UAV Crash in Arizona (Long)

Mike the Strike wrote:

Maybe that's why over 25% of Predators in the Iraq and Afghan theaters
are lost to pilot error? That's about double the rate for enemy fire.

It would be interesting to know the crash rate of UAVs per 1000 hours of
air time compared with manned aircraft and even more interested to see
the data classified by failure type.

I have a feeling that a lot of this crashery is due to the "Not Sitting
There" syndrome - if you're in the plane you pat attention to what
you're doing but if its a UAV who cares if it crashes - just launch another.

Declared interest: I want to know more about the reliability of
otherwise of UAV control systems because it seems likely that there's a
link between current transponder consultation in the UK and the future
appearance of swarms of UAVs in class G airspace. Why else would they
want the transponders on balloons and microlights as well as all GA
aircraft and gliders?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

and how about this.....

"7/6/2005 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- The loss of control
of an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle caused it to run out of
fuel and crash Jan. 14 at a forward-deployed location in Southwest
Asia, Air Force officials said July 6.

The $3.5 million Predator, which belonged to the 15th Reconnaissance
Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., was destroyed upon impact.
There were no injuries, fatalities or damages to other people,
property or equipment.

The incident occurred when the pilot and sensor operator experienced a
malfunction with their computer control system. Both control stations
were rebooted, but communication links with the aircraft were lost and
never regained. The accident happened about eight and a half hours
into the mission, with the aircraft flying uncontrolled and crashing
about 21 hours into the flight.

According to the Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board
report, the primary factors leading to the loss of control of the
aircraft and the crash included hardware failure and the aircrew
following incorrect rebooting procedures. (Courtesy of ACC News
Service)"

Malfunction with control system.... communication links lost.....

.....sounds familiar?

Mike

Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
(even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
aircraft fly.


Mike.. the military has a lot of aircraft flying with people in them, that
do not have an airworthiness certificate.

I have 1500 hrs in one.

BT

On Oct 20, 9:42 pm, "BT" wrote:
Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
(even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
aircraft fly.

Mike.. the military has a lot of aircraft flying with people in them, that
do not have an airworthiness certificate.

I have 1500 hrs in one.

BT

OK - I suppose we wouldn't expect a civilian certificate from the
FAA. But I assume the military have some other procedure to make sure
that millions of dollars of our assets aren't scattered over
hillsides?

I did a consulting job some years ago with the military and the
procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding concern and
it slowed things up considerably.

Mike

I did a consulting job some years ago with the military and the
procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding concern and
it slowed things up considerably.

Mike


Yes, so we don't have people and parts splattered all over the country side.

BT

On Oct 19, 10:47 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:

snip

Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
(even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
aircraft fly.

snip

Lets think about this. No approved type certicate, does this sound
familar? We should go to the FAA and demand all aircraft that lack
approved type certificates be grounded because they are obviously
unsafe. How many sailplanes fly under experimental certificates?
Lots. Homebuilts of course and quite a few Libelles, discuses and
LS-3s since the original owners imported them before they received
approval from the FAA. I imagine if the experimental certificates
were cancelled you could eventually get an approved type certificate
after some paperwork and maybe retrofitting some equipment required by
the ATC. Of course some of the open class ship would be out of luck
since they never received an ATC as well as others. Wouldn't it be
better to figure out what safety issues the Predator has,if any, and
campaign to have them fixed?

wrote:
Lets think about this. No approved type certicate, does this sound
familar? We should go to the FAA and demand all aircraft that lack
approved type certificates be grounded because they are obviously
unsafe. How many sailplanes fly under experimental certificates?
Lots. Homebuilts of course and quite a few Libelles, discuses and
LS-3s since the original owners imported them before they received
approval from the FAA. I imagine if the experimental certificates
were cancelled you could eventually get an approved type certificate
after some paperwork and maybe retrofitting some equipment required by
the ATC. Of course some of the open class ship would be out of luck
since they never received an ATC as well as others. Wouldn't it be
better to figure out what safety issues the Predator has,if any, and
campaign to have them fixed?

According to the NTSB report, the Predator had no airworthiness
certificate whatsoever and was flying on an FAA waiver. All of the
gliders discussed above fly with special airworthiness certificates.
The situations are simply not comparable.

Several smaller companies are having a great deal of difficulty getting
public use (law enforcement, search and rescue, etc.) airworthiness
certificates for UAVs which are in many cases no larger than your
typical model airplane. The DHS and a large defense contractor can
simply invoke "national security", which allows them to get away with
behavior that would be quite illegal for anyone else...

Marc

can
simply invoke "national security", which allows them to get away with
behavior that would be quite illegal for anyone else...

Marc

I think I have heard of this being done.

Steve
A loyal American

I suspect that the number of Americans in Arizona murdered
by illegal
aliens this past month is slightly more than the number
of UAV's which
have crashed this year. The amount of money spent
providing free
medical care to illegal aliens would pay for quite
a few Predator factories
and salaries for the pilots who fly them. UAV crews
need to have high
quality training and experience before being deployed
to combat areas
and flying them along the Mexican and Canadian borders
makes a whole
lot more sense, to me, than flying them in Nebraska.
Since U.S.
airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
increased usage of
Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
you keep your
sailplane away from them.
Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
and hire American
employees.

OK - I suppose we wouldn't expect a civilian certificate
from the
FAA. But I assume the military have some other procedure
to make
sure
that millions of dollars of our assets aren't scattered
over
hillsides?

I did a consulting job some years ago with the military
and the
procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding
concern
and
it slowed things up considerably.

Mike

Steve Davis wrote:
I suspect that the number of Americans in Arizona murdered
by illegal aliens this past month is slightly more than the number
of UAV's which have crashed this year.

Absolutely right. Our homegrown murderers already kill plenty, and they
don't need any competition!

The amount of money spent providing free
medical care to illegal aliens would pay for quite
a few Predator factories
and salaries for the pilots who fly them.

Whether or not it is costing 1 million dollars per alien found, we must
spend this money! We can't afford not to have Predator factories and
pilots. Today they are only tracking aliens, tomorrow, the rest of us!


UAV crews
need to have high
quality training and experience before being deployed
to combat areas
and flying them along the Mexican and Canadian borders
makes a whole
lot more sense, to me, than flying them in Nebraska.

The high quality of the training provided is amply documented by the
NTSB report. Imagine the skill and daring at work as the highly paid
pilot and his instructor rebooted the operator consoles and scratched
their heads!

Since U.S.
airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
increased usage of
Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
you keep your
sailplane away from them.

You must have sold yours 8^)

Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
and hire American
employees.

Yeah, leave the hiring of illegal immigrants to American corporations
where they belong!

Another loyal American...