4 ms·

I doubt they changed their training methods due to AGCAS. From my understanding, system works automatically and does not take into account whether pilot is con

I doubt they changed their training methods due to AGCAS. From my understanding, system works automatically and does not take into account whether pilot is conscious or not. It is not meant just to save unconscious pilots but also those who are disoriented (in fog, confused, ...). Given that it is a military aircraft, it's likely the system can be turned off if deemed necessary, for example if you are avoiding a missile it might be less risky to dive close to the ground than to pull up.

Kolokius 6y ago
I would guess there are two possibilities. The system won't override pilot input or the system only kicks in when it's 100% certain that a crash is inevitable. > If the system predicts an imminent collision, an autonomous avoidance maneuver—a roll to wings-level and +5g pull—is commanded at the last instance to prevent ground impact.” Sounds like by the time the system kicks in, you probably need it to kick in.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Engineering doesn't typically work this way. There needs to be a tolerance because you can't account for all variables. The question really is, at what probability of likelihood of a crash do you want to attempt to avert it? Averting 99.5%+ of crashes probably eliminates flexibility beyond what is appropriate for a fighter pilot.
  - Kolokius 6y ago
    > “Auto-GCAS continuously compares a prediction of the aircraft’s trajectory against a terrain profile generated from onboard terrain elevation data. If the predicted trajectory touches the terrain profile, the automatic recovery is executed by the Auto GCAS autopilot. The automatic recovery maneuver consists of an abrupt roll-to-upright and a nominal 5-G pull until terrain clearance is assured.” https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those-lost-and-those-saved/ https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those... It predicts a trajectory. Either that trajectory looks like it'll hit the ground or not. If it doesn't, then there's no need to intervene.
    - aflag 6y ago
      Any nose dive will look like it will hit the ground, won't it? The question is at which attitude does it need to pull up. Obviously, there are many factors involved, but there may be other factors the system is not aware of, that's why it probably makes sense that's overridable. I bet there is a way to do it.
      - jsmith45 6y ago
        It is mostly likely timing based. It may well calculate how much time is left until collision, or perhaps until a 5G pull will become insufficient to recover. When that time remaining drops below N seconds (which from looks to be perhaps 1-3 seconds if it is the until insufficient time metric, or perhaps an extra few seconds for time until collision) it will activate. Obviously there are other criteria to prevent a landing approach from being seen as an imminent crash etc. But an override system that cannot be accidentally held by a disoriented or unconscious pilot seems plausible.
- jcims 6y ago
  There’s a short article here with a little more detail, sounds like it overrides pilot input as well (i.e. ‘nuisance flyups’) https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those-lost-and-those-saved/ https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those...
- dTal 6y ago
  By the time it's 100% certain, there's nothing it can do. Any control input the system can make, the pilot could also be theoretically planning to make.
  - Kolokius 6y ago
    I didn't say "it's 100% certain that no matter what, there'll be a crash". Implied is that "100% certain of an impending crash without any extra input".
  - jki275 6y ago
    AGCAS was developed because pilots in the F16 specifically were blacking out from excess G forces and flying into terrain. An unconscious pilot isn't likely to make any useful control input at all.
    - jcims 6y ago
      Watching people convulse as they recover from GLOC in simulators makes me think that pilot input is probably best ignored.

Kolokius 6y ago

I would guess there are two possibilities. The system won't override pilot input or the system only kicks in when it's 100% certain that a crash is inevitable. > If the system predicts an imminent collision, an autonomous avoidance maneuver—a roll to wings-level and +5g pull—is commanded at the last instance to prevent ground impact.” Sounds like by the time the system kicks in, you probably need it to kick in.

darkerside 6y ago
Engineering doesn't typically work this way. There needs to be a tolerance because you can't account for all variables. The question really is, at what probability of likelihood of a crash do you want to attempt to avert it? Averting 99.5%+ of crashes probably eliminates flexibility beyond what is appropriate for a fighter pilot.
- Kolokius 6y ago
  > “Auto-GCAS continuously compares a prediction of the aircraft’s trajectory against a terrain profile generated from onboard terrain elevation data. If the predicted trajectory touches the terrain profile, the automatic recovery is executed by the Auto GCAS autopilot. The automatic recovery maneuver consists of an abrupt roll-to-upright and a nominal 5-G pull until terrain clearance is assured.” https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those-lost-and-those-saved/ https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those... It predicts a trajectory. Either that trajectory looks like it'll hit the ground or not. If it doesn't, then there's no need to intervene.
  - aflag 6y ago
    Any nose dive will look like it will hit the ground, won't it? The question is at which attitude does it need to pull up. Obviously, there are many factors involved, but there may be other factors the system is not aware of, that's why it probably makes sense that's overridable. I bet there is a way to do it.
    - jsmith45 6y ago
      It is mostly likely timing based. It may well calculate how much time is left until collision, or perhaps until a 5G pull will become insufficient to recover. When that time remaining drops below N seconds (which from looks to be perhaps 1-3 seconds if it is the until insufficient time metric, or perhaps an extra few seconds for time until collision) it will activate. Obviously there are other criteria to prevent a landing approach from being seen as an imminent crash etc. But an override system that cannot be accidentally held by a disoriented or unconscious pilot seems plausible.
jcims 6y ago
There’s a short article here with a little more detail, sounds like it overrides pilot input as well (i.e. ‘nuisance flyups’) https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those-lost-and-those-saved/ https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/in-the-seat-with-agcas-those...
dTal 6y ago
By the time it's 100% certain, there's nothing it can do. Any control input the system can make, the pilot could also be theoretically planning to make.
- Kolokius 6y ago
  I didn't say "it's 100% certain that no matter what, there'll be a crash". Implied is that "100% certain of an impending crash without any extra input".
- jki275 6y ago
  AGCAS was developed because pilots in the F16 specifically were blacking out from excess G forces and flying into terrain. An unconscious pilot isn't likely to make any useful control input at all.
  - jcims 6y ago
    Watching people convulse as they recover from GLOC in simulators makes me think that pilot input is probably best ignored.