MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123491408 · doi:10.2514/6.2010-7797

Ground Based Simulation of Airplane Upset Recovery Using an Enhanced Aircraft Model

2010· article· en· W2123491408 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fangfei Liu, Peter R. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpsetAirplaneFlight envelopeSimulationEngineeringAeronauticsAerodynamicsEnvelope (radar)Flight simulatorComputer scienceMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss-of-control has become the dominating cause of worldwide commercial airplane accidents in recent years. Airplane upset, which could result in loss-of-control, is a situation where the aircraft goes beyond the normal ight envelope. In response to the increasing number of loss-of-control accidents resulting from airplane upsets, various preventative and recovery strategies have been proposed in the industry. One strategy considered is using ground-based ight simulators for upset recovery training. However, for the training to be meaningful, improvements must be made to the ight model aerodynamic database and the motion cues produced at upset conditions. The on-going research at the University of Toronto intends to address both of these areas with the ultimate goal to develop simulator requirements to support meaningful upset recovery training. As the rst step in the research, the aerodynamic database of an existing large transport aircraft model was extended to cover a much larger ight envelope using the wind-tunnel data from NASA Langley Research Center. This enhanced aircraft model was then used to run a set of representative upset recovery maneuvers in the simulator without motion. The time histories recorded from these upset recovery maneuvers will be used to outline areas of improvements required to the simulator motion drive algorithm (MDA) for supporting upset motions. This paper will focus on the development of the aircraft model and the simulator upset recovery experiments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies ConferenceSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207