Evaluation of Rotorcraft Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO): Results from a DLR/NRC Collaborative Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pilot-induced oscillations (PIOs) still pose a significant risk to safety of rotorcraft operations, particularly as no formal evaluations are conducted during test and evaluation programs. Usually during experimental flight testing if PIOs are observed, additional testing and evaluations are conducted. This paper details results from a joint research effort undertaken by researchers at the National Research Center Canada (NRC) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) to investigate and test novel methods and techniques to assess PIOs occurring in rotorcraft. The efforts included modifications to test processes and the use of PIO detection and prediction criteria. The research was conducted using both a ground-based simulation facility and a research helicopter. Results of the campaign showed the suitability of a novel subjective assessment scale and a PIO detection algorithm. This was confirmed through both objective and subjective assessment. Furthermore, modifications to ADS-33 mission task elements were also considered to improve the applicability to testing for 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".