Another drone down.....

[BEagle]

Uh-oh - it seems another drone has speared in....

A U.S. Air National Guard MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft dropped out of the sky while conducting training operations at altitudes greater than 18,000 feet above Lake Ontario, service officials said.

“The satellite control link failed and the aircraft descended into the lake. The U.S. Coast Guard went looking for the aircraft but did not find anything,” Erik Durr, director of public affairs for New York state division of military and naval affairs, told Military​.com

The Reaper was assigned to the 174th Air Attack Wing operating out of Wheeler Sack Army Airfield, Fort Drum, NY.

“No one was injured and the aircraft had no weapons on board,” Durr added. “The 174th Air Attack Wing is the MQ-9 school house for the entire Air Force. Pilots and sensor operators from around the country come here to learn how to operate the Reaper.”

The training exercise was taking place in approved military training airspace over Lake Ontario.

“They’ll conduct an Air Force investigation,” Durr said.

This crash comes a less than a month after an MQ-1B Predator drone crashed at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.



So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?

[Dash8driver1312]

By your presentation, anything that comes down onto water is unsafe. Or to be looser, anything that loses satellite uplinks.

[Just This Once...]

So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?

Just how many casualties are you expecting BEags?

[Stuff]

I'm not in the know but doesn't the loss of the vehicle imply 2 failures?

First the loss of satellite link and second the failure of the return to base feature? Alternatively perhaps there was some catastrophic failure that accounts for both loss of comms and lack of return to base.

Pure speculation of course.

[Just This Once...]

Just stalling it would account for both.

[VH-UFO]

So when do pilotless pax aircraft come in?

[gr4techie]

So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?

I bet more manned aircraft, than drones, have came down over civilisation. Yet we still use manned aircraft.

Nothing is risk free and it's all relative. You're more likely to be involved in a car crash on the way to the airport, than involved in an aviation crash.

[Bob Viking]

As a pilot I'm not exactly a fan of them either but it is a little premature to suggest that one accident is enough evidence to ban their use.
How many aircraft crashes have been in the news lately?
BV:=

[BEagle]

Insert that finger where the sun doesn't shine, BV....:*

It's just that the drone protagonists seem to want to rush into operating the wretched things wherever it suits them - clearly they aren't yet sufficiently safe from going walkabout :hmm: to risk their operation over populated areas.

[Exrigger]

Before we ban un-manned aircraft flying over populated areas because they keep dropping out of the sky, the following data would be required to support that:

How many manned aircraft are flying over say a period of 6/12 months, how many hours are they in the air and how many have been lost in the same period.

The same figures to be collated from the un-manned side off the house, then, once all the figures have been analysed you will have the percentage of failure rates for both manned and un-manned from the same statistical source and then you can bar the flying over populated areas of whichever has the higher failure rate until it improves to an acceptable level.

[Bob Viking]

Sorry mate but as much we hate them you can't stand in the way of progress. They, unfortunately, make a lot of sense to some people and they aren't about to go away.
I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that the Generals in WW1 believed the only use for aircraft was for artillery spotting. People probably thought they were speaking from a position of authority and knowledge at the time.
As much as I respect your opinions we (ie the piloting fraternity) can't just stick our heads in the sand and ignore other solutions to problems just because we don't like them. Besides, reasoned debate helps progress.
BV;)
(With a still fresh and clean finger!)

[big v]

Hey Beags,

Although the press piece was fairly dramatic, it's just possible that Lake Ontario was a lost link ditching location. Such locations can be a feature of UAV flight plans. The fact is that we just don't know, although I'm sure the press wouldn't have embroidered things for dramatic effect.

Your approach would suggest that all jets should have been banned after the Comets started dropping out of the sky - difference was that lots of folks died then, whereas I don't think UAV accidents have killed too many just yet. Is there's a whiff of Luddism about?

And you spent an entire career flying aircraft that we now know weren't airworthy and probably shouldn't have been flown over habitation.

Pip pip

Vernon

ps I trust you're well, havn't seen you for some time now.

[BEagle]

Hi Vern,

I'm sure that if Lake Ontario had been a designated drone lost-link/graveyard area, then Erik Durr would have mentioned it.

Drone prangs haven't yet killed many people because, in the main, the wretched things have been kept clear of populated areas.

If and when they are sufficiently reliable, then maybe they will be operated over such areas. But the drone fan-boys all seem to want to run before they can safely walk.

Not sure which aircraft you reckon I flew which wasn't airworthy - if it was good enough for HM The Queen, it was good enough for me!

;)

By the way, this seems an interesting turn up for the books - although I don't agree with it: BBC News - Experts lobby UN for 'killer robot' ban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24941919)

I'm fine, thanks - trust all is well with your good self?

[FFP]

The satellite control link failed and the aircraft descended into the lake

There will be more to it than that. Let's wait till the full story gets out. May alleviate some anti-drone fears once all the facts are known.

[kluge]

Thinking about the BBC article, could future self learning autonomy be the solution for the lost up/down link scenario :8 You might think that....but then...:rolleyes:

"With an autonomous system, the consequences of failure are worse in the public's mind. There's something about human error that makes people more comfortable with collateral damage if a person does it," McCants said.

..... and a greater visceral return.... :suspect:

Soon, Drones May Be Able to Make Lethal Decisions on Their Own - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/national-security/soon-drones-may-be-able-to-make-lethal-decisions-on-their-own-20131008)

[TBM-Legend]

I guess a B747 into an apartment complex in Holland didn't call for the banning of B747 flights over populated areas???

[Robert Cooper]

In this area drones are taken as practice for trap shooting, but then thats just a southern boy talking!

Bob C

[fltlt]

Actually it's the second acknowledged one in the last three weeks. One was lost on approach.

[Robert Cooper]

As far as I know, five have dropped out of the sky around here in the last couple of weeks. But that's unofficial!

Bob C

[ShotOne]

This shouldn't come as a surprise. For some years reaper/predator and global hawk have had by far the highest accident rate of any US military aircraft. What we don't hear is how many incidents such as altitude busts, which would have made the press if they were committed by manned aircraft. Not that RPAS don't have a place but some want to run, operations in controlled airspace etc, before they can walk

[Pontius Navigator]

With a manned aircraft there is a possibility of aircrew interaction. That of course is reduced for FBW and types with indirect flying controls.

With an RPV, once the operator has lost command then the RPV is on its own and without God's intervention it cannot execute an heroic movement to miss the school, hospital, care home or whatever. :)

[dctyke]

I guess the whole reg book must have been re-written for drones. i.e , who 'combat arms' them on the pan. In the good old days it had to be the pilot. Does it take off with the MASS (if it has one) live?

I also see that the german government has changed it's plans and decided not to get any.

[ShotOne]

Quite, pontius. We don't want any of this new-fangled hydraulics interfering with real flying!

...but as this is a pilots forum, having been told these super machines can do everything we can twice as well for a tenth of the money, beagle and the rest of us are surely entitled to a slight snigger when they fall flat.

[iRaven]

Want to see some accident stats from an official source then look here on slide 15:

http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rpas_symposium_reaper.pdf

I would strongly suggest that the accident stats for Reaper/Predator in recent times are better than some UK fast jet types and also UK light aircraft looking at this analysis? Even if these stats have been 'cherry picked' it would appear that manned/unmanned accident rates are of the same order of magnitude.

iRaven

[Dengue_Dude]

It may also be a measure of the level of unmanned Ops. Let's face it, not having to supply a life support infrastructure aboard does free up a lot of weight and real estate.

For jobs requiring long loiter times, they're ideal. So some will go down, tell me that doesn't happen in manned flight.

Obviously there is also a Duty of Care in their operation, but they are a PART of the future of military and/or security operations.

[Wrathmonk]

but they are a PART of the future of military and/or security operations

Unlike most of those having a moan about them....:E

[ShyTorque]

Unlike most of those having a moan about them....

Those noisy fighters will be amongst the first to be made redundant.

[ShotOne]

Raven, look again at the figures. I dispute they are about the same..unless you are bench marking with 70s Jaguar stats,

[iRaven]

ShotOne

Have a look at the USAf Safety Center stats for:

MQ-9 Reaper http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121210-021.pdf

MQ-1 Predator http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121210-019.pdf

NB: the USAF use a rate figure per 100,000 flying hours instead of the UK's more common per 10,000 flying hours.

So from the stats I see that in 2012 the accident rate where Predator was totalled (ie. Cat 4/5) was 0.42 per 10,000 flying hours and for Reaper it was 0.34 per 10,000 flying hours.

I can't see any reason why these are not favourable and comparable with manned aircraft stats??? :confused:

iRaven

[Lonewolf_50]

Given US Army's latest stat, FY 2013, of 0.72 Class A mishaps per 100,000 hours compared to Reaper 3.4 and Predator 4.2 (to put them on the same rate of use basis, 100,000 hours) and the Army flies mostly helicopters whereas Reaper is a fairly benign high aspect ratio fixed wing aircraft ... the numbers don't look as good as you might think.

[ShotOne]

Are we even looking at the same figures raven? The average over 120,000 flying hours for predator reaper ops is 1.1 accidents per 10,000 flg hours. That's worse than Jaguar from 1973!. This was considered high even back then and certainly wouldn't wash now. Not only that but you're comparing averages dating back to 70s and 80s when all rates were much worse with a 2012 snapshot.

I'm not saying we bin RPAS, far from it but we can't brush the safety issues under the carpet. What about ops in controlled airspace for instance?

[Just This Once...]

Remind me again how many have been killed by RPAS crashes?

[iRaven]

The average over 120,000 flying hours for predator reaper ops is 1.1 accidents per 10,000 flg hours. That's worse than Jaguar from 1973

Yup, same figures. So when that 2010 presentation was made the best figures available for Reaper was 1.1/10,000 hrs over 4 years and 120,000 hours. However, the Jag figures were 1.02/10,000hrs since 1973 to out of service (however many hours that was) - I'd say that was pretty similar! Furthermore, looking at the later USAF figures the lifetime (so far!) Class A mishap (roughly Cat 4/5) is now 0.54/10,000hrs - this is better than all Harriers, Jaguars and Tornado GRs (just).

I'd say that's pretty convincing? I don't understand why you can't see that? Unless, of course, you're wearing the blinkers that others on this thread appear to be wearing?

iRaven :ok:

PS. JTO - the only people killed by RPAS have been on the wrong end of HF and GBU-12 and likely very bad people!

[ShotOne]

Not blinkered, nor especially anti-RPAS. what I see is that the comparative figures are for types used in a demanding hi speed low level role,historical dating back to 70s/80s and those figures attracted concern even then. Accident figures for all aircraft have improved over the years so rolling in figures back to the 1970s clearly skews things. I suggest if the Jaguar was introduced today and suffered the same accident rate as in the 70s 80s it might well be grounded. In fairness, RPAS Figures do appear to be getting better but the fact there have been no fatalities reflects the fact they have operated in sparsely populated areas.

[iRaven]

The SHAR seems to have the highest loss rate in that presentation - it was a fleet fighter and not solely a low level bomber like Jag. Furthermore, have a look at the population density map of Afghanistan here: Population Density Map of Afghanistan by BestCountryReports.com (http://www.bestcountryreports.com/Population_Map_Afghanistan.php)

I guess it will surprise you that we fly Reapers and Predators over densely populated areas because they watch people, vehicle movements, buildings and border crossings; there's not much point watching sparsely populated areas in the desert, because they are just that - sparsely populated! :ugh:

Closed minds, uninformed fear of the new and job protectionism is all I hear/see from the nay-sayers. How about constructing a reasoned argument rather than"I don't like them", "they're not cricket", "they'll never take over from real aircraft", "they're not flown by real pilots", "they'll take over the world and wipe out mankind" and "they're unsafe"? All quite irrational when you look at the facts.

Anyway, back to the haze of my Speckled Hen...

iRaven

[Evalu8ter]

"What about ops in controlled airspace for instance?"

ShotOne, the irony is that the CAA actually prefer the thought of RPAS ops in controlled airspace. Why? Everyone else is flying under a flight plan and will have standard comms and a working Xpdr or they're kicked out - therefore deconfliction is somewhat easier. The problem vis-a-vis other airspace users is the sense to avoid (S2A) issue of how to prevent RPAS colliding with civvies flying around open FIR looking at their IPad moving map rather than out of the window......

[Mechta]

iRaven wrote:PS. JTO - the only people killed by RPAS have been on the wrong end of HF and GBU-12 and likely very bad people!

Sadly, not true:

EUFOR details Belgian B-Hunter UAV crash that caused civilian death (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eufor-details-belgian-b-hunter-uav-crash-that-caused-civilian-209716/)

[ShotOne]

I agree with you point on controlled airspace, eval8er but that still raises a host of questions; who goes to court if a clearance isn't complied with? What in Afganistan might be considered a minor glitch would cost hundreds of lives in the UK FIR. You finished by disparaging civvies poor lookout. How reasonable is this in the context of sending off aircraft with no lookout at all?

[L J R]

The stats on losses need to also articulate those that were allowed to be lost (fuel starvation, descent into hostile mountains to get the job done etc), when a manned platform would not have been deliberately exposed to such threats nor allowed to be 'expendable'…those stats which are generally included in losses need to be removed, as the aircraft were deliberately operated in a manner that would not be allowed in manned aviation.

[Mechta]

Air Force MQ-9 Reaper Drone Crashes into Lake Ontario | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/air-force-reaper-drone-crashes-lake-ontario)

"Col. Greg Semmell, commander of the training unit said there is video surveillance footage of the crash, that should help the investigation."

Sounds like the downlink was still working.

[Evalu8ter]

Shot One,
You're quite right. We don't know the answers to those questions - a lot of research and 'beard stroking' is going on to try to do so.

An RPAS does have lookout in normal operations - in many cases potentially better than a FW due to the nature of EVS and TIs. The main issue is trying to define the equivalent artificial lookout to that of the mean aviator. In RPAS this is a reversionary mode assuming the link has been lost and LLL is in effect - for fully autonomous systems this will be vital.

It wasn't my intent to disparage civvy lookout - there are plenty of examples both side of the street of poor or compromised lookout either by over-reliance on navaids or poor design (Tutor canopy arch for example). The problem is that if a RPAS collides with a GA or glider it will invariably be the RPAS that is blamed. RPAS are potentially a revolution in military affairs -we need to be careful that we are not compared to 1930s 'gun club' admirals attempting to defend their 'traditions' by besmirching new ideas and technology.

[moggiee]

So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?
A "locally produced and operated" one came down on the town where I live just a couple of days ago. A couple of blocks away from a royal palace.......although to be fair, everywhere is only a couple of blocks away from one Drone crashes in Al Ain | The National (http://www.thenational.ae/uae/al-ain/drone-crashes-in-al-ain-during-training-mission-in-uae-skies)

I was a bit surprised to see it reported in the paper, though

[unmanned_droid]

The 'situational awareness' problem with UAVs is something I've been wrestling with for a while and will do for some time to come.

The project I'm involved in is not as big as a Reaper or Predator but forms the baseline platform for larger vehicles, in terms of systems architecture, as well as being aimed at multiple user scenarios.

Having had some experience of piloting in both the civil and mil domain (all ATC gliding courses available as well as ACPNTS, flying scholarship through GAPAN, staff cadet with 8AEF when they had Bulldogs (I loved aerobatting 'dogs!) and Uni Gliding Club) the concept and advantages of effective situational awareness is familiar to me. I'm clearly not the seasoned pilot many on here are, thanks to eyesight issues, but am happy to learn from everything and everyone.

It seems that the concept of situational awareness is somewhat lacking in unmanned systems. Producing a system that can provide an overview of its local world to help the UAV central computer to make informed decisions would seem to useful.

If people are willing, I'd be very interested in a discussion on Situational Awareness.

How does this post link in to the thread? I wonder how many losses of drones of all sizes are down to poor onboard systems and thus lacking or non-existent decision making processes when humans are not available?

UD

[Mechta]

Unmanned_droid, Situational awareness will vary between types of UAV, However with a fin mounted camera with a wide angle lens, you can have a pretty good view, and if the EO/IR ball is not being used to look at ground targets it can give a forward view as well, and the IR mode allows other nearby powered aircraft to be seen relatively easily.

Obviously you need a good up and downlink and an alert pilot on the ground if you are relying on see and avoid with a human in the loop.

With a fin-mounted IR camera and some software to see and avoid traffic with a sufficient heat signature, you can also avoid some traffic in autonomous modes. That just leaves gliders (inc. hang & para), gas balloons, parachutists, kites and birds to worry about. Additional cameras to cover blind spots are not heavy these days.

It does help to make sure your 'return home' program reflects your current address though :ugh::

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20081229.aspx

[Evalu8ter]

UD - pm sent. In the meantime, if you haven't seen it, this might be of interest; written by an old mate of mine.....

http://www.gapan.org/file/917/

Albeit written for the US market it does provide some background.

[unmanned_droid]

Eval,

PM Replied...

Many thanks for the link - that's my job for today sorted!

Mechta,

That link is going in the lesson learned pile!

To begin with, other aircraft won't be our major problem because of the heights we'll be operating at, however I'm keen to include ADS-B on anything that would be around other aircraft, and also I'm keen to talk to ATC about how we might be able to find new ways to work with ATC on separation / deconfliction.

I certainly think IR cameras are the way forward - how many and how they are arranged is another problem on the 'to solve' pile!

Cheers,

UD

[Hangarshuffle]

I read in one of the papers down here the other day they had attacked targets in the Yemen. There has been sporadic outbreaks of fighting on and off this year in that area.
Amazing really, when you stop and think about it. Unmanned drone aircraft circling the world, armed up and roaming at will. Controlled by technically savvy, rich and rather selfish uncaring countries happy to dish out hellfire as they see fit. Never seems to be seriously questioned by their own side - the morality of this.
I wonder how many totally innocent people have died as a result, and who even cares?
I wonder when a technically savvy and uncaring country will first use one against ourselves one day? I mean in the form of a literal bolt from the blue strike against someone they thought unreasonable.? Its going to happen.

I mean Putin must have a black book the thickness of the yellow pages by now. He must be watching Obamas example and think - why not?


Sorry, carry on with unt technical thread.

[Lima Juliet]

Unmanned drone aircraft circling the world, armed up and roaming at will

They don't roam at will - they are flown by people at the end of a long wireless link. Think of it as 'Fly By Wireless' rather than 'Flt By Wire'.

I can only speak for Reaper/Predator as they have forward looking cameras and also the sensor ball can be slewed forward - you can read the registration on a C-17 from 15+ miles. It has a feed from other ground based and air based RADARs that allow the pilot/sensor to get and maintain SA on other aircraft around it. It has its own transponder that other aircraft with TCASI and II can sense. Finally, it files IFR and always talks to an Air Traffic or Fighter Controller, the radio message comes from the aircraft and not the cabin 3-4,000 miles away. They also have telephones, e-mail and access to the classified/unclassified internet. I would say that the SA in a ground control cabin is far, far better than I ever had in a fast jet or any other manned aircraft that I have flown. A final non-cooperative 'sense and avoid' automated system, similar to TCAS but able to detect non-transponding aircraft and linked to an autopilot, is all that is needed now for them to fly in Class G.

I believe many companies are working on this, including a hugely inefficient european conglomorate that has so far squandered £££s and €€€s on the problem.

LJ :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

I wonder how many totally innocent people have died as a result, and who even cares?

The Rules of Engagement for a Reaper/Predator are exactly the same as a manned aircraft. The big thing is, as you can see in the post above, that the Reaper/Predator has better situational awareness through its vast array of sensors and intelligence feeds and it can loiter until the target is confirmed - unlike a fast jet that is quickly running out of fuel and will need to go to the tanker within 30 minutes.

I know that the crews care far more than the press would give them credit. After all no-one wants to be accused of illegal acts and being accused of being a war criminal.

[Trim Stab]

I can only speak for Reaper/Predator as they have forward looking cameras and also the sensor ball can be slewed forward - you can read the registration on a C-17 from 15+ miles.

But how was the C-17 spotted in the first place, to allow the operator to zoom in on it?

I'm genuinely curious as I have extensively flown DA42M with backseat operator and with the same FLIR as Reaper. I also have some experience as operator in the back. I would say that just about every time we have spotted a target, whether on the ground, in the air or at sea it is initially spotted by Mk1 eyeball of one of the onboard crew. The field of view and acuity of eyeballs is still way ahead of the sensors and video screens that I have flown with.

Of course, once the target is zapped and locked with the laser, and the sensors zoomed in, the detail visible is way better than eyeball. But finding the target in the first instance is almost always requires an eyeball in the loop.

[Evalu8ter]

"I certainly think IR cameras are the way forward - how many and how they are arranged is another problem on the 'to solve' pile!"

Agreed....something like this (http://www.finmeccanicausa.com/Capabilities/PDF/vigilx.pdf) or this (http://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/News/2014_Cal_Year/CS/FY14CSNR02-EVS3000.aspx) perhaps.....?

Not just the camera technology, it's the algorithms behind them that are most challenging. See this (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/2excel-aviation-gives-drones-virtual-eyes) to show that people are recognising the problem.

PS - Leon, well put....

[BEagle]

A final non-cooperative 'sense and avoid' automated system, similar to TCAS but able to detect non-transponding aircraft and linked to an autopilot, is all that is needed now for them to fly in Class G.

So that's 'all' then....:rolleyes:

Not that it'd be much help when one of such non-transponding aircraft is actually out to do some drone-swatting.

[Hangarshuffle]

I was trying to find an article I read about a drone strike in the Yemen and the impact it had upon an entirely innocent family, but I cant.
But to say it generated a widespread anti-western feeling of bitter resentment would be an understatement.
Yes, roam. That's how it appeared to the family on the ground - no warning, no hint, no ability to control anything at all from their point of view. It was if a mad roaming killer had descended upon them.
How on earth have we got to the position in the world where faceless agencies are carrying out an increasing number of attacks, where many innocent people die? People in sovereign states, countries - minding their own business..
Well, everyone will have them soon -very much in the military-industrial complex to keep this going and expanding as an military arms option into the less wealthier nations budgets - and then well all be flying about zapping one another. I wouldn't gloat upon this, or relish the day it comes.
Off the shelf drones being bought and used by just about anybody, whenever they wish, including corporate enterprise and mercenary forces. Sounds like an American movie but I suspect we are closer to this than I imagine.

[Evalu8ter]

HS,
An interesting point; so, if the same family were mis-ID'd using the same sensor from a high flying, unnoticed MANNED platform (for example, a B2...) it would be OK would it? Mistakes will always be made in warfare, particularly this current 'low contrast' conflict where our opponents use this very reticence to hit innocents as a fundamental survival tactic.

If we extend the hypothesis to fully-autonomous weapon systems I agree the thought is a little spine chilling, but that is a long way off. Perhaps the 'middle ground' will be a 'smart' UAV that is RP'd to a release point to permit a LPI penetration of a sophisticated IADS to either conduct recce or strike a precision target autonomously, then recover the link for RTB. Considering the potential LO and performance benefits of having such an unmanned system it will be very attractive to politicians not to have to commit aircrew. Some would argue that it's been done for years (D-21 Tagboard for example...).

Would you rather we still went to war armed with chivalry and silk scarves? War is a nasty business - once committed it should be waged in a manner to end it as soon as possible. Mistakes will ALWAYS be made, Man-in-the -Loop or not.

[t43562]

Presumably the fact that these things have longer loiter time and don't risk a pilot means that they are going to be used more than other aircraft might?

Perhaps they need a loiter time that allows for a court, with a jury and witnesses to decide on the guilt/innocence of everyone who might be killed?

[moggiee]

There are drones, then there are drones and then there are drones.....be careful not to tar them all with the same brush

There are drones (I prefer the term UAV) that are unmanned surveillance aircraft that have a passive role and don't kill anyone unless they crash on their head - a wing-borne spy satellite.

There are UAVs that are used in combat roles in the same way that military aeroplanes are used in combat roles - an unmanned Tornado or Buccaneer that does not put valuable aircrew at risk

Then there are UAVs that are used as an extension of an intelligence agency's capability so that they can be used to assassinate "enemy" personnel on the ground without risking your own people - an unmanned ricin tipped umbrella (Georgi Markov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov))

The first two I have no trouble with but the last type is a dodgy area and I feel that this kind of use runs the risk of crossing the line between legitimate and illegitimate use - especially when operated by civilian agencies such as the CIA. I like to hope that the country that I hold close to my heart does not do this (it does not feel like the "British" way of doing things) but I have no way of being sure.I wonder also how "Mr Smith" sitting in an airconditioned bunker in California feels when he launches a Hellfire missile at an SUV that may contain civilian non-combatants as well as the intended terrorist target. I could not live with myself in that situation, but maybe I'm just old fashioned in my outlook.

(Note: I appreciate that many UAVs have multirole capabilities so I am really referring to the USE of the machine rather than its design)

[Evalu8ter]

Moggie,
It's often worse for the RPAS pilot; often, he/she may well have spent weeks watching the target going about his normal business, playing with his kids etc whilst the case to strike is built up. It's a bit different rocking up in a GR4 for a GPS drop as you fly by at 420+kts....

Pretty balanced article here (http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-pilots-say-their-job-is-not-like-playing-a-video-game-2012-9)....

[moggiee]

A good article - and one which highlights some of the complexities and surreal elements of the job.

I do feel that these machines should only be in the hands of military operators (or ex-military reservists working for the military) tasked and managed in the same way as those hypothetical GR4s and NOT operated by civilian agencies.

[Hangarshuffle]

Russian weapons chief promises ?no-contact warfare? by 2020 ? RT Russian politics (http://rt.com/politics/russian-weapons-chief-promises-no-contact-warfare-by-2020-302/)

"No contact" warfare. Also describes the project attracting "all sorts of vultures" which I am presuming he means arms dealers or worse (if there are worse).

Another arms race seems earnestly in progress.

My apologies if posted before.

And also another drone thingy has crashed today, this time onto a ship, according to this bit..maybe this is a first?

http://rt.com/usa/drone-crashes-missile-cruiser-852/

[Lyneham Lad]

^^^ That report includes the statement:-

In late 2012, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that military spending in 2013 would be over 1.3 trillion rubles ($43 billion), a rise of 50 percent from 2012.

and there was me thinking the Russian economy was in as parlous condition as the UK's...

[Lima Juliet]

But how was the C-17 spotted in the first place, to allow the operator to zoom in on it?

I'm genuinely curious as I have extensively flown DA42M with backseat operator and with the same FLIR as Reaper. I also have some experience as operator in the back. I would say that just about every time we have spotted a target, whether on the ground, in the air or at sea it is initially spotted by Mk1 eyeball of one of the onboard crew. The field of view and acuity of eyeballs is still way ahead of the sensors and video screens that I have flown with.

Trim

I think you'll find that DA42M uses the MX15? The Reaper uses MTS-B which is a far more capable sensor (another 7 inches of aperture for starters). Anyway, the MTS-B was slewed to the C-17's track showing on JTIDS/Link 16 - this system shows RADAR tracks of aircraft (with or without transponders) that are being tracked by AWACS or ground RADAR stations.

Let us know if DA42 is carrying MTS-B as that would be an interesting development.

LJ

[Flying Binghi]

Another drone down...

"...The Navy says an aerial target drone malfunctioned and struck a guided missile cruiser during training off Southern California ... two sailors were treated for minor burns after the ship was struck..."


Drone malfunctions, hits Navy ship during training (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/17/drone-navy-ship-california/3617687/)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

That story shows why there's a good reason for separating the words out a bit... an "aerial target drone" is not the same as something like a Reaper!

[Lima Juliet]

That is why it is incorrect to use the word 'Drone' for RPAS/UAS such as Reaper or Watchkeeper. The etymology for the word 'Drone' lay with unmanned target towing aircraft; one of the first being the De Havilland Queen Bee. The aircraft used to fly at a fixed RPM flying up and down past the air-air artillery guns and it is believed that a visiting USN person coined the name 'Drone' during world war 2.

History and etymology lesson over - journos please note.

LJ

PS.

Drone is one of the oldest*official*designations*for*remotely*controlled aircraft in the American military lexicon. in 1935, when the chief of naval*operations* Adm. William Standley, visited Britain, he was given a demonstration of the Royal Navy’s new DH 82B Queen Bee remotely controlled aircraft that was used for anti-aircraft gunnery practice. On his return, Standley assigned an office, Cmdr. Delmer Fahrney at the Radion*Division*of the Naval Research Laboratory, to develop a*similar*system*for US Navy gunnery training. Fahrney adopted the name drone to refer to these aircraft in homage to the Queen Bee. Drone became the official US Navy designation for target drones for many decades.

[Trim Stab]

Let us know if DA42 is carrying MTS-B as that would be an interesting development.

It is currently undergoing trials at LOAN. Diamond have just got EASA certification to increase MTOW of the DA42M to 1995kg (previously 1900kg) and have got an increase in MZFW and max tail ballast, so the nose payload can now be increased enough to theoretically carry the MTS-B on the nose, and still fly with full mission fuel.

[Lima Juliet]

Trim

That is good news as the MTS-B is a cracking sensor when used in HD. If you get a tracking satellite antenna onto the DA42 to give a beyond line of sight (BLOS) capability for the picture dissemination then that will be a cracking capability.

LJ

[BEagle]

According to the Cambridge dictionary:

Drone (n) - a type of aircraft that does not have a pilot but is controlled by someone on the ground.

According to the Oxford dictionary:

Drone (n) - a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.

Journos please note - your use of the word drone is entirely correct!

[mahogany bob]

there we were at 33000ft fantastic weather unlimited vis except for 1 big nasty isolated cu nim over the distant mountain range.

Oh dear Predator flies in to it and crashes!

Can they fly in bad weather or was this just a one off??

[Lima Juliet]

DRONE. A drone is a collective name for pilotless aircraft. But original meaning was and is 'the male of the honeybee and other bees'. This particular kind of the insect through clear associations was connected with such notions as 'one who lives on the labor of others', 'an idler', 'a sluggard'.

These associations underlie the transfer of the meaning to an aircraft which was steered by remote control without a pilot. Initially, pilotless aircraft were used as air targets for training AA gun crews. These targets were marked with black stripes along the tail part of the fuselage. These stripes looked like those of a drone (the insect). Hence, the nickname. Nowadays pilotless aircraft are distinguished as drones and RPVs (remotely-piloted vehicles). Drones are program-guided while RPVs are piloted from a distance by operators. It is curious to know that bomber air crews called jokingly air gunners 'drones'. Probably because air gunners were idle during flights and had only lots of things to do when firing at enemy fighters.

Seems way more detail in other references than a dictionary. I believe that etymology requires proof of first use and that use in the 30s by the USN looks like precedence to me?

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

beagle (n.)
late 15c., of unknown origin, possibly from French becguele "noisy person," literally "gaping throat," from bayer "open wide" (see bay (n.2)) + gueule "mouth" (see gullet).

Seems rather apt. Never had you down as garlic muncher, old chap? :ok:

LJ

[unmanned_droid]

I believe the name 'drone' has its roots in the creation of DH Queen Bees in 1935 for the RN. Over time, somehow, (perhaps the follow on aircraft were nicknamed drones, since they came after the Queen Bees) the name has stuck. The Queen Bees were radio controlled targets.

[Lonewolf_50]

Hangarshuffle, you need to go back and look up what war is about. These armed "drones" are machines of war, just as a Vulcan was. What you don't appear to understand in your huggy fluffy spew is that war has never been a rugby match, and is a use of force to achieve an end. The nature of the world has changed since the obsession with rules in war became the norm, but the rules that were finally adopted seem resistant to change.

I will also note that the Empire is no more.

It's a new world, get out of your old box.

[Mechta]

Drone - ok

UAV - ok

RPAS - ok, if you really must

UAS - Useless term. Try looking for a job with 'UAS' as a search criteria, and you will get 100 jobs listed, through which you will then have to sift to find the one or two which relate to UAVs or drones*. Every military aircraft needs ground equipment and support in one form or another, so why should unmanned aircraft have to be called 'systems'?

* Or in UK aviation journals & websites, anything to do students getting flying on the cheap, if the propellers can stay on for long enough.

[Trim Stab]

If you get a tracking satellite antenna onto the DA42 to give a beyond line of sight (BLOS) capability for the picture dissemination then that will be a cracking capability.

High bandwidth HD-video capable satellite BLOS uplink for DA42M is already available:

Successful Maiden Flight Of Diamond DA42 MPP Installed With Ku-Band Satcom (http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/index.php/satcoms/14799-successful-maiden-flight-of-diamond-da42-mpp-installed-with-ku-band-satcom)

I think the most significant development is that the link is duplex, meaning the camera operator can stay on the ground, saving significant payload weight.

[ShyTorque]

They can always get Amazon to deliver another drone.....by drone.

[Willard Whyte]

The more those who excitably object to the use of the word drone do so, the more some of us are likely to continue to use the term.

Besides, it's quite clear that the precise role of a drone is contextual, and not limited by a (useful) descriptor that everyone, whether serving or civvy, can grasp. Making up pompous military terminology (UAS,RPAS) reflects badly on those who do so. I guess it got some t**t promoted though.

[dctyke]

Interesting article on sky news this morning, here is the site version:

Reaper Attack HQ: Rare Access To Top Secret Site (http://news.sky.com/story/1183901/reaper-attack-hq-rare-access-to-top-secret-site)


Interesting that on the tv vid the guy in the r/h seat is Master Aircrew.

[TheWizard]

So, despite an extensive MOD Press Release "to dispel any myths" which specifically points out how and why these are not 'drones', the press still insist on referring to the whole set up as..... drones. :ugh:

Sometimes wonder why they bother :rolleyes:

[Exascot]

Just seen the Daily Mail article. Why do the drone pilots/operators wear flying suits? We went through this on 10 Sqn when we started this 'pick your fuel up in the air' thing. Those involved wanted to wear flying kit! In 16 years I only wore a grow bag in initial training or for exercises and war the latter was over no.2s. FJ, helios, or grubby aircraft or job OK but sitting at a computer console - come on!

[kaitakbowler]

At the risk of thread drift, there's a DH Queen Bee at Henlow, back with dual controls but the LE slats either omitted or locked (can't remember which)

PM

[Dave Wilson]

Why do the drone pilots/operators wear flying suits?Might be something the trick cyclists came up with? Connection with task etc. I know of one light aircraft club not a million miles from me where they wear grobags, boots, gloves etc to fly Cessnas. I know there's a fire argument there but where do you draw the line. Personally I would feel a right prat climbing out of a PA 28 looking like Tom Cruise.

[Toadstool]

Not a drone driver but does it really matter that they wear flying suits? They just do. They are aircrew, its their uniform, get over it and concentrate on something more important.

[Party Animal]

They are aircrew, its their uniform,

Reminds me of a time of arriving in the USA on a VC10. Probably 80 odd aircrew on board dressed in smart casual rig. Aircraft stops, door opens and the first on board is a supply officer who wants to brief us on the next 30 mins proceedings.

He is smartly dressed in a brand new flying suit and shiney aircrew watch including cut out maps under his knee pads of the Vale of York!

And no - he was never in flying training, nor part of UK MAMS.

C0ck!

[BEagle]

Not a drone driver but does it really matter that they wear flying suits? They just do. They are aircrew, its their uniform, get over it and concentrate on something more important.

And it's probably easier to wash the doughnut grease out of a flying suit than it is from a uniform shirt....

Although the drone operators were wearing flying suits, what on earth was the purpose of wearing desert pattern combat clothing inside a hangar in Lincolnshire?

[TheWizard]

Do keep up old chap, that isn't 'desert pattern combat clothing', it's standard issue.........

Bugger, have I just bitten a hook??

[Party Animal]

BEagle,

What the Wizard meant to say is that the days of having green DPM clothing and separate brown desert DPM clothing have gone.

We now have one design of camouflage clothing that is good for both.

De riguer for many sat in office jobs at Northwood and High Wycombe too!

[BEagle]

Thanks for the gen., Party Animal. It makes sense to have just the one pattern of cabbage kit, but I don't really see the need for it inside a hangar in Lincolnshire....:confused:

Although, on reflection, it probably means that more people are likely to be dressed in the same way, rather than in various styles of pullover, blues and overalls. A one-uniform-for-all-purposes philosophy sounds very sensible.

[Wrathmonk]

And it's probably easier to wash the doughnut grease out of a flying suit than it is from a uniform shirt

You say that like you don't know the answer already! ;)

[mickjoebill]

URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/hollywood-to-faa-let-us-use-drones-to-make-movies-tv-shows/"]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/hollywood-to-faa-let-us-use-drones-to-make-movies-tv-shows/[/URL]
MPAA motion picture association has petitioned FAA on behalf of nine drone companies, outlining operational procedures for film drones.
This petition is news to the majority of those working in the industry (!) and does not address the concerns of the majority of camera crew regarding drone reliability, particularly errant un-commanded flight maneuvers.

Currently it is acceptable for ground crew to excuse themselves from duty
below low flying (full size) helicopter aerial filming. Drones are are also feared and I predict, will be regarded with similar apprehension until they have proven flight safety record.
Whilst their use over remote areas does not endanger the public, suburban and city areas are another matter.
It is hard to guarantee the safety of the public when errant drones have the capacity to quickly fly beyond exclusion zones.




Mickjoebill