Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:11:17 GMT, "Bob Jones" wrote
in Message-Id: m:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Once you show me *evidence* of lackadaisical attention to safety by
the owners and operators of those very expensive bits of hardware,

I'm happy to have you aboard. :-) Here is the information you
request:

Interesting that none of those cites indicate anything approaching "evidence
of lackadisical attention to safety".

Obviously our assessments differ.

Lessee... Inadvertent cloud entry.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0219-acc01.htm
releases RQ-1 accident report
According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report
released today, the primary cause of the accident was that the
pilot unintentionally flew the aircraft into a hazardous cloud.

FARs prescribe limits on how close to clouds a VFR flight may be, and
a certificated pilot is trained in recovery techniques.


Reference to difficulty in landing.

http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/dec99/990383.html
The two Predator pilots, who control the aircraft from a ground
station, executed critical action procedures but were unable to
land the aircraft safely. It crashed in a wooded area four miles
south of Tuzla AB.

According to the report, the pilots' attention became too focused
on flying the Predator in icing and weather conditions they had
rarely encountered. The report also cites lack of communication
between the two pilots during the flight emergency as a cause of
the accident.


Faulty assembly.

http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/apr01/01127.html
According to Air Combat Command's Accident Investigation Board
report released Thursday, the accident resulted from mechanical
failure in the UAV's propeller control system. Investigators found
substantial evidence indicating errors during maintenance on the
propeller control system on Sept. 28 played a critical role in the
accident. Evidence showed that certain components of the propeller
assembly were not adequately lubricated; in addition, a key bolt
was stripped and had not been tightened properly. These errors
likely led to the accident, according to the lead investigator.

As you will note, the maintenance personnel did not apply the same
diligence in maintaining the unmanned aircraft as is required by
regulation for manned aircraft.


Icing encounters (two of those).

http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/aug01/01267.html
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- Officials investigating the
March 30 crash of an RQ-1L Predator unmanned aerial vehicle have
determined the accident resulted from operator error.

According to the Accident Investigation Board report released
today by Air Combat Command, the Predator experienced an icing
problem and the pilot was unable to maintain control of the
aircraft.

According to the report, the pilot recognized the icing problem,
but failed to immediately execute critical checklist steps for
pitot static system failure.


Mechanical failure due to inadequate lubrication.

Yes, and a stripped bolt. That sort of poor maintenance practice is
not permitted manned aircraft.


http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/apr01/01127.html
According to Air Combat Command's Accident Investigation Board
report released Thursday, the accident resulted from mechanical
failure in the UAV's propeller control system. Investigators found
substantial evidence indicating errors during maintenance on the
propeller control system on Sept. 28 played a critical role in the
accident. Evidence showed that certain components of the propeller
assembly were not adequately lubricated; in addition, a key bolt
was stripped and had not been tightened properly. These errors
likely led to the accident, according to the lead investigator.


Sounds like a reading from the NTSB database.

No. It sounds like you failed to appreciate the operational errors
committed by the ground based UAV operators and maintenance personnel.

The point is that none of these equate to "lackadaisical attention to safety
by the owners and operators".


By omitting the citations below, you publicly demonstrate your biased
thinking:

http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/...305/runway.htm
GROUND CREW’S INATTENTION LEADS TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CRASH
According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report
released last month, the primary cause of the accident was the
ground crew’s inattention to the aircraft’s altitude.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...s/predator.htm
As of 31 October 2001 the Air Force had received a total of 68 air
vehicles, and had lost 19 ...
The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the plane,
but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a
normal pilot would have of where the ground is and where the
attitude of his aircraft is.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19962521.html
May 17 crash of unmanned spy plane blamed on human error


http://www.af.mil/news/Feb2001/n2001...shtmlOfficials

02/02/01
Officials release Predator RQ-1L Predator accident report
the accident resulted from operator error.

... the pilot -- who flies the aircraft from a ground control
station -- inadvertently cleared the primary control module's
random access memory. As a result, the Predator lost its data link
connection with the ground control station.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


FARs prescribe limits on how close to clouds a VFR flight may be, and
a certificated pilot is trained in recovery techniques.

Where in that report did it mention the flight plan type? You're either
making assumptions again or making another bad comparison.

According to the report, the pilots' attention became too focused
on flying the Predator in icing and weather conditions they had
rarely encountered. The report also cites lack of communication
between the two pilots during the flight emergency as a cause of
the accident.

Again, you posted these cites in response to a request for evidence of
"lackadaisical attention to safety". How does this provide such evidence?
For that matter, how is this any different from an IR pilot unaccustomed to
actual conditions suddenly finding himself coated in ice? Human error?
Yes. Additional safety concern? No.

As you will note, the maintenance personnel did not apply the same
diligence in maintaining the unmanned aircraft as is required by
regulation for manned aircraft.

How is this different from certificated A&P's working for, say, Alaska
Airlines? Or any number of similar NTSB reports for GA crashes. You still
haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

Mechanical failure due to inadequate lubrication.

Yes, and a stripped bolt. That sort of poor maintenance practice is
not permitted manned aircraft.

"Not permitted," he says. See above. Humans make maintenance mistakes
regardless of aircraft type (manned or not). You still haven't made the
case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

No. It sounds like you failed to appreciate the operational errors
committed by the ground based UAV operators and maintenance personnel.

"Operational errors" like the hundreds (thousands?) of similar incidents
committed with manned aircraft. You still haven't made the case that UAV's
pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

By omitting the citations below, you publicly demonstrate your biased
thinking:

"Biased", eh? Like you're totally open-minded on this issue. You so full
of BS your eyes are brown.

You keep making the claim that UAV's pose a risk to manned aircraft.
However, even when asked for such evidence, you can't find a single incident
where a manned aircraft was threatened much less harmed by UAV's.

...the primary cause of the accident was the
ground crew's inattention to the aircraft's altitude.

No different from manned aircraft.

The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the plane,
but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a
normal pilot would have of where the ground is and where the
attitude of his aircraft is.

Actually, I did reference this one. See "difficulty landing". You left out
the critical context of your quote. See this (from your link):
"A good number of them were lost due to operator error, **since it is hard
to land the UAV.** The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the
plane, but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a normal
pilot would have of where the ground is and where the attitude of his
aircraft is."
[Emphasis added by me.]

Larry, don't bother calling me biased when you're not even *close* to
unbiased.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19962521.html
May 17 crash of unmanned spy plane blamed on human error

"Human error" does not equate to "lackadaisical attention to safety." You
still have not proven that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

... the pilot -- who flies the aircraft from a ground control
station -- inadvertently cleared the primary control module's
random access memory. As a result, the Predator lost its data link
connection with the ground control station.

Human error again, but not "lackadaisical attention to safety." You still
have not proven that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk. (Note:
I'd venture to say this is a bad design feature. The pilot should not be
able to clear the UAV's RAM - especially if doing so can cause the UAV to
lose connectivity with ground control.)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:02:54 GMT, "Bob Jones" wrote
in Message-Id: m:


No. It sounds like you failed to appreciate the operational errors
committed by the ground based UAV operators and maintenance personnel.

"Operational errors" like the hundreds (thousands?) of similar incidents
committed with manned aircraft. You still haven't made the case that UAV's
pose an inherent aviation safety risk.


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?


Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?

Apples and oranges - again. Military UAV losses have no relation to the
civilian sector. Besides, your original question posed was "who's at fault
in a UAV/Part91 MAC?" Now you're trying to change the argument to "UAV's
losses are too high."

Are you trying to imply something else?

Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

Neither have you posted any facts to back up your claim that UAV's somehow
pose a risk to Part 91 or any other Part aviation.

You claim that UAV's should not be allowed to fly border patrols due to
their inability to achieve the vision requirements in all quadrants in
real-time as specified in 14CFR Part 61. Only when pressed did you post the
actual requirements - from Part 67 - and then you admitted that you have no
idea what these UAV's are capable of achieving. For all you know, they may
have systems far better than human eyesight.

You are trying to get us all riled up about some perceived safety issue.
However, all you have demonstrated is that there have been significant
losses in UAV's used by the military - many of which have occurred during
landing or in action. Several incidents have been attributed to "human
error" - not necessarily operator error - and none of these incidents causes
me much concern for sharing the skies with them.

You claim I haven't provided any facts and you're right. I don't have
enough to make an educated judgement on this issue. That's why I'm willing
to see the proposals for the operating parameters of the UAV's before I get
concerned, but that doesn't mean I won't call you on your BS.

Face it. You haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation
safety risk.

My position remains one of "wait and see". I want to see the operational
plans. Where will they be based? Where will they operate? Will they be
coordinating with ATC? What altitudes will they maintain? What paths will
they take to get to station? Will they have strobes and nav lights to help
VFR visibility? Will they have collision avoidance systems? Other
questions may come to mind after reading their operational plans, but if
these questions are answered to my satisfaction, then I see no problem.

The original quotes you posted mentioned UAV use being considered by
non-military agencies, but you haven't posted any relevant information about
the operational plans or aviation safety record of these agencies.

Nothing you've posted has *any* relation to overall aviation safety. All
you've done is try to stir the pot with implications and innuendo.

ALL planes, manned, remotely piloted or UAVs, are a risk to aviation.
That's why we have the FARs, flight plans, restricted entry to MOAs, etc.
We all operate in the same air. --Bill

"Bob Jones" wrote in message
s.com...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?

Apples and oranges - again. Military UAV losses have no relation to the
civilian sector. Besides, your original question posed was "who's at
fault
in a UAV/Part91 MAC?" Now you're trying to change the argument to "UAV's
losses are too high."

Are you trying to imply something else?

Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

Neither have you posted any facts to back up your claim that UAV's somehow
pose a risk to Part 91 or any other Part aviation.

You claim that UAV's should not be allowed to fly border patrols due to
their inability to achieve the vision requirements in all quadrants in
real-time as specified in 14CFR Part 61. Only when pressed did you post
the
actual requirements - from Part 67 - and then you admitted that you have
no
idea what these UAV's are capable of achieving. For all you know, they
may
have systems far better than human eyesight.

You are trying to get us all riled up about some perceived safety issue.
However, all you have demonstrated is that there have been significant
losses in UAV's used by the military - many of which have occurred during
landing or in action. Several incidents have been attributed to "human
error" - not necessarily operator error - and none of these incidents
causes
me much concern for sharing the skies with them.

You claim I haven't provided any facts and you're right. I don't have
enough to make an educated judgement on this issue. That's why I'm
willing
to see the proposals for the operating parameters of the UAV's before I
get
concerned, but that doesn't mean I won't call you on your BS.

Face it. You haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation
safety risk.

My position remains one of "wait and see". I want to see the operational
plans. Where will they be based? Where will they operate? Will they be
coordinating with ATC? What altitudes will they maintain? What paths
will
they take to get to station? Will they have strobes and nav lights to
help
VFR visibility? Will they have collision avoidance systems? Other
questions may come to mind after reading their operational plans, but if
these questions are answered to my satisfaction, then I see no problem.

The original quotes you posted mentioned UAV use being considered by
non-military agencies, but you haven't posted any relevant information
about
the operational plans or aviation safety record of these agencies.

Nothing you've posted has *any* relation to overall aviation safety. All
you've done is try to stir the pot with implications and innuendo.