Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrRiplEy[H] on April 29, 2007, 04:11:10 AM
-
When I saw the crash happen, something really made me wonder..
With this day and age of technology in aeroplanes, why was this kind of an accident possible? This accident could have easily been avoided by an automated recovery routine if/when the plane was nose down and destined for immediate impact to ground.
You would think that modern autopilot systems could easily be programmed to rescue the plane and the pilot if the computer calculates the plane is going to hit ground with more than 5ft/second decline rate and/or nose down attitude. Does anyone know why this kind of safety isn't built in the fly-by-wire systems?
-
It would be really hard to land with a system like that.
-
Flying fighter planes is a dangerous occupation. Not all accidents can be prevented. In this particular case I doubt a system like what you suggest would have helped, and even IF the F/A-18 had such a system, it probably would have been disabled to allow the planes to perform the demo. Those are specially modified planes, with highly trained pilots. They don't wear G suits either, were every other pilot of that plane is REQUIRED to wear them. Why? Because when the suits inflate it can bump the stick. Not something you want happening when your flying 18 inches from anouther plane.
It sucks that this accident happened but at low alltitude and high speed, when something goes wrong, even the fastest computer on the planet probably wont save you. Those guys understand and accept the risks involved with their job.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
It would be really hard to land with a system like that.
Do you land with over 15ft/s nose down? :rolleyes:
AFAIK most landings are performed with landing settings, flaps and slight nose up attitude. Now if you are at 100ft, nose down and decenting more than 15ft/s the autopilot could well take measures to avoid collision.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Do you land with over 15ft/s nose down? :rolleyes:
AFAIK most landings are performed with landing settings, flaps and slight nose up attitude. Now if you are at 100ft, nose down and decenting more than 15ft/s the autopilot could well take measures to avoid collision.
1. An autopilot cannot react as quickly as a human brain.
2. An autopilot could not possibly be expected to work well enough and in such a manner as to allow it to be engaged when doing aerobatics in close formation in jets. Especially considering the fact that you'd have six of them making corrections to compensate for each other's corrections.
-
The Blue Angels as well as the Thunderbirds perform low altitude AEROBATIC routines. If the aircraft were equiped with the "autopilot" system you are envisioning, there would be no aerobatics performed. They routinely violate the condition you just proposed as a part of their normal routine. They go way beyond 15FPS both up and down. A 1000 fpm decent is only 16.6 fps and I have done more than that in my old Comanche and training aircraft much less a fighter plane.
If the autopilot has the ability to over ride the pilot you'd likely have a hard time finding a pilot who wants to fly in it. This goes double for a fighter. Imagine how much fun you'd have if YOUR fighter wouldn't allow a 15 fps decent in combat even in AH. :rolleyes:
-
Low terrain avoidance autopilots are found in F-111 , B1 and Tornado maybe? But they are ment to terrain following. If I remember correctly (may be a miss) I think I read something about A-10 thunderbolts having a switch when pressed engages automatic leveling (in cases you lose orientation close to ground)
In fighter planes it would be virtually impossible to implement an autopilot which only takes over when impact SEEMS immediate. You may be executing a split-S with 10k foot descent rate at speed of 500kts pulling 7g and aiming to level at 500ft . Autopilot would only see 10kfeet descent rate and closing ground... eeek!
But with a switch it would be doable. Dead manīs switch, neural monitor which measures if pilot is unconscious/incapacitated or nearing it.
But UCAVīs are making all this just speculation..
-
I saw a video of the crash, he was in a hard left banking turn trying to catch back up to the group and very low. It looks like he had a high speed stall as the nose angled towards the ground about 3/4's through the turn and as low as he was it was unrecoverable. From the time you see the nose angle down to the time he hits is less than a second, it looks like he was only a couple hundred feet in the air.
-
While I hate speculating over the cause, I have to agree with VWE, in that the first thought I had was of a high speed stall... which are supposed to be all but impossible in the F-18 especially considering the inb leading edge of the wing extending so far forward on the fuselage.
Either way it is a very sad event.
Again to LtCdr Davis
-
Even if such system would exist I doubt the Blue Angels would use it.
-
Even if there was such a device. I doubt if it would get used. There would be a risk it would kick in exactly when you least needed it or react to spurious inputs. Ground proximty warning systems have been fitted to airliners for years and military fighters have warning systems fitted. I remember jumpseating in a 737 once. The crew opted for a visual approach and the GPWS was whining about the glideslope all the way down. Imagine if it had the power to take over and go around without crew intervention. Not nice.
In any case for events like the Blues crash, it probably wouldn't detect it in time. Once physics takes over nothing will stop an aircraft hitting the ground.
There are any number or reasons for the crash, only the investigation will reveal. It could have been a simple mistake by the pilot, incapacitation, they don't wear g-suits, loss of one engine at a critical point, possibilly from bird strike or a systems failure at a crucial moment or maybe it hit the wake turbulence of another aircraft. Time will tell.
-
The technology exists. The taxpayer's money for it "doesn't."