Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System saves an unconscious F-16 pilot - General

[video=youtube;WkZGL7RQBVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw[/video] [QUOTE] This newly declassified video footage from the head-up-display of a U.S. Air Force Arizona Air National Guard F-16 records the dramatic moment when its unconscious pilot is saved from certain death by the aircraft’s Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS). The event is considered the fourth confirmed "save" of an aircraft by the system since Auto-GCAS was introduced into the Air Force F-16 fleet in late 2014. Developed over almost three decades by Lockheed Martin, NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory, the system is designed to automatically execute a ground-avoiding maneuver if it detects an impending collision. Aimed at reducing accidents caused by controlled flight into terrain by 90%, the system completed research and development under Air Combat Command’s Fighter Risk Reduction Program in 2010. It began transitioning to the Block 40/50 F-16 fleet in September 2014 as part of the M6.2+ Operational Flight Program (OFP) software update. 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, which is indicated at the 26 sec. mark on the video at the moment when the two chevrons on the HUD come together, 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. .... In this instance, an international F-16 student pilot was undergoing basic fighter maneuver training with his USAF instructor pilot in two separate F-16s over the U.S. southwest. The student rolled and started to pull the aircraft but experienced G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) as the F-16 hit around 8.3g. With the pilot now unconscious, the aircraft’s nose dropped and, from an altitude of just over 17,000 ft., entered a steepening dive in full afterburner. After only 22 sec., the F-16 was nose-down almost 50 deg. below the horizon and going supersonic. The shocked instructor called “2 recover!” as the student passed 12,320 ft. at 587 kt. Two seconds later, with the nose down in a 55-deg. dive, altitude at 10,800 ft. and speed passing 613 kt., the worried instructor again calls “2 recover!” In a little less than another 2 sec., as the now frantic instructor makes a third call for the student pilot to pull up, the Auto-GCAS executes a recovery maneuver at 8,760 ft. and 652 kt. The student pilot at this point comes around and pulls back on the stick, momentarily increasing Gs beyond the Auto-GCAS standard recovery level of 5 to 9.1. Minimum altitude by now is around 4,370 ft., with as little as 2,940 ft. indicated on the radar altimeter. From loss-of-control to recovery takes just under 30 sec. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://aviationweek.com/technology/auto-gcas-saves-unconscious-f-16-pilot-declassified-usaf-footage[/URL]

and to think planes used to be nothing more than an engine, a fancy fan, and a steering system now they literally correct their own pilots errors

[QUOTE=J!NX;51104528]and to think planes used to be nothing more than an engine, a fancy fan, and a steering system now they literally correct their own pilots errors[/QUOTE] Commercial jets practically fly themselves these days. The pilot/co-pilot are basically just there to take over in-case the auto-pilot fails.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51104536]Commercial jets practically fly themselves these days. The pilot/co-pilot are basically just there to take over in-case the auto-pilot fails.[/QUOTE] Well, not really. Still a lot of work interfacing with ground controllers and ATC, performing external checks on the aircraft before takeoff, reading through the maintenance log, considering load balancing, building a flight plan, performing pre-flight checks and procedures, taxiing the aircraft (in usually busy airport environments), taking off, ascending to cruise altitude, descending from cruise altitude, and landing the aircraft. Then taxiing back and doing the same on-board stuff as they did before they took off again, combined with adding to the airframes logbook.

This is unfathomably cool. Also, how long has systems like this really existed? 2010 is a lot more recent than I imagined; I remember seeing this exact feature, with a cross/joined chevrons across the HUD, in a flight sim from the 90's.

[QUOTE=ForgotPassword;51104942]Can one get used to the g-force so that you don't pass out like through training or is it how you're built be it physical or genetic? Because just losing consciousness in a jet going supersonic sounds terrifying.[/QUOTE] Yes. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-G_training[/url] Physical fitness is a major factor. But even with training there is an upper limit to what the human body can tolerate, and it's much lower than the forces the aircraft itself can withstand.

Is there a number that displays G's in that hud?

[QUOTE=ForgotPassword;51104942]Can one get used to the g-force so that you don't pass out like through training or is it how you're built be it physical or genetic? Because just losing consciousness in a jet going supersonic sounds terrifying.[/QUOTE] It's pretty much all of those things. A smaller frame will help for one, I believe there are height restrictions for pilots, both upper and lower boundaries. I don't think there's any clear evidence that you just get used to it, but I think anecdotally, that's seen quite often. The largest factor is definitely training and technique. By breathing in and straining, pretty much trying to resist the g-forces pushing the air out of them, they can breathe regularly and avoid passing out. This maneuver is pretty clear in those centrifuge videos you see sometimes, you can find them on youtube by just searching G-loc. They usually have a person walking them through the maneuver as well. I don't think the maneuver has any specific name, I think it's usually just referred to as the Anti-G Straining Maneuver. Here's the wiki article. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-G_training[/url]

[QUOTE=ForgotPassword;51104942]Can one get used to the g-force so that you don't pass out like through training or is it how you're built be it physical or genetic? Because just losing consciousness in a jet going supersonic sounds terrifying.[/QUOTE] Theirs a breathing technique that helps you cope with high G stress, the intense breathing might be him employing it Its pretty effective to the point where the Blue Angles rely entirely on it and don't use G suits

[QUOTE=aurum481;51104995]Is there a number that displays G's in that hud?[/QUOTE] Top left, above the airspeed scale

the opposite can happen too [video=youtube;I9gELPxPG8Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9gELPxPG8Q[/video] all fly-by-wire equipped airbus planes have autopilot permanently turned on, the pilot's joystick simply sends suggestions to the computer of where to point the plane. In the video above the pilot "suggested" that the nose should go up and the autopilot literally said no.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5a5aCC3mM8[/media] More information about the system.

f-16s are soooo cool. i got to watch them take off and land while waiting for my plane at tus

Holy shit he hit 8 Gs, no wonder he passed out. It is really eerie how this could've easily been footage of a death of a pilot. What amazing software, I assume the two > < were the system figuring out when it was approaching imminent collision. Fucking incredible.

[QUOTE=Tinter;51105000]It's pretty much all of those things. A smaller frame will help for one, I believe there are height restrictions for pilots, both upper and lower boundaries. I don't think there's any clear evidence that you just get used to it, but I think anecdotally, that's seen quite often. The largest factor is definitely training and technique. By breathing in and straining, pretty much trying to resist the g-forces pushing the air out of them, they can breathe regularly and avoid passing out. This maneuver is pretty clear in those centrifuge videos you see sometimes, you can find them on youtube by just searching G-loc. They usually have a person walking them through the maneuver as well. I don't think the maneuver has any specific name, I think it's usually just referred to as the Anti-G Straining Maneuver. Here's the wiki article. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-G_training[/url][/QUOTE] It has nothing at all to do with the air being pushed out of them. It's about stopping blood from rushing to your extremities. High positive Gs cause blood to be pushed towards your feet, causing a blackout since your brain is literally running out of oxygen. Negative Gs push blood the other way, causing redout (which is less threatening) The best way to counter it is to flex your core, thighs, and calves as hard as you can for the duration of the maneuver. So you hear him taking a big breath in to get ready for that, because if you relax and let go of your muscle tension at 8Gs you're [I]gone[/I] G suits help because they apply constant pressure to the extremities, especially the legs. I forget the exact mechanism of their action and their general physiological effects, but iirc it's sorta like just giving you a constant baseline of that muscle flexing

This is such a cool feature! I'm so glad they put it in No Man's Sky, that way I can't crash.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51107208]It has nothing at all to do with the air being pushed out of them. It's about stopping blood from rushing to your extremities. High positive Gs cause blood to be pushed towards your feet, causing a blackout since your brain is literally running out of oxygen. Negative Gs push blood the other way, causing redout (which is less threatening) The best way to counter it is to flex your core, thighs, and calves as hard as you can for the duration of the maneuver. So you hear him taking a big breath in to get ready for that, because if you relax and let go of your muscle tension at 8Gs you're [I]gone[/I] G suits help because they apply constant pressure to the extremities, especially the legs. I forget the exact mechanism of their action and their general physiological effects, but iirc it's sorta like just giving you a constant baseline of that muscle flexing[/QUOTE] You're right, I was mixing stuff up with this video on oxygen deprivation I watched around the same time.

[QUOTE=Tinter;51107528]You're right, I was mixing stuff up with this video on oxygen deprivation I watched around the same time.[/QUOTE] It's close to that - its one of the two primary ways of getting flight hypoxia. The symptoms are the same, but in one the blood is pulled away from your brain depriving it of oxygen and in the other there just isn't enough oxygen for your body to get, period. The riskiest part isn't just the blacking out, its the 10-15 second period of confusion and disorientation that follows after you come to

[QUOTE=paindoc;51108578]It's close to that - its one of the two primary ways of getting flight hypoxia. The symptoms are the same, but in one the blood is pulled away from your brain depriving it of oxygen and in the other there just isn't enough oxygen for your body to get, period. The riskiest part isn't just the blacking out, its the 10-15 second period of confusion and disorientation that follows after you come to[/QUOTE] what do you fly

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51104536]Commercial jets practically fly themselves these days. The pilot/co-pilot are basically just there to take over in-case the auto-pilot fails.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how this myth holds such prevalence Almost as much work goes into operating the auto pilot as just flying manually [editline]26th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=meppers;51105103]the opposite can happen too [video=youtube;I9gELPxPG8Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9gELPxPG8Q[/video] all fly-by-wire equipped airbus planes have autopilot permanently turned on, the pilot's joystick simply sends suggestions to the computer of where to point the plane. In the video above the pilot "suggested" that the nose should go up and the autopilot literally said no.[/QUOTE] That's a bit misleading - the pilots give the plane a target and the plane figures out how to action it. Saying it's a "suggestion" gives the impression that planes have some kind of say over where the plane flies. Here's an actual pilot explaining autopilot: [quote] [B]What is "autopilot" on airplanes?[/B] I prefer the term "auto flight system" instead of "autopilot" because we're actually talking about a collection of subsystems that help control various aspects of a flight: heading, altitude, course, speed, engine power, etc. Different components are used at different times, and can be used together or separately, depending. There is a thing called the autopilot, which frees you from having your hands physically on the controls. There's also something called the autothrottle, which controls engine thrust. I say "controls," but it's doing so in response to what's needed and input by the crew. [B]What's the biggest misconception about autopilot?[/B] One of the most stubborn myths in all of aviation is this notion that pilots just sit there while the plane flies itself from City A to City B. It's infuriating to know that people believe this, because it's utterly false. Airplanes do not fly themselves. The crew flies the airplane through the automation. A plane cannot fly itself any more than an operating room, with all of its advanced technical equipment, is able to perform an organ transplant by itself. The equipment makes things easier, but the operation itself is controlled by humans. [B]I'm curious about when pilots use the automated systems versus controlling the plane "hands on." Are there times when one is preferable? [/B] More than 99 percent of landings are performed manually. There is such a thing as an autoland where you set up an auto approach and, to put it coarsely, the airplane will land "hands off." But I see only a few of those a year—they're only performed in extreme low-visibility conditions, and the airplane, pilot, and airport all have to be certified. [/quote] Source: [URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-planes-autopilot-ask-a-pilot-patrick-smith-flying-asiana/[/URL]

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;51109304]what do you fly[/QUOTE] A desk :v: But an old friend was a flight physiologist at the air force base in my hometown. Picked up quite a bit from him.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51111234]A desk :v: But an old friend was a flight physiologist at the air force base in my hometown. Picked up quite a bit from him.[/QUOTE] ah i see. i pegged you for a fellow pilot with the way you were speaking

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;51114001]ah i see. i pegged you for a fellow pilot with the way you were speaking[/QUOTE] I wish I could be, but ADHD disqualifies me and the medication has done so much for my QOL in general that I just can't foresee stopping it. Its also a bit too expensive for me to consider getting a private license right now, along with the amount of medical BS you have to put up with in order to have a [I]chance[/I] of being considered with ADHD meds. Someday, I'll probably get my sport pilot license and buy an LSA. I've long had a love for the Kitfox series, and they fit the designation of what I can legally fly and are ideal for the terrain around me (but then I have to get tons of hours flying backcountry with an instructor...) Being a pilot was my lifelong dream for a long time, and was pretty much the only thing that made me really think about not starting medication. I spent a lot of time preparing to get my license out of highschool, and almost joined ROTC to boot (took the AFOQT, scores were good enough). I'm sad that I lost that chance, but in return I've ended up having the chance to work in the space industry, where I get to work on hardware and software headed up to the ISS daily. So, not all bad.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51114099]I wish I could be, but ADHD disqualifies me and the medication has done so much for my QOL in general that I just can't foresee stopping it. Its also a bit too expensive for me to consider getting a private license right now, along with the amount of medical BS you have to put up with in order to have a [I]chance[/I] of being considered with ADHD meds. Someday, I'll probably get my sport pilot license and buy an LSA. I've long had a love for the Kitfox series, and they fit the designation of what I can legally fly and are ideal for the terrain around me (but then I have to get tons of hours flying backcountry with an instructor...) Being a pilot was my lifelong dream for a long time, and was pretty much the only thing that made me really think about not starting medication. I spent a lot of time preparing to get my license out of highschool, and almost joined ROTC to boot (took the AFOQT, scores were good enough). I'm sad that I lost that chance, but in return I've ended up having the chance to work in the space industry, where I get to work on hardware and software headed up to the ISS daily. So, not all bad.[/QUOTE] i've got adhd as well and stopped taking mine in order to be a pilot. now i teach others how to fly. i've come across a few students like yourself who don't think it's possible for them to a. become a pilot and b. stop taking their medication. some make it and some don't, it takes a great deal of work to get used to not taking the medication. however, i've found that students who have adhd and are not on their meds have a much greater awareness of what's around them. now don't take this as my telling you to stop taking your medication, i just want to let you know it is possible. to become a pilot has been my lifelong dream as well and being able to achieve it has given me a tremendous source of pride. don't give up on such a dream because there's nothing in this world like having the freedom of the skies

[QUOTE=meppers;51105103]the opposite can happen too [video=youtube;I9gELPxPG8Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9gELPxPG8Q[/video] all fly-by-wire equipped airbus planes have autopilot permanently turned on, the pilot's joystick simply sends suggestions to the computer of where to point the plane. In the video above the pilot "suggested" that the nose should go up and the autopilot literally said no.[/QUOTE] This is quite a common misconception, the flight envelope protection system on FBW aircraft and AP are different things. Airbuses don't fly themselves, and thankfully they still don't. What the FEP do is they keep all aircraft movement within its structure and aerodynamic limits. For example if you were to go idle thrust and pull back on the control column on a 737, the nose will go up, stick shaker kicks in upon approaching Alpha-max signifying impending stall and moments later you would stall the aircraft. But if you do the same with an A320 in Normal Mode, the plane would pitch up, and when it detects impending stall it kicks the throttle into TOGA and prevents you from pitching up any further until there is enough buffer between the plane's AOA and Alpha-max. Anything within the flight envelope is still ultimately within the pilot's controls. Similar things happen during banking. That is of course, until you turn it of and switch to Alternate law or even Direct law. To put it simply, alternate law disables some of the protection and direct law as the name suggests puts you in direct control. A few crashes have been caused by this, most notably Air France Flight 447 and Air Asia Flight 8501. In both cases the aircraft disengaged its AP and went into alternate law. Both aircraft pitched up because of pilot action and both aircraft stalled to their death. Because you don't get stick forces on Airbuses its a lot harder to fly via instinct/feel. The FEP had nothing to do with the crash in the video above. It was all pilot error. They were doing the pass at Alpha-max, any further attempt to pitch the nose up would only cause a stall. The only way of getting up is to punch the throttle and increase the airspeed. Which they did, but it was too late as jet engines need quite a time to spool up. In normal circumstances the plane would have gone to TOGA the moment they approached alpha-max but to be able to do do the pass at alpha-max they disabled this feature. Furthermore, they also did the pass at 30ft height which was 70ft lower than the planned height of 100ft which would have probably cleared the trees.