HN Reader

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

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

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-...

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

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...

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.

> 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

TLDR: It does nothing and it should never do anything

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)