http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:25:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-165063 Stefan Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:22:24 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-165063 @Steve I'm pretty sure the point of this system is to take the sensory burden away from the pilot is last-ditch split-second decisions, and it's (apparently) all in software. I don't see how that's presenting an information problem to the pilot. @Steve
I’m pretty sure the point of this system is to take the sensory burden away from the pilot is last-ditch split-second decisions, and it’s (apparently) all in software. I don’t see how that’s presenting an information problem to the pilot.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-64323 steve Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:05:00 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-64323 98%! What are our current rate of aircraft losses due to terrain collision? I would be willing to bet that it is less than 2% of the total losses of aircraft. Is this a real improvement or another pricey high tech gadget which will further overwhelm the senses of the modern military pilot. 98%! What are our current rate of aircraft losses due to terrain collision? I would be willing to bet that it is less than 2% of the total losses of aircraft. Is this a real improvement or another pricey high tech gadget which will further overwhelm the senses of the modern military pilot.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-64322 Eizu Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:42:35 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-64322 "F-16 Fighting Flacons" That one must be a new model...with flak cannons? “F-16 Fighting Flacons“
That one must be a new model…with flak cannons?

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-64321 caflyboy9608 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:34:26 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-64321 It's already been tested in the F-16... I'd be interested to know how they'll integrate it into the F-22 avionics (which are already so complex to manage!) It’s already been tested in the F-16… I’d be interested to know how they’ll integrate it into the F-22 avionics (which are already so complex to manage!)

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-165062 Rick Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:28:55 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-165062 "That preserves a lot of combat capability." This strikes me as a rather odd way to phrase it! Dead is dead, no more, no less! In the air or in the ground! “That preserves a lot of combat capability.” This strikes me as a rather odd way to phrase it! Dead is dead, no more, no less! In the air or in the ground!

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-64319 Bill Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:35:44 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-64319 Anyone want to volunteer to test this? :P Anyone want to volunteer to test this? :P

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-165061 Keith Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:08:00 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-165061 That's a good one. I can only tie the record for minimum fuel for flight, although I did get shoved down rather low in a thunderstorm while orbiting a "datum". That’s a good one. I can only tie the record for minimum fuel for flight, although I did get shoved down rather low in a thunderstorm while orbiting a “datum”.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2007/08/08/helping-pilots-avoid-the-ground/#comment-165060 ohwilleke Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:54:36 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3664#comment-165060 One presumes by "a 98 percent effectiveness rate at eliminating aircraft crashes into the ground.", that the proponent means that rather than the status quo of 130 fighter ground collisions, we would have 2-3. But, the description certainly isn't compelled by the text. A 2% crash into the ground rate when using the system, which wouldn't be very good at all, is also a plausible reading of that number. One presumes by “a 98 percent effectiveness rate at eliminating aircraft crashes into the ground.”, that the proponent means that rather than the status quo of 130 fighter ground collisions, we would have 2–3. But, the description certainly isn’t compelled by the text. A 2% crash into the ground rate when using the system, which wouldn’t be very good at all, is also a plausible reading of that number.

]]>