If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed to do? (2018)

[jcul]

> The only victim of the accident was Wim Delaere, a computer science student reported to have been either 18 or 19 years old.[4][5][1] He was sleeping alone after celebrating the end of his university exams the previous day when the MiG crashed and killed him at 10:30 am. His mother and brother were shopping for groceries in Kortrijk, and his father was working in Ypres.[4]

From the linked Wikipedia article on one of the answers.

What an unlucky kid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Belgium_MiG-23_crash

[deadbabe]

His death later inspired the movie Donnie Darko, about a kid in 1988 who is killed by a jet engine in similar circumstances.

[ortusdux]

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

[Spooky23]

This thread is a great example of how engineers by nature are tempted to add complexity to nearly any scenario.

[hex4def6]

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]

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.

[SoftTalker]

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.

[RobotToaster]

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...

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

At the very least, something to keep the flight path predictable would make sense, to give the pilot a chance to point the plane at a "safe" area to crash in before pulling the lever. I remember reading several stories of pilots taking "where is the plane going to crash" into account for their ejection decision or last moves before ejection.

There were also several incidents where a pilot ejected because the plane was somewhat controllable but it was clear it couldn't be landed safely. At least one of them where they had tens of minutes of controlled flight before ejecting (they flew it over the ocean to minimize the risk of collateral damage).

[bravoetch]

Unlikely, you say? That's why it's being discussed. Like, if a pilot ejected because the engines stop, but the control surfaces still work... Maybe the plane avoids a kindergarten on its dive to the earth-sky interface.

[quotemstr]

Yes, but the autopilot should have some kind of contingency programming in case the pilot is mistaken about the aircraft being unflyable.

[the__alchemist]

Not necessarily. For example, you'd eject if unable to get as safe landing configuration.

[whycome]

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?

[the__alchemist]

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.

[ternus]

I was astonished at the claim that pilots ejecting can lose half an inch of height due to spinal compression induced by the G-forces. Claims seem to be borne out:

https://www.forcesnews.com/news/can-ejecting-aircraft-make-p... https://www.quora.com/Do-pilots-lose-height-when-they-eject-...

[ern]

Making sure that the consequences are well-publicized also has the useful side-effect of making sure that ejection is regarded as a last resort.

[ffb7c5]

I think we should make an API call to an LLM with the current GPS location to decide what to do, bonus points if we can mount a forward facing camera and upload the picture as well

[latentsea]

> bonus points if we can mount a forward facing camera and upload the picture as well

As an NFT of course.

[bragr]

The analysis and conclusions of the responders here (2018) seem pretty invalidated by the 2024 F-35B ejection incident. Maybe more thought should be put into what the autopilot should do?

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024...

[appreciatorBus]

A single incident doesn’t invalidate anything. No one has argued that it’s impossible for a fighter to fly on for a significant period of time in good shape after a pilot ejects, or the pilot has never ejected mistakenly out of an air worthy aircraft. Rather the argument is that this is a vanishing rare occurrence and the complexities of trying to implement an unmanned auto pilot of a potentially damaged aircraft are probably not worth the handful of times it might be used. One incident doesn’t disprove that it’s vanishingly rare.

[dang]

Discussed at the time (of the article):

If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed to do? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17391550 - June 2018 (76 comments)

[darkhorn]

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]

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?

[mikkupikku]

You could erase computer memory, but blowing up the plane won't stop them from gaining intel about the materials, mechanism, and whatnot that make up the plane. An explosion won't vaporize the airplane, just break it into smallish pieces. Those can be collected and analyzed to reconstruct most any detail about the construction of the airplane. They even do this with missiles and bombs. Even shell fragments. When artillery shells packed full of high explosives go off, their intricate fuse mechanisms are left remarkably intact.

[crazygringo]

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.

[jojobas]

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.

[1970-01-01]

They did not address the fact that sometimes there's more than one soul onboard. So the answer is truly "it depends"

[cosmicgadget]

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.

[jayd16]

I wonder if dumping the fuel ASAP is a good idea or bad idea.

[euroderf]

Only good, I would think. It's pretty volatile stuff innit ? Dispersion.

[tekla]

TLDR: It does nothing and it should never do anything