12 ms·
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. Pro
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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.
- grogenaut 3y agoto add 4 - if you had control with some badass AI why not land the plane safely for a recovery... the example in both the OP and the GP are planes lost in the country they are from not in enemy territory. The planes are not cheap... why would you purposefully wreck it in in a safe location.
- MarkMarine 3y agoEXACTLY
- mrb 3y agoActually my example assumed being in enemy territory. Nosedive the airplane for maximum destruction, to prevent the enemy from recovering anything useful from the crash site.
- MarkMarine 3y agoWhat do you think they’ll get? China already hacked in and grabbed the full design docs for the F-35. They have a stealth clone of it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- to11mtm 3y ago> Autopilot isn’t an all knowing AI that is better at dealing with emergency than a pilot. b...bu... but all the twitter influencers told me... /s
- mrb 3y agoI was not thinking of some highly advanced AI, just something ultra simple like: after ejection, attempt to pitch the plane to nosedive as vertically as possible. The intent being to to crash the airplane as badly as possible to prevent the enemy from recovering anything useful from the crash site.
- 3y ago
- llbeansandrice 3y agoI don't think that solves anything. With critical secret pieces of hardware you will still want confirmation that they were destroyed or recover them. So even if the plane can attempt to self-destruct as much as possible, the military is still going to want to confirm the result.
- MarkMarine 3y agoThe skin and coatings of these planes is secret. How do you self destruct the skin? Anyway, it’s moot. The people with the resources to actually make this stuff already hacked in and stole it. They compromised a whole CA just to get the F-35 design docs.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoActually, no. A pilot might punch from a perfectly flyable aircraft that ran out of fuel and can't be glided in due to terrain. Or a plane that has no propulsion for other reasons. They might even punch from a plane with some fuel but damage that precludes landing--if they're over civilization they might point it into nowhere and punch so they come down over civilization.
- MarkMarine 3y agoOk, and here we go with the armchair aviators. Time in a Microsoft flight simulator doesn’t give you expertise. I’ll just reiterate, by the time a pilot is ejecting from the aircraft, everything has been done. Read through the incident reports and find me an incident where this wasn’t done, cite it please. I can’t find one. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/docs/type/accident/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/docs/type/accident/
- pfannkuchen 3y agoI mean, are there detailed accident reports for the sort of military plane with “keep it away from the enemy” type equipment onboard? Seems like you wouldn’t want to give away information about crash behavior since that could help the enemy recover the equipment. Not saying it is plausible or not in the first place, I have no idea, but I don’t see how a lack of published reports of this happening in the real world proves anything.
- zikzak 3y agoI think people think ejecting from one of these planes is like something you would do casually if things aren't going well. My limited knowledge leads me to believe this would be an absolute last resort and has a high risk if injuring the pilot. Also, installing these in the passenger seat of your car is expensive, difficult, and illegal just in case anyone is also thinking of this right now.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoI'm not saying they would punch if there was something to be done--the pilot could have found the problem was one that couldn't be dealt with. I'm saying that the control surfaces might be operational on a plane the pilot was punching from. Desert Storm an Iraqi pilot punched from an intact plane--he beat the Phoenix (long range shot) but ran out of fuel doing it.
- tg16 3y agoNot really, sometimes a plane will land itself even after the pilot ejects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber
- MarkMarine 3y agoIf you read that Wikipedia page, it’s pretty clear the plane would have not recovered without the change in nose attitude from the ejection.
- gowld 3y agoWhich contradicts your original claim that "no AI is going to regain control at that point."
- MarkMarine 3y agoOk. I admit I was wrong then. I doubt an autopilot would have regained control in a flat spin without an ejection to drastically change the dynamics of the aircraft. I also made the point later that a sufficiently capable AI that could would essentially be able to replace the pilot, rending them moot. Look, the OP clarified that he meant he wanted an autopilot that tries to lawn dart the plane in an incident of ejection, the purpose of which was to save sensitive technology from the enemy. I still maintain that is silly and if we funded such a program it would be a waste of money.
- hef19898 3y agoIt seems AI was ablento regaim control after the ejection stabilized the aircraft.
- lsh123 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Belgium_MiG-23_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Belgium_MiG-23_crash
- viscanti 3y ago> 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. It seems like they probably bail out when they've exhausted every option of being able to land it and survive. There are likely some scenarios where there's limited controls remaining, that wouldn't provide high enough odds of guaranteeing someone's survival, but that could optimize for something when it eventually makes contact with the land. In fact, it seems like there could be quite a bit of capabilities between where someone would want to bail out and where there are zero remaining controls.
- MarkMarine 3y agoI live in the real world, and there are incident reports that go into great detail about every aircraft loss. I’ve read every one since 1999, and I’ve never seen an incident where the pilot ejected over a populated area in an aircraft that was still controlled. What you all are imagining does not happen, and the odds of it happening are vanishingly small.
- ciscoriordan 3y agohttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-su-34-fullback-jet-slams-into-apartment-building-in-a-ball-of-fire https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-su-34-fullback... “The statement went on to add that the crash was caused by an issue with one of the engines during takeoff, but the jet's two crewmembers are said to have ejected safely and survived. The extent of the injuries to the apartment building's tenants as well as civilians in the surrounding area is unknown at present.”
- justsomehnguy 3y ago"To the last I struggled to lift the plane, [but] copilot Yuriy Yegorov hit the catapult [triggering ejection] and we two ejected with our seats."
- 1attice 3y ago
- chinathrow 3y agoDepending on the situation, there might be not enough room or time to save lives in ground. Sample dual ejection: https://youtu.be/zN_Zl64OQEw?si=5Nk-LGBFxf4pmEDr https://youtu.be/zN_Zl64OQEw?si=5Nk-LGBFxf4pmEDr
- Tommstein 3y ago> 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. See, you say that, but this one seems to have done a good job of flying off to who the fuck knows where after the pilot ejected.
- cyberge99 3y agoAnd could potentially still be flying.
- MarkMarine 3y agolol. The first incident I’ve ever seen where this happens. Just perfect that I pop off with absolute statements and then am proven wrong by the incident I was responding to. The F-35 is really a game changer. What a shitbox
- Tommstein 3y agoHappens to the best of us.
- ngneer 3y agoNear the Weizmann Institute, there is a monument for a pilot who refused to eject over the populated area, and rather kept control over his plane for long enough to divert it away. He died in the crash, as he no doubt would have anticipated. https://honorisraelsfallen.com/fallen/holtzman-chaim/ https://honorisraelsfallen.com/fallen/holtzman-chaim/
- pwillia7 3y agoWill this always be true though? Not even thinking about advancements in AI, but from a human body g-force standpoint, surely those jets can already pull way more Gs than the pilots can handle. I doubt the software is doing that today but why couldn't there be maneuvers the plane could do at 15 Gs that would help it survive?
- MarkMarine 3y agoI’m sure there is somewhere at the extreme edge of the bell curve that this might be true for, but in general, no. For one, the jets are engineered around the limits of the pilots. These are high performance military aircraft where every ounce of weight matters, the airframe isn’t over engineered to support 15g maneuvers. Ripping the wings off wouldn’t help in an emergency. I made the point later that by the time the AI is a more capable aviator, with the SA to do what OP was suggesting, the pilot is redundant. Take them out, engineer the plane to make those 15g turns with the extra weight you save not having life support, seats, canopy, etc.
- pwillia7 3y agoRight -- I had the same thought coming back to this. We know planes aren't capable of this because as soon as they are you wouldn't have pilots. Maybe 'planes' is too strong since there are a bunch of people playing video game drones in the middle east from Alabama or whatever.
- justin66 3y ago> 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 One of the things I remember from Chuck Yeager's autobiography (his first one - I think he eventually had several) is that he called bullshit on this. His view was that the pilot was putting all his attention and focus into saving the aircraft, and stories about how the pilot steered a failing aircraft away from something important on the ground were not true. Of course, after the fact a pilot is going to say he tried to save people on the ground... (his view might have been cynical, but I expect it often holds true)
- epolanski 3y agoI've seen few episodes of aircrash investigation (mayday), and multiple times pilots try to crash or land where they will do less damage on ground.
- justin66 3y agoMy problem with the OP's comment is that a couple of different things are stated as universal truths, even though they definitely aren't.
- Retric 3y agoThere’s many voice recordings, instrument logs, and even ATC conversations of people aiming doomed aircraft away from populated areas. Military pilots may have different priorities as they can eject, but many civilian pilots have spent their final moments trying to minimize casualties. Exceptions defiantly exist, but it’s a very common reaction.
- jpgvm 3y agoYeah these are by far the most harrowing ones to listen to. You can hear the resignation in their voices before they steel themselves to try anything left to avoid loss of life on the ground. Real rough shit.
- Someone 3y ago> 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. Every other option with the pilot on board. The plane _may_ be easier to fly without it. FTA: “The loss of the weight of the crew, seats, and canopy, as well as the shift in the center of gravity, have seen aircraft pull out of an imminent crash with nobody left onboard.”