Another drone down.....
Thread Starter
Another drone down.....
Uh-oh - it seems another drone has speared in....
So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beagle
So, not safe enough to fly over civilisation just yet, eh drone fans?
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.
Drones/RPS/UAVs
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
How many aircraft crashes have been in the news lately?
BV
Thread Starter
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
to risk their operation over populated areas.
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
to risk their operation over populated areas.
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.
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.
Beags
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: People's Republic
Age: 67
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
I'm fine, thanks - trust all is well with your good self?
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
I'm fine, thanks - trust all is well with your good self?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The satellite control link failed and the aircraft descended into the lake
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Asia's Fine City
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about the BBC article, could future self learning autonomy be the solution for the lost up/down link scenario 
You might think that....but then...
"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....
Soon, Drones May Be Able to Make Lethal Decisions on Their Own - NationalJournal.com
You might think that....but then..."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....
Soon, Drones May Be Able to Make Lethal Decisions on Their Own - NationalJournal.com
Last edited by kluge; 15th Nov 2013 at 01:58. Reason: added a nerd
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
