[HN Gopher] If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed ...
___________________________________________________________________
If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed to do? (2018)
Author : avestura
Score : 31 points
Date : 2025-10-30 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aviation.stackexchange.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (aviation.stackexchange.com)
| ortusdux wrote:
| I recently learned about the Green Ramp disaster, where the crew
| ejected from an F-16 under full afterburner, and the jet
| continued on to collide with several parked airplanes, resulting
| in 24 fatalities.
|
| "As of 2025, this incident has the largest number of ground
| fatalities for an accidental crash of an aircraft on U.S. soil.
| It was also the worst peacetime loss of life suffered by the
| division since the end of World War II."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Ramp_disaster
| tekla wrote:
| TLDR: It does nothing and it should never do anything
| darkhorn wrote:
| I think the most proper thing for the jet should be to destroy
| itself. In a war enviornment I would not like my enemy to gain
| intel about my military jets.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Not my wheelhouse, but doesn't that involve packing the
| aircraft with explosives, and wouldn't that involve risk of
| blowing up if someone else shoots you? Or is there some better
| way to self-destruct?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Impacting the ground usually does it.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Jets are usually full of jet fuel that can blow up if someone
| else shoots you, or they run into the ground.
| klysm wrote:
| Assuming there is an autopilot present, nose diving at max
| afterburner straight down is probably going to yield a
| similar result
| estimator7292 wrote:
| One could calculate the amount of energy in a given amount of
| explosive and smashing into the ground at high velocity. I'm
| too lazy to do so, but I can tell you they're on the same
| scale.
|
| A heavy object moving fast has a _shocking_ amount of energy.
| When such an object impacts the ground, all that energy has
| to go somewhere.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| There are probably a number of clever and failsafe ways to
| divert jet fuel somewhere that would destroy the plane on
| command.
| jojobas wrote:
| Would you go near a plane that's an electronic signal away from
| blowing itself up?
|
| Even if mechanical, warplanes get combat damage, and having a
| system like that could make a difference between survivable and
| sure death.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe bring some strong jamming equipment to prevent the
| electronic signal from being received?
| crazygringo wrote:
| I think its high-speed collision with the ground or ocean
| generally takes care of destroying it. Especially with no pilot
| attempting to keep it level and slow it down and minimize
| damage.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| If it's a controlled ejection scenario, you try to fly to a
| specific location, airspeed, heading, and altitude, then pull. It
| will be in your local-area in-flight guide. The intent is, the
| plane ends up somewhere away from civilization. This if, of
| course, only suitable for scenarios where you have this luxury.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to fry / erase
| any IFF and encryption related stuff, but otherwise continue as
| before.
|
| E.g, if it's already been programmed to fly straight and level,
| continue to do that. If it's deactivated, stay deactivated.
|
| Just seems like a whole 'nother set of characteristics to test
| otherwise, as well as adding extra unpredictability. The aircraft
| is probably damaged / on fire, so its flight characteristics are
| already going to be extremely different to normal. The best thing
| in the moment may be to let the aircraft lawn-dart in a field,
| rather than attempt to get straight and level, and in the process
| potentially fly over inhabited area or towards a friendly set of
| aircraft / buildings / vehicles.
| pdonis wrote:
| If the autopilot is engaged, the pilot won't be ejecting,
| because the aircraft will be in some kind of controlled flight.
| Autopilots will be disengaging and lighting up a big red light
| in the cockpit well before the aircraft gets to the point where
| the pilot would consider ejecting. Remember that ejecting is an
| absolute last resort, since the pilot is quite likely to be
| injured and runs a significant risk of being killed in the
| process of ejecting.
| cluckindan wrote:
| About one in 20 ejections results in death, usually due to
| low altitude, or being hit/crushed by the seat.
|
| Compare to 20 in 20 jet airplane crashes resulting in death
| and suddenly pulling that lever might seem a worthwhile risk
| to take
| SoftTalker wrote:
| A pilot would only eject if the aircraft was uncontrollable with
| no reasonable hope for recovery. Unlikely the autopilot can do
| anything deliberate at that point.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Yes, but the autopilot should have some kind of contingency
| programming in case the pilot is mistaken about the aircraft
| being unflyable.
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| If this was possible it would just be part of regular flight
| control laws and would be used to avoid becoming
| uncontrollable in the first place.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Huh? If I'm the human pilot, I can pull the ejection lever
| for multiple reasons, including my just being an idiot. The
| plane, after I eject, should do _something_ reasonable.
| Maybe it
|
| * starts broadcasting a mayday?
|
| * crashes into the nearest large body of water?
|
| * attempts to fly itself back to base (we have the
| technology)?
|
| I mean, it has to do _something_ and flying straight and
| level until it runs out of fuel is unlikely to be the
| optimal value of "something"
|
| Why would it be controversial to say "Look, guys, we should
| decide what the plane does after the pilot ejects. Maybe
| the best policy _is_ just flying same course and speed
| until fuel exhaustion, but we should choose this policy,
| not default into it without consideration. "
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Ejecting for for no reason would end the pilot's flying
| career. Ejecting for _any_ reason will result in an
| investigation, at minimum. Pilots are expected to fly the
| airplane until the last extremity.
|
| So while yes it's possible, it's unlikely, and the return
| on investment of making the plane able to do something
| like "return to base" in that circumstance would be a
| large negative number.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Even ejecting with good reason is enough to end a fighter
| pilot's career. The rates for significant back injury are
| between 1 in 3 and 1 in 2 depending on the design.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| remember that part of optimization is the amount of
| resources spent developing a solution for a problem that
| just doesn't come up that often. in the microcosm of a
| single ejection there's probably a better way to handle
| it than to just let the plane continue on its course. in
| the macrocosm, there's probably better problems to deal
| with than the one that results from the relatively rare
| situation in the military and unheard of in the civilian
| sphere. it's also worth noting that ejector seats are
| explosive-assisted and any plane that's been ejected from
| is rendered structurally unreliable, and usually is so
| close to crashing that nothing can be done to save it
| even if saving it is viable. So most of what you do "in
| response" to an ejection isn't actually in response, it's
| about planning ahead. outside of a wartime situation
| where factors beyond your control tell you where you'll
| be flying, don't be in a place where it would be
| dangerous to bail if you think you might have to bail.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I'll do my best. So you want to dedicate probably the
| rest of your career to automated diagnosis and recovery
| from crash conditions after ejection? Just so we can say
| we did a reasonable thing? Oh just the one case where the
| pilot rejects during level controlled flight you're
| saying we should be careful to let it continue on same
| course and speed? And if it's slightly changing course
| speed or altitude? Did we want to level out or continue
| the climb and turn? Do we attempt to maintain rate of
| climb even if it means throttling up? Descent?
|
| The whole thing is so wildly ambiguous and niche that
| it's a black hole. When a pilot ejects the controller is
| gone. The controls are slack and it's just physics until
| fire.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Planes that keep flying after an ejection do happen
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber
|
| https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024...
| tekla wrote:
| These are not equivalent.
|
| The first one, the Airplane was in an uncontrolled spin, the
| ejection happened to fix it.
| whycome wrote:
| This is silly. And not true. There is no "would" other than
| your own prediction. What if the pilot deliberately wanted to
| crash the plane but not do it intentionally?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Thinking about this one
| (https://theaviationist.com/2025/02/12/ea-18g-growler-
| crashes...), it seems like after ejection you'd want the plane to
| lawn dart whenever possible. It allows the pilot to know if it is
| an okay place to ditch and it minimizes the reverse engineering
| risk.
|
| I imagine there is a good reason this isn't the way things are
| though.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| [delayed]
| bragr wrote:
| The analysis and conclusions of the responders here seems pretty
| invalidated by the 2024 F-35B ejection. Maybe more thought should
| be put into this?
|
| https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-30 23:00 UTC)