one do this? I assume none of this is actually implemented?
        dotancohen 8y ago
        This is actually implemented in UAVs. If they are out of contact or detect interference for X time, they are programmed to fly to friendly territory. There was a case of Iran interfering with and American UAV and then spoofing GPS to get it to land in Iranian territory.
      - rtkwe 8y ago
        This falls along the same lines to me as the "autonomous car morale quandary" questions that were really popular for a while. Both assume the situation is bad enough that the pilot has ejected/car can't avoid the accident but the airplane/car has the control authority left to actually make the choice.
        Crespyl 8y ago
        Right, as the commenters in SO point out, any situation that's bad enough for the human pilot to eject is also almost certainly bad enough that the autopilot won't be able to do much.
    - imglorp 8y ago
      Solved problem long ago. One would think pulling the ejection handle would also wipe anything sensitive in the cockpit. Programmed autopilot steer towards water should be okay after that. https://aeroantique.com/products/bc-706a-detonator-impact-switch-for-radio-sets-scr-595-and-abk-iff-system https://aeroantique.com/products/bc-706a-detonator-impact-sw...
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
You've answered a different question. They didn't ask would it be likely in an ejection event, they asked what the programming parameters were. AFAICT it's "continue as before", which is useful to guide the aircraft away to avoid excessive harm to people/property.

Someone1234 8y ago

The autopilots flight envelope limits are somewhat artificial though. If you wanted to, you could design it to try and take over no-matter-what in the event of an ejection. The biggest question I'd have is: What would you even want the auto-pilot to try and do after an ejection? Assuming it somehow gained full flight control, then what?

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
You might eject when in control of the vehicle if it couldn't land, or there was an engine fire say. You probably want the vehicle to ditch where it will do least harm.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > You probably want the vehicle to ditch where it will do least harm. Not if it's a military aircraft with classified equipment over enemy territory.
  - Crespyl 8y ago
    In that case, "least harm" might mean "find the least accessible location and crash in whatever manner does the most damage to sensitive components", assuming "go to nearest allied country and crash-land" isn't an option.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      How would one do this? I assume none of this is actually implemented?
      - dotancohen 8y ago
        This is actually implemented in UAVs. If they are out of contact or detect interference for X time, they are programmed to fly to friendly territory. There was a case of Iran interfering with and American UAV and then spoofing GPS to get it to land in Iranian territory.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      This falls along the same lines to me as the "autonomous car morale quandary" questions that were really popular for a while. Both assume the situation is bad enough that the pilot has ejected/car can't avoid the accident but the airplane/car has the control authority left to actually make the choice.
      - Crespyl 8y ago
        Right, as the commenters in SO point out, any situation that's bad enough for the human pilot to eject is also almost certainly bad enough that the autopilot won't be able to do much.
  - imglorp 8y ago
    Solved problem long ago. One would think pulling the ejection handle would also wipe anything sensitive in the cockpit. Programmed autopilot steer towards water should be okay after that. https://aeroantique.com/products/bc-706a-detonator-impact-switch-for-radio-sets-scr-595-and-abk-iff-system https://aeroantique.com/products/bc-706a-detonator-impact-sw...

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

You've answered a different question. They didn't ask would it be likely in an ejection event, they asked what the programming parameters were. AFAICT it's "continue as before", which is useful to guide the aircraft away to avoid excessive harm to people/property.