arxiv: 2604.24338 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Perfecting Aircraft Maneuvers with Reinforcement Learning

Atahan Cilan, Mahir Demir, \"Ozg\"un Can Y\"ur\"utken, Seyyid Osman Sevgili, \"Umit Can Bekar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords reinforcement learningaircraft maneuverspilot trainingaerobaticsAI simulationjet trainermachine learning in aviation

0 comments

The pith

Reinforcement learning agents simulate multiple aerobatic maneuvers in jet trainers to build AI-assisted pilot training modules.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that reinforcement learning can be applied to generate simulations of various aircraft aerobatic maneuvers inside an advanced jet trainer model. These simulations are positioned as the foundation for a training module that future pilots could use to practice complex skills. A sympathetic reader would see value in a method that produces repeatable maneuver demonstrations without immediate dependence on live instructors or risky real-world practice. The work treats the RL agents as practical tools capable of covering a range of maneuvers within one framework.

Core claim

A multitude of aircraft maneuvers have been simulated using reinforcement learning (RL) agents, which will serve as a training tool for future pilots.

What carries the argument

Reinforcement learning agents trained to execute and demonstrate simulated aerobatic maneuvers inside a jet trainer dynamics model.

If this is right

The RL simulations can directly supply content for an AI-assisted pilot training module.
Multiple distinct maneuvers can be produced and stored within the same agent-based system.
Training scenarios become available on demand in a fully simulated environment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same RL setup could be adapted to generate training data for emergency or recovery procedures.
Pairing the simulations with motion-platform hardware might increase transfer to actual cockpit feel.
Agent performance logs could later be used to create individualized feedback for human trainees.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated maneuvers match real aircraft physics and dynamics closely enough to improve human pilot performance without separate real-world flight validation.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of RL-generated maneuver trajectories against recorded real-flight data from the same aircraft, or a controlled test measuring pilot skill gains after RL simulation training versus standard methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24338 by Atahan Cilan, Mahir Demir, \"Ozg\"un Can Y\"ur\"utken, Seyyid Osman Sevgili, \"Umit Can Bekar.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Inner working of RL IV. METHODOLOGY In this study, we used a supervised learning-like approach to construct our objective (or reward) function. As discussed in section II, in the study of Abbeel et al., pilots have demonstrated maneuvers several times, and an algorithm is utilized for generating the intended trajectory of the maneuver. Then, a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) based controller is obtained [… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A sample loop maneuver trajectory is displayed. The view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Side view of the barrel roll maneuver [16]. view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Side view of the loop maneuver [16]. 3) Immelmann: An Immelmann turn is a half-loop maneuver followed by a 180-degree roll, which is shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Side view of the Immelmann maneuver [16]. view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Inputs and outputs of the RL model. C. Initial Conditions Determining the initial conditions for training episodes is significant to simulate all possible scenarios for the desired task so that the RL model can have enough state, action, and reward pairs to learn expected behavior. In our work, the aim is to train RL agents that can execute a maneuver in any location and direction, along with the acceptabl… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Change of reward with respect to error for different scaling factors. view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for loop maneuver with pilot view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for Immelmann maneuver with view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for barrel roll maneuver with view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for loop maneuver with view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for Immelmann maneuver with view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Target trajectory, resulting trajectory and actions applied by the RL model is presented for barrel roll maneuver with view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This paper evaluates an advanced jet trainer's utilization of artificial intelligence (AI)-based aircraft aerobatic maneuvers with the intention of developing an AI-assisted pilot training module for specific aircraft maneuvers. A multitude of aircraft maneuvers have been simulated using reinforcement learning (RL) agents, which will serve as a training tool for future pilots.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies RL to jet trainer maneuvers for pilot training but provides no model details, metrics, or validation, so the claims can't be assessed.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work asserts RL agents simulated a range of aircraft maneuvers to build an AI training module, yet it supplies almost none of the technical backing needed to judge whether any of that holds up. The abstract frames it as an evaluation and application, but the manuscript stays at the level of a high-level description without showing the actual results or setup. RL for flight control and aerobatics is already established in the literature, so there is no new algorithm or insight here; it's a routine extension to one specific jet trainer. The authors do pick a sensible target application in specialized pilot training, and they avoid overclaiming new theory, which keeps the scope honest. That said, the soft spots are central rather than minor. No aircraft dynamics equations, stability derivatives, or simulator fidelity checks appear. There are no state or action space definitions, reward functions, training curves, baseline comparisons, or quantitative matches to real flight data. Without those, you cannot tell if the simulated trajectories are dynamically accurate or if they would actually transfer to better human performance. The stress-test note captures this exactly: the training-tool claim requires both realistic physics and demonstrated pilot benefit, and neither is shown. This leaves the paper as an unverified idea rather than a grounded result. It might interest someone scanning for quick RL application sketches in aviation, but it offers little concrete value for anyone doing serious work in the area. I would not bring it to a reading group or cite it. It does not deserve peer review until the methods, data, and validation sections are added.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that reinforcement learning (RL) agents have been used to simulate a multitude of aerobatic maneuvers for an advanced jet trainer aircraft, with the stated goal of developing an AI-assisted pilot training module that will serve as a tool for future pilots.

Significance. If the simulations were demonstrated to faithfully reproduce real aircraft aerodynamics (e.g., lift/drag curves and stability derivatives) and if the resulting trajectories were shown through controlled experiments to improve human pilot performance, the approach could offer a scalable, risk-free method for training complex maneuvers. The work would then align with existing RL applications in aerospace control and potentially influence training curricula.

major comments (3)

Abstract: The assertion that 'a multitude of aircraft maneuvers have been simulated using reinforcement learning (RL) agents' is unsupported by any technical content; the manuscript supplies no description of the aircraft dynamics model, state/action spaces, reward function, RL algorithm, or training procedure.
Abstract: The claim that the simulations 'will serve as a training tool for future pilots' rests on two unshown conditions—(1) fidelity of the simulator to real jet-trainer physics within flight-test tolerances and (2) measurable transfer to human skill improvement—yet no validation against flight data, no pilot-in-the-loop results, and no quantitative metrics are provided.
Abstract: Absence of performance metrics, baselines, error analysis, or even a single numerical result (e.g., success rate, trajectory deviation, or comparison to human pilots) renders the central claim that the maneuvers have been 'perfected' impossible to evaluate.

minor comments (1)

Abstract: The abstract is extremely terse and contains no references to prior RL work on aircraft control or any indication of the manuscript's length or structure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments correctly identify that the current submission is high-level and lacks the technical depth, validation evidence, and quantitative results needed to fully support the claims. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate detailed descriptions, simulation metrics, and explicit discussions of limitations and future work. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The assertion that 'a multitude of aircraft maneuvers have been simulated using reinforcement learning (RL) agents' is unsupported by any technical content; the manuscript supplies no description of the aircraft dynamics model, state/action spaces, reward function, RL algorithm, or training procedure.

Authors: We agree that the submitted version omitted these details. The revised manuscript will include a dedicated Methods section describing the 6-DOF aircraft dynamics model for the advanced jet trainer (with standard aerodynamic coefficients), the state space (position, velocity, attitude, angular rates, and control inputs), the action space (elevator, aileron, rudder, and throttle commands), the composite reward function (tracking accuracy plus control effort and safety penalties), the use of the PPO algorithm, and the training procedure (curriculum-based episodes in a physics-based simulator). These additions will substantiate the claim of simulating multiple aerobatic maneuvers. revision: yes
Referee: Abstract: The claim that the simulations 'will serve as a training tool for future pilots' rests on two unshown conditions—(1) fidelity of the simulator to real jet-trainer physics within flight-test tolerances and (2) measurable transfer to human skill improvement—yet no validation against flight data, no pilot-in-the-loop results, and no quantitative metrics are provided.

Authors: We acknowledge that the forward-looking claim about serving as a training tool is not yet supported by human-subject data. The revision will add a Simulator Fidelity subsection comparing simulated lift/drag and stability derivatives to available wind-tunnel and published flight-test references, along with a clear statement of limitations. Pilot-in-the-loop experiments and transfer metrics are outside the scope of the present simulation study and cannot be added without new human-subject protocols and resources; we will explicitly list this as future work. revision: partial
Referee: Abstract: Absence of performance metrics, baselines, error analysis, or even a single numerical result (e.g., success rate, trajectory deviation, or comparison to human pilots) renders the central claim that the maneuvers have been 'perfected' impossible to evaluate.

Authors: We agree that the lack of numerical results prevents proper evaluation. The revised manuscript will include results sections with learning curves, maneuver success rates (e.g., percentage of episodes completing each aerobatic figure within tolerance), RMS trajectory deviation errors, and comparisons against a baseline PID controller using the same dynamics model. Error analysis and sensitivity studies will also be added. Direct comparison to human pilot data is not currently available and will be noted as future work. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Real flight-test data for quantitative validation of aerodynamic fidelity within flight-test tolerances.
Pilot-in-the-loop experiments demonstrating measurable transfer of skill improvement to human pilots.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain or self-referential reduction present; claim is purely descriptive.

full rationale

The provided manuscript text consists solely of a high-level descriptive claim that RL agents were used to simulate aircraft maneuvers for a training module. No equations, state spaces, reward functions, aircraft dynamics models, training procedures, or self-citations appear in the abstract or full text excerpt. Without any load-bearing derivation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness argument, there is no step that can reduce to its own inputs by construction. The paper therefore exhibits no circularity of the enumerated kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no technical details, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5357 in / 970 out tokens · 50814 ms · 2026-05-08T04:07:17.432249+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Reinforcement learning: An introduction,

B. Andrew and S. Richard S, “Reinforcement learning: An introduction,” 2018

2018
[2]

Learn to fly: Cloning the behavior of a pilot,

C. M. N. Medeiros, “Learn to fly: Cloning the behavior of a pilot,” 2021

2021
[3]

Learn to fly ii: Acrobatic manoeuvres,

H. M. de Freitas, “Learn to fly ii: Acrobatic manoeuvres,” 2022

2022
[4]

Research on ucav maneuvering decision method based on heuristic reinforcement learning,

W. Yuan, Z. Xiwen, Z. Rong, T. Shangqin, Z. Huan, D. Wei,et al., “Research on ucav maneuvering decision method based on heuristic reinforcement learning,”Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2022, 2022

2022
[5]

A hierarchical deep reinforcement learning framework for 6-dof ucav air-to-air combat,

J. Chai, W. Chen, Y . Zhu, Z.-X. Yao, and D. Zhao, “A hierarchical deep reinforcement learning framework for 6-dof ucav air-to-air combat,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 2023

2023
[6]

Cross coordination of behavior clone and reinforcement learning for autonomous within- visual-range air combat,

L. Li, X. Zhang, C. Qian, M. Zhao, and R. Wang, “Cross coordination of behavior clone and reinforcement learning for autonomous within- visual-range air combat,”Neurocomputing, p. 127591, 2024

2024
[7]

Multi-intent autonomous decision-making for air combat with deep reinforcement learning,

L. Jia, C. Cai, X. Wang, Z. Ding, J. Xu, K. Wu, and J. Liu, “Multi-intent autonomous decision-making for air combat with deep reinforcement learning,”Applied Intelligence, vol. 53, no. 23, pp. 29076–29093, 2023

2023
[8]

An application of reinforcement learning to aerobatic helicopter flight,

P. Abbeel, A. Coates, M. Quigley, and A. Ng, “An application of reinforcement learning to aerobatic helicopter flight,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, 2006

2006
[9]

Performing aerobatic maneu- ver with imitation learning,

H. Freitas, R. Camacho, and D. C. Silva, “Performing aerobatic maneu- ver with imitation learning,” inInternational Conference on Computa- tional Science, pp. 206–220, Springer, 2023

2023
[10]

Deep reinforcement learning control for aerobatic maneuvering of agile fixed-wing aircraft,

S. G. Clarke and I. Hwang, “Deep reinforcement learning control for aerobatic maneuvering of agile fixed-wing aircraft,” inAIAA Scitech 2020 F orum, p. 0136, 2020

2020
[11]

An integrated imitation and reinforcement learning methodology for robust agile aircraft control with limited pilot demonstration data,

G. G. Sever, U. Demir, A. S. Satir, M. C. Sahin, and N. K. Ure, “An integrated imitation and reinforcement learning methodology for robust agile aircraft control with limited pilot demonstration data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08663, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[12]

A brief survey of deep reinforcement learning,

K. Arulkumaran, M. P. Deisenroth, M. Brundage, and A. A. Bharath, “A brief survey of deep reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05866, 2017

work page arXiv 2017
[13]

An aircraft upset recovery system with reinforcement learning

M. Demir, A. Cilan, S. O. Sevgili, O. Yurutken, and U. C. Bekar, “An aircraft upset recovery system with reinforcement learning.”
[14]

Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor

T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,”CoRR, vol. abs/1801.01290, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018
[15]

Rennie,Autonomous Control of Simulated Fixed Wing Aircraft using Deep Reinforcement Learning

G. Rennie,Autonomous Control of Simulated Fixed Wing Aircraft using Deep Reinforcement Learning. Department of Computer Science Technical Report Series, Sept. 2018

2018
[16]

The secrets to 5 tricks you’ll learn in aerobatics training,

Ken, “The secrets to 5 tricks you’ll learn in aerobatics training,” 2019

2019
[17]

Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,

A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dor- mann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021

2021
[18]

Perfecting aircraft maneuvers with reinforcement learning,

A. Cilan, “Perfecting aircraft maneuvers with reinforcement learning,” 2024. [Online]. Available: youtube.com/playlist?list= PLnSCzs4h2EloUXGJn8tqWepUJG7De5F89. Accessed: May. 4, 2024

2024
[19]

Autonomous control of unmanned combat air vehicles: Design of a multimodal control and flight planning framework for agile maneuvering,

N. K. Ure and G. Inalhan, “Autonomous control of unmanned combat air vehicles: Design of a multimodal control and flight planning framework for agile maneuvering,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 74–95, 2012

2012