Fast Jet Display Safety
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough Dook a Lightning pilot talked me through....
edit: my display base height was 500ft and in serious competition work all manoeuvres had to be commenced and finished at that height. It is also worth noting that the exit speed from any manoeuvre must be the entry speed for the next since any delay will incur penalties.
Wingless Walrus,
I do not believe that your suggestions are feasible for a few reasons:
- The aircraft does not know what the intended manoeuvre is at any time. At the apex of a looping manoeuvre, how does it know whether the pilot is planning to fly a downward 1/2 loop or to pull onto a down 45 deg line then roll erect and pull out? The latter manoeuvre can be flown safely from an apex height considerably lower than that required for a downward half loop. Therefore, an automatic recovery system would either prevent the pilot flying a 1/2 Cuban 8 (1/2 horizontal 8 in RAF terms) or would allow him to crash from a loop. Similarly, if at, say, 500 ft a level high g turn was flown to roll out to the inverted and then an inverted pass flown, how would it sense that as being different to the top of a loop? In a barrel roll, you may be in a wings level inverted attitude at the apex but there is no safety gate to account for getting too steep nose down during the second half. You could never derive an infallible algorithm.
- Although the military tend to use fixed sequences for displays, this is not, in my opinion, always the safest option because it can result in a pilot feeling pressured into flying a marginal manoeuvre rather than changing the sequence and flying a safer one. Therefore, ground based observation is not infallible because the observer will not know precisely what the pilot is planning to do next. Also, assimilation of the flight data when off board takes time and by the time an unsafe manoeuvre has been identified it may be too late to implement a safe escape manoeuvre.
- Automatic initiation of a recovery manoeuvre or automatic ejection initiation could result in the aircraft being placed on a vector towards the crowd which, whilst potentially saving the pilot's life, may endanger bystanders whose safety is paramount.
Low level loops can be flown safely, as some Boscombe tps do frequently (fantom, PM me if you wish!!!). I am with dook that it is all about proper training and situational awareness. Automation in displays - I wonder how large the crowd would be for a UAV display?
I do not believe that your suggestions are feasible for a few reasons:
- The aircraft does not know what the intended manoeuvre is at any time. At the apex of a looping manoeuvre, how does it know whether the pilot is planning to fly a downward 1/2 loop or to pull onto a down 45 deg line then roll erect and pull out? The latter manoeuvre can be flown safely from an apex height considerably lower than that required for a downward half loop. Therefore, an automatic recovery system would either prevent the pilot flying a 1/2 Cuban 8 (1/2 horizontal 8 in RAF terms) or would allow him to crash from a loop. Similarly, if at, say, 500 ft a level high g turn was flown to roll out to the inverted and then an inverted pass flown, how would it sense that as being different to the top of a loop? In a barrel roll, you may be in a wings level inverted attitude at the apex but there is no safety gate to account for getting too steep nose down during the second half. You could never derive an infallible algorithm.
- Although the military tend to use fixed sequences for displays, this is not, in my opinion, always the safest option because it can result in a pilot feeling pressured into flying a marginal manoeuvre rather than changing the sequence and flying a safer one. Therefore, ground based observation is not infallible because the observer will not know precisely what the pilot is planning to do next. Also, assimilation of the flight data when off board takes time and by the time an unsafe manoeuvre has been identified it may be too late to implement a safe escape manoeuvre.
- Automatic initiation of a recovery manoeuvre or automatic ejection initiation could result in the aircraft being placed on a vector towards the crowd which, whilst potentially saving the pilot's life, may endanger bystanders whose safety is paramount.
Low level loops can be flown safely, as some Boscombe tps do frequently (fantom, PM me if you wish!!!). I am with dook that it is all about proper training and situational awareness. Automation in displays - I wonder how large the crowd would be for a UAV display?
It's not the entry altitude that will kill you, it's generally the lack of entry speed (and what you do over the top). Press-on-itus often 'forces' the pilot to do attempt it at 'just a few knots' lower than their usual speed, with disastrous consequences.
Some interesting comments and I certainly agree with Lomcevak and Dook - Automation has proven on multiple occasions to not be the answer. Instead training, situational awareness and most importantly understanding of the individual aircrafts performance is key.
Low level aerobatics are in my view not dangerous; they simply expose you to more risk. If that risk is managed via the above, then technically one could initiate a loop (for example) from takeoff - assuming it was sensible based on the aircraft performance available.
One must first differentiate between “competition” aerobatics and display aerobatics. In competition the expectation is a ‘perfect’ loop - a constant radius, where the entry and exit speeds are the same. Skill in flying this manoeuvre is key. A slight error could result in recovery below the start height. If the margin isn’t there you will crash and thus why competition aerobatics are not generally flown at low altitudes below 500ft. Display aerobatics are not scored. A flying display should be flown to show off the aircraft, not the pilots skill. Manoeuvres need not be textbook, simply safe and ideally pleasing to those watching. As such, a loop will probably not have a constant radius - the first half flown to achieve altitude in excess of the minimum required to complete and the second half flown to make advantage of the assistance of gravity to increase turn radius and pitch rate. On the way back down, once assured that the loop can be completed safely, the radius can be gradually increased thus allowing energy to be regained and the pull managed to arrive back at the start altitude. Not all aircraft can do this, hence it is important to know the limits of the machine. A chipmunk for example will generally lose altitude in a loop. That’s not to say it can’t be done - it can, but not ending with the same energy package that you started with. In stark contrast a typhoon can execute a loop from extremely low speed / energy - it has the thrust to gain the required altitude over the apex and the pitch authority on the way back down to successfully complete the manoeuvre. However that type of loop is not the same as a competition manoeuvre, rather than prescribing a circle in the sky it will instead be more of an ‘egg’ shape.
Ultimate performance is not however, the be all and end all. Regardless of whether doing low level aerobatics in a tiger moth or an F22, energy must be managed correctly. There is always talk of too low to complete, too slow, didn’t make gate height etc. This is usually not the full story - it is almost always just energy mismanagement. The video above is a sad example. The manoeuvre (which was not a loop) was not conducted from too low or too slow and probably had the required gate altitude to complete. It was the mismanagement of the energy state of the aircraft that resulted in the accident. I will caveat that I do not know the details - I have simply seen the film and as a fast-jet aviator, understand how modern aircraft fly.
An aircrafts wing will only fly to a certain angle of attack, exceed that and under loaded flight (ie greater than 0g) it will stall. Simple aerodynamics. A modern fighter aircraft can usually exceed 30 alpha before this occurs compared to a chipmunk which is a fraction of that value. However you cannot always just pull to max performance alpha that will give you minimum radius - if you have excess airspeed you may encounter the load limit first. In a modern fighter, the load limit is effectively the G-Limiter. If you can remove that then you as a human become the limiter (ie. maintaining consciousness) or the structural integrity of the aircraft. Whilst i believe the typhoon in the video may have had the altitude to recover from the split-s he executes, he has far too much energy in the form of airspeed. On the way down the aircraft is max performing but due to either being g-limited (I assume in the region of +9g) or physiologically limited, it cannot achieve the radius of turn required from the planned gate height.
My stab at explaining some of the characteristics of aircraft performance barely scratch the surface of what is a very complex subject. We as humans will always error. The key is to learn from others and strive not to keep repeating the mistakes made in the past.
Low level aerobatics are in my view not dangerous; they simply expose you to more risk. If that risk is managed via the above, then technically one could initiate a loop (for example) from takeoff - assuming it was sensible based on the aircraft performance available.
One must first differentiate between “competition” aerobatics and display aerobatics. In competition the expectation is a ‘perfect’ loop - a constant radius, where the entry and exit speeds are the same. Skill in flying this manoeuvre is key. A slight error could result in recovery below the start height. If the margin isn’t there you will crash and thus why competition aerobatics are not generally flown at low altitudes below 500ft. Display aerobatics are not scored. A flying display should be flown to show off the aircraft, not the pilots skill. Manoeuvres need not be textbook, simply safe and ideally pleasing to those watching. As such, a loop will probably not have a constant radius - the first half flown to achieve altitude in excess of the minimum required to complete and the second half flown to make advantage of the assistance of gravity to increase turn radius and pitch rate. On the way back down, once assured that the loop can be completed safely, the radius can be gradually increased thus allowing energy to be regained and the pull managed to arrive back at the start altitude. Not all aircraft can do this, hence it is important to know the limits of the machine. A chipmunk for example will generally lose altitude in a loop. That’s not to say it can’t be done - it can, but not ending with the same energy package that you started with. In stark contrast a typhoon can execute a loop from extremely low speed / energy - it has the thrust to gain the required altitude over the apex and the pitch authority on the way back down to successfully complete the manoeuvre. However that type of loop is not the same as a competition manoeuvre, rather than prescribing a circle in the sky it will instead be more of an ‘egg’ shape.
Ultimate performance is not however, the be all and end all. Regardless of whether doing low level aerobatics in a tiger moth or an F22, energy must be managed correctly. There is always talk of too low to complete, too slow, didn’t make gate height etc. This is usually not the full story - it is almost always just energy mismanagement. The video above is a sad example. The manoeuvre (which was not a loop) was not conducted from too low or too slow and probably had the required gate altitude to complete. It was the mismanagement of the energy state of the aircraft that resulted in the accident. I will caveat that I do not know the details - I have simply seen the film and as a fast-jet aviator, understand how modern aircraft fly.
An aircrafts wing will only fly to a certain angle of attack, exceed that and under loaded flight (ie greater than 0g) it will stall. Simple aerodynamics. A modern fighter aircraft can usually exceed 30 alpha before this occurs compared to a chipmunk which is a fraction of that value. However you cannot always just pull to max performance alpha that will give you minimum radius - if you have excess airspeed you may encounter the load limit first. In a modern fighter, the load limit is effectively the G-Limiter. If you can remove that then you as a human become the limiter (ie. maintaining consciousness) or the structural integrity of the aircraft. Whilst i believe the typhoon in the video may have had the altitude to recover from the split-s he executes, he has far too much energy in the form of airspeed. On the way down the aircraft is max performing but due to either being g-limited (I assume in the region of +9g) or physiologically limited, it cannot achieve the radius of turn required from the planned gate height.
My stab at explaining some of the characteristics of aircraft performance barely scratch the surface of what is a very complex subject. We as humans will always error. The key is to learn from others and strive not to keep repeating the mistakes made in the past.
I remember years ago watching a USAF F-15 display in the UK somewhere.The actual aircraft was an F-15B and the American commentator said the back seat was occupied by a safety pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have enjoyed reading the comments made here, very helpful and interesting. It got me thinking more about the issue, I have summarised some views against a summary of the main points made in other comments.
Summary of main points so far: -
1) stop display flying
A valid and logical option for the defence ministries (who fund the purchase of the assets) and the armed forces (who have just lost two very precious assets, the pilot and fighter while entertaining kids eating ice cream on the beach).
Public air displays generate a great deal of public interest and support for the armed forces and its hard to put a value on that. Public support could translate into political support, e.g. politicians will be more wary of how they treat armed forces if they are popoular in the mind of the public. A future prime minister may come from one of those kids watching air displays.
Regardless of the merits I dont ever see display flying being stopped. If Ramstein & Shoreham didnt stop them probably nothing will.
I have not seen many displays in the flesh, but those I did gave a spectacular and deep impact. They grab the attention of nearly every person from every walk of life.
2) automatic systems can cause crashes, dangerous to rely on them too much
The Mulhouse crash in 1988 of the new fly by wire A320 that flew into tree's on its first public demonstration was not due to system failure according to the recent articles by an aviation journalist last month. These articles are below and it is well worth also reading the comments made. It was aircrew error and misunderstanding of how the fly-by-wire worked that led to aircrew blaming the system.
* I am on less than 10 post so I cannot include web adresses; look on the website 'fearoflanding' (.com) and search for the articles:
Thirty Years Since Air France Flight 296
Too Slow, Too Low and Obstacles Ahead: Air France flight 296
Regardless of the cause, this airliner crash was 30 years ago when fly-by-wire was new on airliners but was already flying on fast jets.
I take the point that automatic flight systems can fail. However with careful design and development they are incredibly reliable and capable systems.
Typhoon proves this point, it could not fly without them; it is unstable and relies on the flight control computers to keep control of it in every speck of its huge flight envelope and in every conceivable configuration. By comparison, ground avoidance is a far easier requirement to meet for automatic flight systems.
3) Its too expensive to develop a system
For the flight control designers to add a display ground avoidance function to their already comprehensive task of designing a system to fully control the aircraft in all configurations in all parts of the flight envelope, is easily possible. Typhoon is already half way there; it has an automatic recovery function that when selected automatically recovers the aircraft to a safe attitude.
A small dedicated team could have designed a ground avoidance function (at least offering some protection if not total protection), grabbing information from the main flight controls team already in place. A similar sized team could test and develop the software using simulators topping off with aircraft tests piggy backed onto the existing flight test programme. Lets say that would cost £10million.
This system could have been fitted to all aircraft, so that is sharing £10million between the four countries making the Typhoon. You could also sell the ground avoidance system to export customers and for use on other aircraft.
Cost of one Typhoon is about £75million (£110million by some estimates)
Cost of Italian test pilot killed is well over £4million
- £4million to train and get to squadron
- over one thousand hours of fast jet flying @£15k per hour roughly?
- Graduation from test pilot school?
TOTAL COST = well in excess of £79million, maybe as high as £140million.
Saving that one Typhoon from crashing would have made a ground avoidance system worth it many times over. Even a limited ground avoidance system would have been able to see that crash coming and at least warn the pilot if not initiate recovery. A ground avoidance system could possibly prevent future Typhoon losses/fatalities, especially if utilised not just in air displays. The link below lists Typhoon crashes to date and possibly had there been at least some warning of the approaching unavoidable crash more pilots may have ejected and been saved?
* I am on less than 10 post so I cannot include web addresses; visit 'fighterjetsworld' (.com) and earch for web page:
Crash Videos of Eurofighter Typhoon List of All Eurofighter Typhoon Crash So far
4) its not feasible / aircraft cannot know what the intended manoeuvre is and so the system cannot work
I think that the Tornado IDS had a terrain following system that was in effect a ground avoidance system, consisting of a ski slope curve projected ahead of the aircraft. When terrain broke through the ski slope the aircraft pulled up to clear the ski slope from the terrain.
Maybe a system using some form of 3D ski slope volume constructed around the aircraft, representing the max manoeuvre ability of the aircraft from its current position, could determine if the aircraft was approaching a position from which it is not possible to avoid the ground with any manoeuvre. This does not require to know the intended manoeuvres but only the aircraft position, aircraft max manoeuvre capability and where the ground is.
5) It would make the display boring (i.e. system flying display)
If the display was flown correctly the system would never kick-in. There would be no observable difference in the display, it would still be a pilot flying the aircraft to its liimits. Even if a mistake was made the system would only kick-in to avoid a crash condition, not to catch non-dangerous mistakes.
6) Fast jets are soon to be replaced by unmanned aircraft, not worth investing now in an avoidance system
If those unmanned aircraft are going to fly displays, why not fit a ground avoidance system?
If it crashes that is still a very valuable asset lost. At some point there will be UAV's doing combat at low level. Such an UAV will benefit from a ground avoidance system.
7) No need for safety systems as long as pilots fly right i.e. dont make mistakes
History shows that pilots do rarely make mistakes despite them being highly trained and highly professional. Rare as they are, when they happen they cost highly prized assets in pilot and machinery.
8) ground based observation is not infallible because the observer will not know precisely what the pilot is planning to do next.
Unless the display went exactly to plan I cant see a way around that problem. Coupled with the time lag between seeing a problem and relaying it to the display pilot, probably no practical advantage could be had.
A previous comment mentioned a two seat F-15 air display with a second pilot acting as an additional safety mechanism in the aircraft. If that was effective should displays use twin seat aircraft? Doesnt have the same thrill factor for onlookers, though.
I guess that some displays are cutting things so fine that even a second pilot would not have time to take control and recover; possibly end up with two dead pilots instead of one.
9) such a system could result in the aircraft being placed on a vector towards the crowd, i.e. could jeopardise crowd safety
That is a fundamental problem but not impossible to solve. The system could be programmed with the crowd locations and permissable corridors to operate in.
*
It is technically possible to make a ground avoidance system and it is financially viable to make such a system. The system may have limits but if it saves one pilot/aircraft it will pay for itself.
Such a system would be useful for truly autonomous UAVs, especially in combat roles.
I wonder if the reason it hasnt been done is that it has never been put in the aircraft requirements given to industry?
Summary of main points so far: -
1) stop display flying
A valid and logical option for the defence ministries (who fund the purchase of the assets) and the armed forces (who have just lost two very precious assets, the pilot and fighter while entertaining kids eating ice cream on the beach).
Public air displays generate a great deal of public interest and support for the armed forces and its hard to put a value on that. Public support could translate into political support, e.g. politicians will be more wary of how they treat armed forces if they are popoular in the mind of the public. A future prime minister may come from one of those kids watching air displays.
Regardless of the merits I dont ever see display flying being stopped. If Ramstein & Shoreham didnt stop them probably nothing will.
I have not seen many displays in the flesh, but those I did gave a spectacular and deep impact. They grab the attention of nearly every person from every walk of life.
2) automatic systems can cause crashes, dangerous to rely on them too much
The Mulhouse crash in 1988 of the new fly by wire A320 that flew into tree's on its first public demonstration was not due to system failure according to the recent articles by an aviation journalist last month. These articles are below and it is well worth also reading the comments made. It was aircrew error and misunderstanding of how the fly-by-wire worked that led to aircrew blaming the system.
* I am on less than 10 post so I cannot include web adresses; look on the website 'fearoflanding' (.com) and search for the articles:
Thirty Years Since Air France Flight 296
Too Slow, Too Low and Obstacles Ahead: Air France flight 296
Regardless of the cause, this airliner crash was 30 years ago when fly-by-wire was new on airliners but was already flying on fast jets.
I take the point that automatic flight systems can fail. However with careful design and development they are incredibly reliable and capable systems.
Typhoon proves this point, it could not fly without them; it is unstable and relies on the flight control computers to keep control of it in every speck of its huge flight envelope and in every conceivable configuration. By comparison, ground avoidance is a far easier requirement to meet for automatic flight systems.
3) Its too expensive to develop a system
For the flight control designers to add a display ground avoidance function to their already comprehensive task of designing a system to fully control the aircraft in all configurations in all parts of the flight envelope, is easily possible. Typhoon is already half way there; it has an automatic recovery function that when selected automatically recovers the aircraft to a safe attitude.
A small dedicated team could have designed a ground avoidance function (at least offering some protection if not total protection), grabbing information from the main flight controls team already in place. A similar sized team could test and develop the software using simulators topping off with aircraft tests piggy backed onto the existing flight test programme. Lets say that would cost £10million.
This system could have been fitted to all aircraft, so that is sharing £10million between the four countries making the Typhoon. You could also sell the ground avoidance system to export customers and for use on other aircraft.
Cost of one Typhoon is about £75million (£110million by some estimates)
Cost of Italian test pilot killed is well over £4million
- £4million to train and get to squadron
- over one thousand hours of fast jet flying @£15k per hour roughly?
- Graduation from test pilot school?
TOTAL COST = well in excess of £79million, maybe as high as £140million.
Saving that one Typhoon from crashing would have made a ground avoidance system worth it many times over. Even a limited ground avoidance system would have been able to see that crash coming and at least warn the pilot if not initiate recovery. A ground avoidance system could possibly prevent future Typhoon losses/fatalities, especially if utilised not just in air displays. The link below lists Typhoon crashes to date and possibly had there been at least some warning of the approaching unavoidable crash more pilots may have ejected and been saved?
* I am on less than 10 post so I cannot include web addresses; visit 'fighterjetsworld' (.com) and earch for web page:
Crash Videos of Eurofighter Typhoon List of All Eurofighter Typhoon Crash So far
4) its not feasible / aircraft cannot know what the intended manoeuvre is and so the system cannot work
I think that the Tornado IDS had a terrain following system that was in effect a ground avoidance system, consisting of a ski slope curve projected ahead of the aircraft. When terrain broke through the ski slope the aircraft pulled up to clear the ski slope from the terrain.
Maybe a system using some form of 3D ski slope volume constructed around the aircraft, representing the max manoeuvre ability of the aircraft from its current position, could determine if the aircraft was approaching a position from which it is not possible to avoid the ground with any manoeuvre. This does not require to know the intended manoeuvres but only the aircraft position, aircraft max manoeuvre capability and where the ground is.
5) It would make the display boring (i.e. system flying display)
If the display was flown correctly the system would never kick-in. There would be no observable difference in the display, it would still be a pilot flying the aircraft to its liimits. Even if a mistake was made the system would only kick-in to avoid a crash condition, not to catch non-dangerous mistakes.
6) Fast jets are soon to be replaced by unmanned aircraft, not worth investing now in an avoidance system
If those unmanned aircraft are going to fly displays, why not fit a ground avoidance system?
If it crashes that is still a very valuable asset lost. At some point there will be UAV's doing combat at low level. Such an UAV will benefit from a ground avoidance system.
7) No need for safety systems as long as pilots fly right i.e. dont make mistakes
History shows that pilots do rarely make mistakes despite them being highly trained and highly professional. Rare as they are, when they happen they cost highly prized assets in pilot and machinery.
8) ground based observation is not infallible because the observer will not know precisely what the pilot is planning to do next.
Unless the display went exactly to plan I cant see a way around that problem. Coupled with the time lag between seeing a problem and relaying it to the display pilot, probably no practical advantage could be had.
A previous comment mentioned a two seat F-15 air display with a second pilot acting as an additional safety mechanism in the aircraft. If that was effective should displays use twin seat aircraft? Doesnt have the same thrill factor for onlookers, though.
I guess that some displays are cutting things so fine that even a second pilot would not have time to take control and recover; possibly end up with two dead pilots instead of one.
9) such a system could result in the aircraft being placed on a vector towards the crowd, i.e. could jeopardise crowd safety
That is a fundamental problem but not impossible to solve. The system could be programmed with the crowd locations and permissable corridors to operate in.
*
It is technically possible to make a ground avoidance system and it is financially viable to make such a system. The system may have limits but if it saves one pilot/aircraft it will pay for itself.
Such a system would be useful for truly autonomous UAVs, especially in combat roles.
I wonder if the reason it hasnt been done is that it has never been put in the aircraft requirements given to industry?
some variants of F-16 already have Auto-GCAS(Ground Collision Avoidance System). It has been credited with saving lives and airframes.
It can be done and from what I understand it has already “paid for itself”.
it has been integrated into Bk40/42/50/52 Vipers for a few years; they have flown displays since then; it probably has no or limited effect on their displays.
It can be done and from what I understand it has already “paid for itself”.
it has been integrated into Bk40/42/50/52 Vipers for a few years; they have flown displays since then; it probably has no or limited effect on their displays.
Yep - that's the system I was thinking of.
There's some video somewhere on web of it doing a 6 or 7g flyup after a Viper driver suffered G-LOC...
Here it is:- 9.1g on the dial!
There's some video somewhere on web of it doing a 6 or 7g flyup after a Viper driver suffered G-LOC...
Here it is:- 9.1g on the dial!
Last edited by tartare; 23rd Aug 2018 at 04:51.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW I'm pretty sure Typhoon was designed with an auto-recovery mode within the FCS. It was designed against the risks arising from GLOC during normal military flying. Its a while since I had any direct knowledge but I'm sure someone who knows about its current status will be along soon.
EAP
EAP
WW I'm pretty sure Typhoon was designed with an auto-recovery mode within the FCS. It was designed against the risks arising from GLOC during normal military flying. Its a while since I had any direct knowledge but I'm sure someone who knows about its current status will be along soon.
EAP
EAP
Last edited by flighthappens; 23rd Aug 2018 at 06:59.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
To answer just some points, I agree about Mulhouse but the point was not a systems failure but a pilot failure using a system. Perhaps not typical.
Air shows are undoubtedly popular with many regular visitors over the years and some visiting many in one year. Adding them all up however and the numbers are minute. They are really preaching to the converted. The established shows are so few that most people don't have access. The free seaside shows are popular but I don't know how they cover costs.
An attempt to start a new show at Abingdon to attract the Londoners was an abject failure on so many levels. I think Lincolnshire has dropped off the circuit now so what Military shows remain?
Air shows are undoubtedly popular with many regular visitors over the years and some visiting many in one year. Adding them all up however and the numbers are minute. They are really preaching to the converted. The established shows are so few that most people don't have access. The free seaside shows are popular but I don't know how they cover costs.
An attempt to start a new show at Abingdon to attract the Londoners was an abject failure on so many levels. I think Lincolnshire has dropped off the circuit now so what Military shows remain?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments on USA using Auto-GCAS (Ground Collision Avoidance System) are spot on.
Good articles on websites below:
F-35 To Incorporate Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35...oidance-system
What Exactly Is Auto GCAS?
https://fightersweep.com/3955/exactly-auto-gcas/
The Typhoon does have an automatic recovery system that is initiated by the pilot (the button was on the panel in front of the stick). When activated by the pilot the aircraft recovers itself.
Air shows preaching to the converted is a good point. As impressive as they are, there is not the public interest there used to be. I remember air shows being on TV when I was a kid, but I don't see them anymore.
That is the ground avoidance system question answered. What about automatic ejection systems? Probably by the time such a system could be reliably developed, pilots will no longer be in the aircraft?
Good articles on websites below:
F-35 To Incorporate Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35...oidance-system
What Exactly Is Auto GCAS?
https://fightersweep.com/3955/exactly-auto-gcas/
The Typhoon does have an automatic recovery system that is initiated by the pilot (the button was on the panel in front of the stick). When activated by the pilot the aircraft recovers itself.
Air shows preaching to the converted is a good point. As impressive as they are, there is not the public interest there used to be. I remember air shows being on TV when I was a kid, but I don't see them anymore.
That is the ground avoidance system question answered. What about automatic ejection systems? Probably by the time such a system could be reliably developed, pilots will no longer be in the aircraft?
The Typhoon does have an automatic recovery system that is initiated by the pilot (the button was on the panel in front of the stick). When activated by the pilot the aircraft recovers itself.
Medium to high altitude manoeuvring is obviously different and the automatic recovery system could be utilised - but that's not display flying, at least for a year or two until the CAA/MAA raise the minimum height and give all spectators binoculars........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree. See my earlier comment (#28 point 3). Some comments about Typhoon were unsure whether the system was activated in response to GLOC or manually selected.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
I do not think the UK really has a problem with airshow crashes bar the last couple of high profile ones, the Shoreham crash was caused by entering a manoeuvre too low that it was impossible to recover from, righty or wrongly the main difference in that incident was members of the public not involved with the show died and they hadn't agreed in the terms of sale to accepting ones own liability, the strange outcome of all of this was the display line was moved away from the crowds who had accepted that burden to further areas outside the perimeter of the site, where those that haven't accepted it are more at risk.
Don't most Russian fighters also have a button to put it back into straight and level flight if it all goes pear shaped.
Don't most Russian fighters also have a button to put it back into straight and level flight if it all goes pear shaped.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
The Stuka incidentally had an automatic recovery system in case the pilot blacked out in a dive.
Junkers Ju 87 Stuka
Junkers Ju 87 Stuka