Another drone down.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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.
I also see that the german government has changed it's plans and decided not to get any.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
...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.
Want to see some accident stats from an official source then look here on slide 15:
http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.c...ium_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
http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.c...ium_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
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Unlike most of those having a moan about them....
ShotOne
Have a look at the USAf Safety Center stats for:
MQ-9 Reaper http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media...121210-021.pdf
MQ-1 Predator http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media...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???
iRaven
Have a look at the USAf Safety Center stats for:
MQ-9 Reaper http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media...121210-021.pdf
MQ-1 Predator http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media...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???
iRaven
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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
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
PS. JTO - the only people killed by RPAS have been on the wrong end of HF and GBU-12 and likely very bad people!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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
"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......
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......
iRaven wrote:
Sadly, not true:
EUFOR details Belgian B-Hunter UAV crash that caused civilian death
PS. JTO - the only people killed by RPAS have been on the wrong end of HF and GBU-12 and likely very bad people!
EUFOR details Belgian B-Hunter UAV crash that caused civilian death
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Air Force MQ-9 Reaper Drone Crashes into Lake Ontario | Flying Magazine
"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.
"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.
