Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Pilot error brought down the Armies Watchkeeper

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Pilot error brought down the Armies Watchkeeper

Old 14th Aug 2019, 11:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,975
Pilot error brought down the Armies Watchkeeper

The drone was doing its thing up until human intervention scuppered it

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/0...050_aberporth/

When it landed at Aberporth, WK050 "landed long", reported the BBC. This means that instead of touching down at the correct point towards the start of the runway, giving it a nice long distance in which to harmlessly roll to a stop, the drone was further along than it ought to have been – risking it overrunning off the far end, damaging the aircraft.Thus, the onboard computer followed its programming and "auto-aborted as it approached the end of the runway". The drone throttled up to full power and took off again, ready to fly itself around in a circuit and have another go at landing. Such things are a fact of life in aviation, whether humans or computers are trying to land.However, WK050's human operators seemingly became confused at this point – and cut the throttle. WK050 "glided over the road" at the end of the runway and "crashed into a tree" around 900 metres beyond the end of the runway."Had no action been taken by the crew the AV (aerial vehicle) would have completed its automatic go-around, from which it could have been commanded to conduct a further approach," the report said.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 12:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
The ongoing experiment with non-aircrew at the (virtual) controls of a fixed-wing aircraft would have made more sense if the Army had purchased a bunch of otherwise stripped-out, empty and suitably ballasted Hermes aircraft to play with & crash for the last 10 years or so. It would have saved quite a bit of money whilst providing similar operational effect.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 12:21
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 773
The ongoing experiment that sees RAF aircrew thinking they know all would make more sense if the 100+ year experiment was ended and the equipment given to the military branches of HM Forces. Have lost count how many times div, bde, pl, tp, section, range of mortar, etc has had to be explained to know-it-all-knobbers.
gijoe is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 12:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 531
Dear chap. Are you suggesting that RAF crews were at the controls, or am I picking you up incorrectly?
betty swallox is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 13:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 97
Quite a rant there gijoe. When youíve put your toys back in your cot (assuming youíre allowed toys), could you translate please so normal humans can understand?
​​​​​
Audax is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 14:30
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by gijoe View Post
Have lost count how many times div, bde, pl, tp, section, range of mortar, etc has had to be explained to know-it-all-knobbers.
Probably wouldn't need to explain that cutting the engine at the start of an auto go around on a single engine aircraft wasn't a good idea though. Each to their own!
​​​​​
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 14:56
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 19
BBC Wales

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49158509


This picture reminded me of flying "RPV'S" with my son, we never needed anything bigger than a bin bag to remove the wreckage and it went in the boot of my car, not on a flat bad
WB627 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 16:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cayley's County - Yorkshire
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by gijoe View Post
The ongoing experiment that sees RAF aircrew thinking they know all would make more sense if the 100+ year experiment was ended and the equipment given to the military branches of HM Forces. Have lost count how many times div, bde, pl, tp, section, range of mortar, etc has had to be explained to know-it-all-knobbers.
The ever decreasing number of watchkeepers are all operated by the British Army model flying club. The only involvement that the RAF have is when they are called upon to participate in the resultant Service Inquiry

CAEBr is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 16:48
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,321
Nice fishing exercise gijoe - a few bites. A few "whooshes" as well....!

Edited to add - we'll take the flying things, in exchange you can have the RAF Regiment and the RAFP
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 19:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: on the edge of a big fall
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
The ongoing experiment with non-aircrew at the (virtual) controls of a fixed-wing aircraft would have made more sense if the Army had purchased a bunch of otherwise stripped-out, empty and suitably ballasted Hermes aircraft to play with & crash for the last 10 years or so. It would have saved quite a bit of money whilst providing similar operational effect.
Agree totally, because 2 winged demi god's have never smashed anything in, have they....
higthepig is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 22:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Home
Posts: 16
Another lucid brown rant. I lost count of the number of times Rupert the donkey walloper failed to understand that the aircraft did not have to be parked on his front lawn for it to be effective at div, bde, coy ..........etc etc
Arthur1815 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2019, 23:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,615
GIJ

Please, God, tell me that was a serious post. Iíll be genuinely gutted if I find out it was a phishing attempt.

It made my day. Honestly.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 00:01
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,733
Edited to add - we'll take the flying things, in exchange you can have the RAF Regiment and the RAFP
Oi!!! No you dont!

TTN (ex Rock)
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 06:25
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Lincs
Age: 50
Posts: 12
in all seriousness, this does raise questions about the quality and depth of the training being provided, and the airmanship (or lack of) being applied across the programme, The earlier WK crash as a result of deliberately flying the air vehicle into known icing conditions told me everything I needed to know about the lack of serious RPAS / UAV experience involved.
AF03-111 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 09:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 51
Posts: 308
"Pilot error brought down the Armies Watchkeeper" Just how many Armies do we have? Seriously though GIJoe does have a point, can you say with all seriousness that a RAF pilot has never fudged a go-around? I can think of serveral including a Tristar tail strike following a botched landing and go-around at Kandahar.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 11:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 583
Shouldn't the operators have known what mode the drone is in and what it will do next? Sounds like some operator's training issue to me.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 12:56
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: on the edge of a big fall
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by AF03-111 View Post
in all seriousness, this does raise questions about the quality and depth of the training being provided, and the airmanship (or lack of) being applied across the programme, The earlier WK crash as a result of deliberately flying the air vehicle into known icing conditions told me everything I needed to know about the lack of serious RPAS / UAV experience involved.
It wasn't the Army flying that, it was Thales
higthepig is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 14:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by higthepig View Post
It wasn't the Army flying that, it was Thales
Who issued the RTS, which is predicated on the correct training having taken place?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 16:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: on the edge of a big fall
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by tucumseh View Post
Who issued the RTS, which is predicated on the correct training having taken place?
It was operating outside of the RTS at the time, it was Thales carrying out test flying, nothing to do with the Army.
higthepig is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 19:02
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,144
Never mind the Army, htp. Are you saying that Thales is operating under its own RTS, or under no authority at all?
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.