In-Flight Test Campaign to Validate PIO Detection and Assessment Tools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a joint research campaign conducted by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and the National Research Council Canada (NRC) to explore methods and techniques to expose rotorcraft pilot-induced oscillations (PIOs) during flight testing. A flight test campaign was conducted at NRC using the Bell 205 experimental aircraft. Results show that, particularly for the lateral axis, ADS-33 tasks can be successfully applied to expose PIO tendencies. Novel subjective and objective criteria were used during the test campaign. PIO prediction boundaries of the objective phase-aggression criteria (PAC) detection algorithm were validated through results obtained. This was the first use of PAC with data recorded in-flight. To collect subjective feedback, the aircraft–pilot coupling (APC) scale was used. This was the first use of the novel scale in-flight and received favourable feedback from the evaluation pilot. Modifications to ADS-33 mission tasks were found to successfully improve the ability to consistently expose PIOs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it