LOMCEVAK,
it will take someone far more knowledgeable than me to make any decision on any system to be used on any aircraft for anything. I only make the point that those far more suitable than me, i.e. the USAF and others, have gone down the path of creating an automatic ground collision avoidance system (and air collision avoidance system) that even with its current limits has saved aircraft and pilots.
I have no idea what actual parameters are used in this system for those criteria you mention. The system in its current state of development has already recovered aircraft and saved pilots that other wise would have crashed. Whatever the values of those criteria used, they are saving the aircraft and pilot. This includes cases of recovering the aircraft after the pilot has suffered GLOC.
What the system current limitations are I dont know, but it is still in ongoing development. A system goal is for use in air-air combat training/exercises to avoid ground and air collisions. That is a very dynamic and unpredictable environment. I would imagine such a system could be made of use for display flying too.
Below is a summary of your points raised previously and my thoughts.
- crowd location
Does not the pilot also need to know these in advance for the same reasons of planning the display? The Italian Typhoon was at the coast; an approximation could have been made that the beachline was the boundary between crowd and recovery area; that would have been enough to save that pilot and Typhoon.
- minimum altitude loss
Does this not also apply to a human pilot? Computers can think and act faster than a human pilot; unstable aircraft can be flown by computers that a human pilot could never control.
- rolling at 45 deg nose down
See comment #44; the current auto-GCAS appears to be able to cope with high pitch rates (system flown on F-16; see also links in comments #34 & #46); computers can sense and react faster than any human pilot, it only requires the right algorithm/method.The system makes a decision as to whether the aircraft is approaching a point from which any recovery is impossible (as a human pilot would) and then reacts at the last second to avoid it.
- When would automatic recovery mode disengage and hand control back
I dont know the criteria exactly but it is being done by the current auto-GCAS which has saved aircraft and pilots in state of with/without GLOC. The Typhoon has an auto-recovery system, pilot selected, which can recover the aircraft and hand control back to the pilot in a satisfactory manner. Automatic recovery and handing control back to pilots who have/have not suffered GLOC is successfully implemented in some current systems.
- Tornado TFR
I mentioned this only as an example of a simple ground avoidance system; the auto-GCAS is extremely sophisticated, much more than the Tornado TFR and it is still developing. Had the Italian Typhoon been fitted with the current auto-GCAS it probably would never have crashed. Current auto-GCAS may not be perfect, but it is saving lives and even a modified limited auto-GCAS could have probably saved that Typhoon, whether it was pilot error or GLOC.
I am guessing that to display pilots auto-GCAS seems the equivalent of stabiliser wheels on a bike. Auto-GCAS is being fitted to the F-35 5 years earlier than planned (from 2019). I am guessing that soon we will see an F-35 at an air display using auto-GCAS to some extent; either modified, limted or fully functional.