UAV Crash in Arizona (Long)

Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.

The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.

The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
the first to be shut down!

The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
Tucson International airspace.

The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.

It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
"in the national interest".

Why is this posted on a glider forum?

Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.

In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
form of border patrol.

Check the NTSB report he
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...MA121& akey=1

Mike

Wow, that's an eye opener. A bunch of contractors are swapping
processor cards, rebooting computers, power-cycling whole racks of
gear, and calling on their cell phones for backup. You'd think that
Yahoo or google.com had come up with a 404 or the like. Except:

The Predator B is approximately 36 feet in length with
a wingspan of 66 feet. The maximum gross weight is
10,000 pounds...

...The aircraft total fuel capacity was 3,920 pounds...

When eBay goes down, it doesn't land in folks' back yards. When it's
up, it doesn't consume vast blocks of airspace. And when you pull the
plug it definitely sinks at less than 1 fps.

Bob K.

Thankyou, Mr Strike, for the shortened view, the actual report is indeed heavy going!
Again we see USAF big brother at his not-responsible best. Fortunately it wasnt an Italian chair lift this time.

The fact that the operators are referred to as "Pilots" is alarming enough. When I dive my kids toy sub through her bathtub remotely, am I now a sub-mariner? Apparently so!

Dont be assuming these things are just looking at border patrols, either, they are being used to shoot at people in war theatre around the globe, very effectively.

One can only put 2 and 2 together to figure that if a UAV was met in the air by a glider that its natural programming will (if not now, soon enough) have the UAV shoot us out of the sky.

Jump up and down, write letters, complain.

Thanks again, Mr Strike, if I look back on all the scare mongering about the Soviet Union fed to us over the last 40 years, this kind of thing appears alarmingly similar.

Or is it the Terminator movies?

More sleepless nights.

Bagmaker

Mike the Strike wrote:
Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.

The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.

The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
the first to be shut down!

The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
Tucson International airspace.

The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.

It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
"in the national interest".

Why is this posted on a glider forum?

Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.

In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
form of border patrol.

Check the NTSB report he
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...MA121& akey=1

Mike


Well, no harm done, at least they didn't mix up the console button with
the one that releases the Hellfire missles!

Arizona is not theonly UAV program. see

Submarine Force Tests UAV Technology to Enhance Force Protection
Story Number: NNS050331-02
Release Date: 3/31/2005 2:00:00 PM



By Journalist 2nd Class Christina M. Shaw, Commander, Submarine Force, U.S.
Atlantic Fleet Public Affairs

KINGS BAY, Ga. (NNS) -- The submarine force conducted a demonstration here
in February using a new type of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to test its
utility for force protection.
During the demonstration, a prototype UAV was launched and controlled by
force protection personnel ashore to search out the waters ahead of the
submarine as it entered port.
The small plane weighing in at approximately five pounds is able to break
down into five pieces and can be stored in a small suitcase, making it
portable and easy to take anywhere it's needed.
"The beauty of UAVs as other military users have found is they are
economical, portable and reliable," said Lt. Cmdr. Tom Armstrong, Commander,
U.S. Naval Submarine Force anti-terrorism force protection officer.
The UAV can be used in a number of different ways, but its primary purpose
for the submarine force would be for reconnaissance and photographic
surveillance to support force protection. The new UAV design is ideal for
stealth, due to its ultra-quiet electric motor and small size.
Another plus comes in the versatility of the vehicle. According to
Armstrong, it can be flown in all kinds of weather and can be launched in a
very unique way.
"It can be flown via Global Positioning System (GPS). We just program what
route we want it to fly and it doesn't matter if it's night or day, in bad
weather or good," he said. "We could launch the UAV from the submarine at
sea or launch it from shore depending upon the available range."
Acquisition of this UAV for submarine force protection is still under
consideration, but Armstrong is optimistic this technology will be a part of
the fleet in the future.
"This affordable surveillance tool offers great potential benefits and
savings to the submarine force, and I hope we'll be able to take advantage
of this great technology soon."
For related news, visit the Commander, Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/sublant.



Great new for those of us who fly down the coast. A GPS controled blind bird
Great.

But don't worry our FAA is protecting us. right?

Has anyone crossposted to rec.aviation.piloting?





"Bob" wrote in message
news
Mike the Strike wrote:
Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
snip

Well, no harm done, at least they didn't mix up the console button with
the one that releases the Hellfire missles!

On Oct 19, 9:43 am, Mike the Strike wrote:
Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.

The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.

The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
the first to be shut down!

The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
Tucson International airspace.

The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.

It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
"in the national interest".

Why is this posted on a glider forum?

Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.

In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
form of border patrol.

Check the NTSB report he
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...1&ntsbno=CHI06...

Mike

You guys are conveniently ignoring, because I know that you know
better, that piloted military a/c have also crashed, including at
largely attended public events such as airshows. And in the USA. The
pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
sequence of events occurred?
I am, however, very sympathetic to any loss of airspace. Join the AOPA
and fight it, but it isn't a UAV only issue. That is far more
effective than a rant on RAS.

Tom

wrote:

snip

In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
form of border patrol.

Check the NTSB report he
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...1&ntsbno=CHI06...

Mike

You guys are conveniently ignoring, because I know that you know
better, that piloted military a/c have also crashed, including at
largely attended public events such as airshows. And in the USA. The
pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
sequence of events occurred?


There is a big difference IMO. The operator is not physically invested
in the outcome of the flight. Pilots crash military aircraft, and many
die. Those who don't are usually injured, sometimes severely in the
crash or ejecting. The UAV operator may run the risk of choking on his
or her Subway sandwich in the event of a mishap, and perhaps have to
seek new employment (maybe at Subway FTM).
Its the difference between "Oh Sh!t" and "Um, does this look right to
you? Hmm, oops."

I am, however, very sympathetic to any loss of airspace. Join the AOPA
and fight it, but it isn't a UAV only issue. That is far more
effective than a rant on RAS.

True but if the rant results in more AOPA members, it was useful.

http://www.aopa.org/


Shawn
AOPA and SSA Member

pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
sequence of events occurred?

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.

Following procedures can only go so far. Robust designs minimize the
chance of a mishap. It should be obvious that if you have two
identical buttons, one which snaps a photo and the other that releases
a missile, that the system might ask "are you sure" before
implementing it. The current design is not robust has no margin for
error.

The loss of 100% of the operational UAVs in the Arizona sector in 2006
should be testimony to something!

I have no problem with real pilots doing this job if it's necessary.
I know some who do and it is apparently very effective.

UAVs are a costly boondoggle that provide little border security while
gobbling up money, resources and our airspace.

If we really wanted to protect the border, we'd stick up a big fence
and scatter some land mines around it.

Mike

PS UAVs are coming to the Canadian border too!

On Oct 19, 9:47 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
sequence of events occurred?

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.

Following procedures can only go so far. Robust designs minimize the
chance of a mishap. It should be obvious that if you have two
identical buttons, one which snaps a photo and the other that releases
a missile, that the system might ask "are you sure" before
implementing it. The current design is not robust has no margin for
error.

The loss of 100% of the operational UAVs in the Arizona sector in 2006
should be testimony to something!

I have no problem with real pilots doing this job if it's necessary.
I know some who do and it is apparently very effective.

UAVs are a costly boondoggle that provide little border security while
gobbling up money, resources and our airspace.

If we really wanted to protect the border, we'd stick up a big fence
and scatter some land mines around it.

Mike

PS UAVs are coming to the Canadian border too!

I like UAVs. I have flown a Predator.. They are the future of
aircraft. Unless you know how they operate and are controlled don't
jump to scary
and poorly reported events. I know a lot of Predator pilots. Many are
flown by glider pilots. They can read an N number 25 miles away.
Have any live piloted aircraft crashed...into homes and killed people
on the ground? Has your computer ever crashed? Things break.
If you have political objections, say so. I want our country protected
from another 9-11 and being absorbed by illegal and dangerous people.
Fence yes, Cameras yes, overseas calls monitored, yes. I am a proud
American, I believe in the bible. So there! Fred Robinson

You want scary and poorly reported - here's another one for
you........

"The crash of a remote-controlled MQ-1 Predator on Aug. 3 at Creech
Air Force Base, Nev., resulted from a civilian contract pilot pushing
the wrong button, an Air Force accident investigation board concluded
in a report issued Thursday. The aircraft was assigned the Predator
formal training unit, the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Creech.

As the aircraft flew near the base at an altitude of about 500 feet,
the pilot pressed the button he thought would retract the airplane's
landing gear. Instead, the button shut down the engine.

The pilot couldn't restart the motor. He tried to steer the powerless
plane to a runway, but the propeller-driven plane crashed. The total
cost of the damage was pegged at $1.4 million."

Pushing the wrong button seems to be a bit of a problem with this
particular aircraft control system.

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.

Mike

PS: I'm all for keeping dangerous folks out of the USA. I just think
they are more likely to legally fly in from Saudi Arabia on a
scheduled airline flight like the last lot did.

Most Mexicans walking into Arizona just want to pick fruit, milk cows
or mow lawns. And I haven't noticed any spectacular decrease in their
numbers since the UAVs were deployed.