DRONE CRASH IN MARYLAND, USA
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If contact with the drone has been lost, how is the pilot going to wrestle with the controls to avoid the school and hospital?
All good. Only reason I know is my grand parents and mother used to talk about the long silent glide after the coughing and spluttering stopped. None of it was good but they used to watch them from the fruit trees in the back garden at Croydon and depending on if it did or when it started coughing a spluttering determined whether they shinned down the tree and made a run for the air raid shelter.
500N - do you realise that your family in Croydon were deliberately targetted as a result of a clever misinformation campaign? Actually, I'm sure you are aware of the Double-X system run by John Mastermain from St James' Palace that ensured German agent reports from London stated that V1s had overshot the target (Charing cross) so the air logs were adjusted to allow them to fall short 'sarf of the wiver'. The Luftwaffe didn't even believe there own telemetry that indicated the MPI was Charing Cross - 'cos MI5 controlled all German assets in country by then. Churchill agreed - though with a heavy heart - that it was better for V1s to fall in slightly less-densly populated areas in South London than fall into teh middle of the vast machinery of war based in central London.Cue thread drift. And please, please call them RPAs or UAVs, not Drones.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 12th Jun 2012 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenurhappy
Yes, I did know about the misinformation about where they "landed".
I am pretty sure that Croydon had the highest number of impacts
than any other suburb of London.
Yes, I did know about the misinformation about where they "landed".
I am pretty sure that Croydon had the highest number of impacts
than any other suburb of London.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: .
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle just feels threatened by these things, for some reason.
They are watching you beagle, that's where they're at.
Doo dee doo doo, doo dee doo doo...........etc etc
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it seems most of those who don't like the term drone seem to be operators it could be considered banter, therefore I believe we should all make a concerted effort to refer to all of these devilish contraptions a DRONES on any future thread!
Ref. the Global hawk, I understand that the USAF have cancelled the rest of the block 30s and will extend the U-2s service as the DRONES reliability, performance and efficiency was much less than was projected. It strikes me that this is history repeating itself and we are making the same mistakes as the 1957 White Paper did with missiles. DRONES
are useful, very useful at the moment in AFG but they are not the answer to everything, despite the claims made by some that they are. Unfortunately some people at the top are also using these over optimistic claims as an excuse to cancel or remove real capability. 
Ref. the Global hawk, I understand that the USAF have cancelled the rest of the block 30s and will extend the U-2s service as the DRONES reliability, performance and efficiency was much less than was projected. It strikes me that this is history repeating itself and we are making the same mistakes as the 1957 White Paper did with missiles. DRONES
are useful, very useful at the moment in AFG but they are not the answer to everything, despite the claims made by some that they are. Unfortunately some people at the top are also using these over optimistic claims as an excuse to cancel or remove real capability.
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 12th Jun 2012 at 20:37.
Have they ruled out pilot error yet? 
LJR:
I seem to recall that the first Tomcat mishap happened over Long Island (Tomcat #2) was due to a hydraulic failure that led to an ejection.
Did the first ever (Tomcat #1) crash in Maryland?
I had not heard that.
I seem to recall that the first Tomcat mishap happened over Long Island (Tomcat #2) was due to a hydraulic failure that led to an ejection.
Did the first ever (Tomcat #1) crash in Maryland?
I had not heard that.
Thread Starter
From Tales of the F-14 concerning the 'official' first flight of the F-14 on 30 Dec 1970:
Immediately after raising the gear handle, our A-6 chase pilot said we were venting fluid out of the right side of the airplane. At the same instant, the combined hydraulic system gauge went to zero. Twenty-one gallons of hydraulic fluid had just left the airplane.
We started back to home base at 180 knots, our limit airspeed because the flaps were still extended. In about ten minutes, we were lined up with our runway about three miles out when we blew our gear down with the nitrogen bottle, since our flight hydraulic system only powered the flight controls.
At this time, our chase said we were venting more fluid, and our flight hydraulic system gauge went to zero. The airplane then went through about two cycles of gentle but uncontrollable pitching, and then snapped violently nose down.
At this point we were about a half-mile short of the runway, about 25 feet above the trees. Bill quickly initiated the ejection sequence using his face curtain. A sensitive accelerometer on the nose strut recorded and telemetered back to the ground the little blips showing the firing of the canopy and then the ejection guns on the two seats in turn. That all took 0.9 seconds as advertised; 0.4 seconds later the nosewheel hit a tree!
My Martin-Baker seat sent me staight up about 150 feet, but when Bill’s fired a split second later, it sent him forward, only gaining about 10 feet vertically. Both chutes deployed nicely, and neither of us was injured. Thirty minutes later, when the fire caused by 10,000 pounds of fuel was put out, the ground crew found two fractured 5/16th-inch-inner-diameter titanium hydraulic lines, one in each wheel well.
The F-14 had an all-titanium hydraulic system with an 84-gallon-per-minute pump on each engine with no accumulators, all in the interest of saving weight. Each pump had nine pistons, which were varied in output by a swash plate. As it turned out, each time one of the nine pistons did its thing, it sent a 200-300-pounds-per-square-inch pulse down the basic 3,000-psi system.
Apparently, without accumulators to dampen the pulses, a resonance occurred which fatigued the lines. Engineering duplicated the failure on a full-scale mockup of the system in 1.2 minutes at just the right pump RPM. When the line was changed to stainless steel, the line failed in 23 minutes. The answer was not material, but proper forming and clamping of the line to prevent resonance. The second F-14 did not make its first flight until May 24, 1971. There were no hydraulic problems again on the F-14 program.
We started back to home base at 180 knots, our limit airspeed because the flaps were still extended. In about ten minutes, we were lined up with our runway about three miles out when we blew our gear down with the nitrogen bottle, since our flight hydraulic system only powered the flight controls.
At this time, our chase said we were venting more fluid, and our flight hydraulic system gauge went to zero. The airplane then went through about two cycles of gentle but uncontrollable pitching, and then snapped violently nose down.
At this point we were about a half-mile short of the runway, about 25 feet above the trees. Bill quickly initiated the ejection sequence using his face curtain. A sensitive accelerometer on the nose strut recorded and telemetered back to the ground the little blips showing the firing of the canopy and then the ejection guns on the two seats in turn. That all took 0.9 seconds as advertised; 0.4 seconds later the nosewheel hit a tree!
My Martin-Baker seat sent me staight up about 150 feet, but when Bill’s fired a split second later, it sent him forward, only gaining about 10 feet vertically. Both chutes deployed nicely, and neither of us was injured. Thirty minutes later, when the fire caused by 10,000 pounds of fuel was put out, the ground crew found two fractured 5/16th-inch-inner-diameter titanium hydraulic lines, one in each wheel well.
The F-14 had an all-titanium hydraulic system with an 84-gallon-per-minute pump on each engine with no accumulators, all in the interest of saving weight. Each pump had nine pistons, which were varied in output by a swash plate. As it turned out, each time one of the nine pistons did its thing, it sent a 200-300-pounds-per-square-inch pulse down the basic 3,000-psi system.
Apparently, without accumulators to dampen the pulses, a resonance occurred which fatigued the lines. Engineering duplicated the failure on a full-scale mockup of the system in 1.2 minutes at just the right pump RPM. When the line was changed to stainless steel, the line failed in 23 minutes. The answer was not material, but proper forming and clamping of the line to prevent resonance. The second F-14 did not make its first flight until May 24, 1971. There were no hydraulic problems again on the F-14 program.
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Jun 2012 at 22:04.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who do operate them have a truly realistic view of their capabilities AND limitations - in fact, it seems they're the ONLY ones who do!
GlobalHawk block-30 was cancelled on cost basis... They worked out that it was cheaper to keep the U-2s going than to procure and operate more RQ-4s. But in reality, the RQ-4 was never that capable anyway...
GlobalHawk block-30 was cancelled on cost basis... They worked out that it was cheaper to keep the U-2s going than to procure and operate more RQ-4s. But in reality, the RQ-4 was never that capable anyway...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: The higher plane of alcoholism..hic.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
It is surprising how we attribute blame to these UAVs when the overriding evidence shows these accidents to be predominantly human factors based (pilot/operator and even programming error). They are all being rushed into service (pick an RQ/MQ number that has completed a full OT&E?) and then we all expect comparable performance to manned, and fully tested, platforms.
Remind me again how well the Oceana F-18D manoeuvered around that block of flats (or even the single-seat in Miramar)?
The GH Blk 30 could only ever carry 3000lbs vs the U-2s 5000lbs of sensors. Never a fair fight and a poor design match from the outset. Desperately poor program management (IMHO, but also very much a MANNED element) led to it finally (maybe) getting scrubbed, rightly so. Do we expect a manned replacement to the U-2 then? If you do, I would couch to not bet too much on it. Expect a GH Blk 50 with 4000lb payload and tech miniaturization to solve it eventually...
Pray rant away
FFS
It is surprising how we attribute blame to these UAVs when the overriding evidence shows these accidents to be predominantly human factors based (pilot/operator and even programming error). They are all being rushed into service (pick an RQ/MQ number that has completed a full OT&E?) and then we all expect comparable performance to manned, and fully tested, platforms.
Remind me again how well the Oceana F-18D manoeuvered around that block of flats (or even the single-seat in Miramar)?
The GH Blk 30 could only ever carry 3000lbs vs the U-2s 5000lbs of sensors. Never a fair fight and a poor design match from the outset. Desperately poor program management (IMHO, but also very much a MANNED element) led to it finally (maybe) getting scrubbed, rightly so. Do we expect a manned replacement to the U-2 then? If you do, I would couch to not bet too much on it. Expect a GH Blk 50 with 4000lb payload and tech miniaturization to solve it eventually...
Pray rant away
FFS
Most of those accidents with high HF involvement would be landing crashes, I'd have thought. Those seem to make up the vast majority of MQ-1/9 incidents that I've heard about.
I'm interested in fltlt's comment; I was under the impression that as soon as the drone stopped receiving inputs from home, it'd undertake a pre-planned flight to take it home. I'm yet to hear of one stop listening, but not realise it had stopped listening....?
That would result it in just carrying on doing what it was doing until running out of fuel, I guess, but surely that's as rare as a total hyd loss/catastrophic multiple birdstrike that would similarly leave a GR4's crew unable to influence its final position?
I'm interested in fltlt's comment; I was under the impression that as soon as the drone stopped receiving inputs from home, it'd undertake a pre-planned flight to take it home. I'm yet to hear of one stop listening, but not realise it had stopped listening....?
That would result it in just carrying on doing what it was doing until running out of fuel, I guess, but surely that's as rare as a total hyd loss/catastrophic multiple birdstrike that would similarly leave a GR4's crew unable to influence its final position?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand cost was an issue with the block 30, based on operating it for the next 5 years or so, but this was because it wasn't doing what the manufactures said it would.
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/pentago...k-20110526.pdf
When I first saw this a few months ago I was surprised just how much detail the Spams put on the T'internet.
I agree that most the Operators (That I know anyway) have a very realistic understanding of what drones can and can't do, and what they could do. It is the manufactures, politicians, high ranks and some Ppruners that like to overestimate their utility for various reasons.
Farm I don't get your point about Human Factors or the fact that they have been rushed in to service. There will always be a high HF element to any incident, be it Operator, Maintainer, Engineer (design), Planner, etc. At some level there is a HF element to anything a human has been involved with, manned or unmanned.
The fact they have not been fully tested is not really a plus point. I understand the desire to rapidly field new capabilities, but the amount of equipment operating in AFG that is not properly tested or trailed is high, especially from the US. Our personnel on the ground and in the air could be at more risk from a piece of equipment doing something unexpected. I hope safety cases follow the equipment quickly and are robust rather than just ticking the box, we have already been there
.
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/pentago...k-20110526.pdf
When I first saw this a few months ago I was surprised just how much detail the Spams put on the T'internet.
I agree that most the Operators (That I know anyway) have a very realistic understanding of what drones can and can't do, and what they could do. It is the manufactures, politicians, high ranks and some Ppruners that like to overestimate their utility for various reasons.
Farm I don't get your point about Human Factors or the fact that they have been rushed in to service. There will always be a high HF element to any incident, be it Operator, Maintainer, Engineer (design), Planner, etc. At some level there is a HF element to anything a human has been involved with, manned or unmanned.
The fact they have not been fully tested is not really a plus point. I understand the desire to rapidly field new capabilities, but the amount of equipment operating in AFG that is not properly tested or trailed is high, especially from the US. Our personnel on the ground and in the air could be at more risk from a piece of equipment doing something unexpected. I hope safety cases follow the equipment quickly and are robust rather than just ticking the box, we have already been there
.
Doodlegug
............. sound of last swirl of water leaving washbasin?
............. first squawk from bagpipes?
..............first sound as port is decanted?
............. sound of last swirl of water leaving washbasin?
............. first squawk from bagpipes?
..............first sound as port is decanted?
What did a Doodlebug sound like?
A Dutch team used to bring a model with twin pulse jets to a show at Plumpton Racecourse in Sussex. That was definitely loud, and sounded like an air raid siren.
I met some Maltese model fliers who used to fly r/c pulse jet powered models at Ta'Qali in the 1960s using single channel (non-proportional) escapement control...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note the use of the word "mitigate" (my highlight) these are headlines from current p2v articles. No playing around guys, until the loss of link and failure to revert to, is truly sorted there is an 800lb gorrilla somewhere in the room. See below:
The Pentagon is developing a common set of airborne sense-and-avoid requirements for unmanned aircraft and plans to test the technology in a major demonstration this fall, according to an official leading the effort.
Mounted on unmanned aircraft systems, this technology is designed to help flying drones detect and avoid nearby planes. And through its autonomy feature, it is also designed to help mitigate the problems and concerns generated when a drone loses its link with the control station.
The Air Force is spearheading this effort to transition the airborne sense-and-avoid system (ABSAA) from science and technology to the acquisition and production phase, said Paul Schaeffer, the program manager. The transition of these technologies, which include the development of cooperative and non-cooperative sensors and collision-avoidance algorithms, is scheduled to occur this fall.
Related:
The Air Force needs greater access to the national airspace to support its developmental sense-and-avoid objectives and projected training requirements for drones, according to a recent report signed by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall.
The April report delivered to Congress on future unmanned aircraft systems training, operations and sustainability states that the demand for airspace to test systems and train UAS operators exceeds current access.
Without improved national-airspace access and improved access to special-use airspace, the capabilities of the Air Force UAS force "will stagnate or degrade," reducing the Air Force's "overall mission effectiveness," the report stated.
The April 2012 Pentagon report to Congress "outlines planned force capability growth and forecasted attrition of [unmanned air system] aircraft through [fiscal year] 2017; Military Department personnel required for training and operations; personnel and aircraft basing intentions; and required military construction (MILCON) and airspace requirements for bases hosting UAS."
The Pentagon is developing a common set of airborne sense-and-avoid requirements for unmanned aircraft and plans to test the technology in a major demonstration this fall, according to an official leading the effort.
Mounted on unmanned aircraft systems, this technology is designed to help flying drones detect and avoid nearby planes. And through its autonomy feature, it is also designed to help mitigate the problems and concerns generated when a drone loses its link with the control station.
The Air Force is spearheading this effort to transition the airborne sense-and-avoid system (ABSAA) from science and technology to the acquisition and production phase, said Paul Schaeffer, the program manager. The transition of these technologies, which include the development of cooperative and non-cooperative sensors and collision-avoidance algorithms, is scheduled to occur this fall.
Related:
The Air Force needs greater access to the national airspace to support its developmental sense-and-avoid objectives and projected training requirements for drones, according to a recent report signed by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall.
The April report delivered to Congress on future unmanned aircraft systems training, operations and sustainability states that the demand for airspace to test systems and train UAS operators exceeds current access.
Without improved national-airspace access and improved access to special-use airspace, the capabilities of the Air Force UAS force "will stagnate or degrade," reducing the Air Force's "overall mission effectiveness," the report stated.
The April 2012 Pentagon report to Congress "outlines planned force capability growth and forecasted attrition of [unmanned air system] aircraft through [fiscal year] 2017; Military Department personnel required for training and operations; personnel and aircraft basing intentions; and required military construction (MILCON) and airspace requirements for bases hosting UAS."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who wish to know a little more:
UAVs, software, and security: an interview with Robert Dewar of AdaCore - Avionics Intelligence
UAVs, software, and security: an interview with Robert Dewar of AdaCore - Avionics Intelligence
Thread Starter
For commercial aircraft, and increasingly any military aircraft flying through commercial space, we have rigorous requirements for software in the form of the DO-178C standard. These standards do not guarantee 100 percent freedom from software errors, but in practice they are remarkably effective, as evidenced by the fact that we have never lost a life due to a software bug on a commercial aircraft in the entire history of commercial aviation.
Unfortunately, UAV software is written without any requirements for meeting this or any similar standard. Instead, it is typically written using normal industry practices for commercial software; but, we only have to look at news stories that come out every week, not to mention our own experiences with commercial software, to know that such industry practices are far from reliable. It is one thing to have to deal with your PC crashing, and quite another for a UAV to crash into your house from a similar bug.
Unfortunately, UAV software is written without any requirements for meeting this or any similar standard. Instead, it is typically written using normal industry practices for commercial software; but, we only have to look at news stories that come out every week, not to mention our own experiences with commercial software, to know that such industry practices are far from reliable. It is one thing to have to deal with your PC crashing, and quite another for a UAV to crash into your house from a similar bug.
'Duck and Cover' time......??
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Jun 2012 at 16:00.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's always struck me that BAE flying its UAVs on test out of Walney Island was asking for problems given its closeness to Barrow.....
A friend on a microlight filming flight a couple of years ago asked permission to cross the airfield and was told in rather certain terms to get lost....it seemed there was a drone on the loose and they were worried about controllability
A friend on a microlight filming flight a couple of years ago asked permission to cross the airfield and was told in rather certain terms to get lost....it seemed there was a drone on the loose and they were worried about controllability
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 14th Jun 2012 at 18:17.