Ground Collision Avoidance System ‘Saves’ First F-16 in Syria

The USAF finally went for that? It was first demonstrated in 1998, and has been used by the Swedish air force for years. Their slogan is &quot;You can&#x27;t fly any lower&quot;. Here&#x27;s the 1998 writeup, copied from Aviation Leak: <a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article8.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.f-16.net&#x2F;f-16_versions_article8.html</a><p>The technical paper: <a href="http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1998/PAPERS/182.PDF" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.icas.org&#x2F;ICAS_ARCHIVE&#x2F;ICAS1998&#x2F;PAPERS&#x2F;182.PDF</a><p>The actions this system takes are drastic. Roll rates to 180 degrees&#x2F;sec to get to wings-level, then a 5G pull-up. The pilot&#x27;s helmet may be banged against the canopy. It&#x27;s so drastic because flying 150 feet off the ground in mountainous terrain is normal procedure for fighters. If the system has to act to avoid a collision, that action has to be very aggressive.<p>Here&#x27;s what it looks like to a pilot:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPr2LWctwYQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=aPr2LWctwYQ</a><p>Here, the pilot puts the plane into an insane bank and, as he says, &quot;goes to sleep&quot; and releases the controls.

Reminds me of a description of air combat where the pursued would dive, and then pull out at the last possible moment, hoping the pursuer would misjudge and pull out too late. One pulled out so low he raised dust on the ground.<p>My father liked to attack ack-ack positions by diving vertically on them, as the gun crew obviously was reluctant to fire straight up. Of course, you gotta keep a real close eye on your altitude and airspeed doing that.

This is really interesting. I found a PDF with some neat details and imagery describing the thinking that goes into Auto GCAS:<p><a href="http://www.sfte2013.com/files/78993619.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfte2013.com&#x2F;files&#x2F;78993619.pdf</a><p>I don&#x27;t know if it&#x27;s just coincidental, but a lot of the examples seem to be concerned with keeping jets from flying into mountains, as opposed to flying into level ground, which was the first thing that came into mind when I saw &quot;Ground Collision.&quot;

&quot;According to the Air Force, 26% of aircraft losses and 75% of all F-16 fatalities are caused by such accidents.&quot;<p>Wow.

The Stuka had a slightly less sophisticated version of this in 1935:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#Diving_procedure" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Junkers_Ju_87#Diving_procedure</a>

Can you imagine the testing rigor you would need for this sort of system, knowing that if you incorrectly engaged or steered the aircraft, you would be responsible for killing the pilot?

That&#x27;s great.<p>Maybe someone here can enlighten me as to why the systems, specifically TCAS and GPWS in modern civilian planes are only ever used to issue warnings&#x2F;recommendations, but never take control? it would have at least prevented the überlingen mid air collision and probably some other CFIR incidents in the past years.<p>I thought about this for a while and couldn&#x27;t come up with a really good reason.

This is fascinating stuff. Does anybody know the whole cost of this system? I only was able to find a pdf and it says that the seed money was $2.5 millions. If anybody is interested here&#x27;s the link: <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/337112main_Auto-GCAS-NR-AFPS.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nasa.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;337112main_Auto-GCAS...</a>

I just finished the book &quot;Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed&quot;<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed-ebook/dp/B00A2DIW3C#" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed-e...</a><p>It was a great book that almost feels like the pre-scrum manifesto applied to building aircraft.

&quot;a 5g pull&quot;<p>Yikes!

Why are we bombing Syria?

hmm ... as a pilot and student of WW2 combat, I think this might be ok in peace-time, but definitely a problem in war time.<p>- to avoid radar, you have to fly low - tree-top high - to save ammo, you have to shoot near ground-targets - can the software be fooled in mountainous terrain? - what about off-field landings? - Japan&#x27;s most effective bombers were kamikaze, and American pilots also considered ramming other aircraft after their ammo ran out - if the software is wrong, does it roll inverted and pull down at 5G? how do you stop it?