7 ms·

I wonder if some of the "autopilot" functionality for military aircraft is to swan-dive into water/forest if everyone has already ejected. If it's going to cra

I wonder if some of the "autopilot" functionality for military aircraft is to swan-dive into water/forest if everyone has already ejected. If it's going to crash (and can't autoland, which it probably shouldn't attempt even if it could if something ejection-worthy happened), might as well obliterate the thing in a safe place.

ozim 3y ago
Well usually it is pilots responsibility to try to aim it in safe direction as much as possible and only then eject. Basically like captain on the ship you don't eject but you are last one to leave the ship after you made what is possible to save others from harm (unless they are of course hostile forces). I think quite some pilots died this way because they were trying to the last second to save other lives. If plane is that much out of control that you cannot do much, adding some code to try to do something might make things actually worse from my perspective.
- andromaton 3y ago
  Including Gagarin
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Yup, plenty of stories of pilots going in with the plane because they were guiding it away from people on the ground. That's why modern ejection seats can save you even if you're at ground level (although you do have to be upright in that case.) It lets the pilot ride it as long as possible and yet escape.
bob1029 3y ago
Some Hollywood points in this direction. E.g. the Behind Enemy Lines ejection scene. Seems like a pretty good idea to self-destruct the most sensitive hardware (computers/chips/storage modules/etc) if recovery of the aircraft is no longer feasible.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > self-destruct Ooh, yeah. Let's add even more failure modes!
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    For drones it makes sense. Drones could boot up with all config in RAM so as to be completely devoid of mission parameters once power is cut.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      Sure. There's no way that in combat you could experience a temporary power loss. Nope, that could never happen.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        If your drone has power loss during flight, I think you have other problems.
        HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        Pay close attention to the word "temporary." In normal flight, it's not that unusual for flight instruments to have to be rebooted because of unexpected glitches.
MarkMarine 3y ago
The thing you’re thinking of is the pilot. If the plane is capable of control, the pilot will move it on a trajectory away from populated areas if possible. Protecting innocent people on the ground in the case of an emergency was always top of mind, you can see this in the crash reporting for multiple real world incidents (in airframes with, and without ejection seats, where the last actions of the aircrew were steering away from populated areas) By the time a pilot ejects they’ve exhausted EVERY other option to control the aircraft, no AI is going to regain control at that point.
- mrb 3y ago
  What Scoundreller meant is that if most of the controls are lost, then the few controls remaining could still be used to intentionally destroy the plane as much as possible. For example, the elevator (to control the pitch) might be the last working control, and it could be used to intentionally nosedive the plane after ejection.
  - MarkMarine 3y ago
    I got that and I was trying to answer in the least sarcastic way I could. I’ll try again. Autopilot isn’t an all knowing AI that is better at dealing with emergency than a pilot. In the region of flight that involves a pilot ejection, especially in a plane like the F-35, the “autopilot” that would be created that could successfully scout a target area that was safe to crash in, eject the pilot, then somehow move the plane to that area with the canopy off the plane and the degradation of control that would involve, plus the million issues that could have caused the ejection in the first place… it’s not plausible to create this and still have a pilot. You’re talking about a system that is a better aviator, with more SA and more detail about aircraft systems than the human at the stick. So, first, I don’t think we’re there with AI that is better than the pilot in this region of flight, second, to make that would be so expensive as to be ridiculous, for the incredibly rare event that a military plane needs to eject over a populated area yet also has a safe area like a body of water to crash into. Third, making that system would negate the need for a pilot in the first place so again, what’s the point? I get the thought, but it’s silly.
akira2501 3y ago
I doubt it. You do not want an uncommanded activation of that system for any reason. You may actually _want_ your disabled plane to continue in a specific direction for tactical reasons. You generally do not allow auto pilot to make large deflections in control surfaces, as you always want a pilot on the stick to be able to overcome any uncommanded autopilot actions.
CodeWriter23 3y ago
I think the failures leading up to ejection preclude any kind of automated flight control afterward. Seeing how modern aircraft are all fly by wire.
krisoft 3y ago
> I wonder if some of the "autopilot" functionality for military aircraft is to swan-dive into water/forest if everyone has already ejected. Not quite the same you are thinking about but something similar is documented behaviour of the Global Hawk. Obviously since that is a remotely piloted aircraft “everyone has ejected safely” is not the trigger for it. The way it works at the flight planning stage the operators define pre-determined points, and if the system detects certain faults it cannot recover from it tries to fly to these points and crash land into them. They call these point “termination point” on land and “ditching point” over water. In this document[1] you can read more about the selection criteria of such points. This document[2] details for air traffic control under which conditions flight termination points are used. In short (page 22) when the aircraft is uncontrolable for landing or landing at a suitable airfield cannot be achieved safely. 1: https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/afman11-2erq-4v3/afman11-2erq-4v3.pdf#page16 https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/public... 2: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/atm-guidelines-for-global-hawk-in-european-airspace-20101205.pdf https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/atm-...

ozim 3y ago

Well usually it is pilots responsibility to try to aim it in safe direction as much as possible and only then eject. Basically like captain on the ship you don't eject but you are last one to leave the ship after you made what is possible to save others from harm (unless they are of course hostile forces). I think quite some pilots died this way because they were trying to the last second to save other lives. If plane is that much out of control that you cannot do much, adding some code to try to do something might make things actually worse from my perspective.

andromaton 3y ago
Including Gagarin
LorenPechtel 3y ago
Yup, plenty of stories of pilots going in with the plane because they were guiding it away from people on the ground. That's why modern ejection seats can save you even if you're at ground level (although you do have to be upright in that case.) It lets the pilot ride it as long as possible and yet escape.

bob1029 3y ago

Some Hollywood points in this direction. E.g. the Behind Enemy Lines ejection scene. Seems like a pretty good idea to self-destruct the most sensitive hardware (computers/chips/storage modules/etc) if recovery of the aircraft is no longer feasible.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
> self-destruct Ooh, yeah. Let's add even more failure modes!
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  For drones it makes sense. Drones could boot up with all config in RAM so as to be completely devoid of mission parameters once power is cut.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    Sure. There's no way that in combat you could experience a temporary power loss. Nope, that could never happen.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      If your drone has power loss during flight, I think you have other problems.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        Pay close attention to the word "temporary." In normal flight, it's not that unusual for flight instruments to have to be rebooted because of unexpected glitches.

MarkMarine 3y ago

The thing you’re thinking of is the pilot. If the plane is capable of control, the pilot will move it on a trajectory away from populated areas if possible. Protecting innocent people on the ground in the case of an emergency was always top of mind, you can see this in the crash reporting for multiple real world incidents (in airframes with, and without ejection seats, where the last actions of the aircrew were steering away from populated areas) By the time a pilot ejects they’ve exhausted EVERY other option to control the aircraft, no AI is going to regain control at that point.

mrb 3y ago
What Scoundreller meant is that if most of the controls are lost, then the few controls remaining could still be used to intentionally destroy the plane as much as possible. For example, the elevator (to control the pitch) might be the last working control, and it could be used to intentionally nosedive the plane after ejection.
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  I got that and I was trying to answer in the least sarcastic way I could. I’ll try again. Autopilot isn’t an all knowing AI that is better at dealing with emergency than a pilot. In the region of flight that involves a pilot ejection, especially in a plane like the F-35, the “autopilot” that would be created that could successfully scout a target area that was safe to crash in, eject the pilot, then somehow move the plane to that area with the canopy off the plane and the degradation of control that would involve, plus the million issues that could have caused the ejection in the first place… it’s not plausible to create this and still have a pilot. You’re talking about a system that is a better aviator, with more SA and more detail about aircraft systems than the human at the stick. So, first, I don’t think we’re there with AI that is better than the pilot in this region of flight, second, to make that would be so expensive as to be ridiculous, for the incredibly rare event that a military plane needs to eject over a populated area yet also has a safe area like a body of water to crash into. Third, making that system would negate the need for a pilot in the first place so again, what’s the point? I get the thought, but it’s silly.

akira2501 3y ago

I doubt it. You do not want an uncommanded activation of that system for any reason. You may actually _want_ your disabled plane to continue in a specific direction for tactical reasons. You generally do not allow auto pilot to make large deflections in control surfaces, as you always want a pilot on the stick to be able to overcome any uncommanded autopilot actions.

CodeWriter23 3y ago

I think the failures leading up to ejection preclude any kind of automated flight control afterward. Seeing how modern aircraft are all fly by wire.

krisoft 3y ago

> I wonder if some of the "autopilot" functionality for military aircraft is to swan-dive into water/forest if everyone has already ejected. Not quite the same you are thinking about but something similar is documented behaviour of the Global Hawk. Obviously since that is a remotely piloted aircraft “everyone has ejected safely” is not the trigger for it. The way it works at the flight planning stage the operators define pre-determined points, and if the system detects certain faults it cannot recover from it tries to fly to these points and crash land into them. They call these point “termination point” on land and “ditching point” over water. In this document[1] you can read more about the selection criteria of such points. This document[2] details for air traffic control under which conditions flight termination points are used. In short (page 22) when the aircraft is uncontrolable for landing or landing at a suitable airfield cannot be achieved safely. 1: https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/afman11-2erq-4v3/afman11-2erq-4v3.pdf#page16 https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/public... 2: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/atm-guidelines-for-global-hawk-in-european-airspace-20101205.pdf https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-05/atm-...