Grumble

So are you advocating on say a LAX-Sydney leg, the crew gets up, goes in the back, and turns the jet over to someone remotely? Here's the problem...

Not only do you still have to hire and pay people to fill that remote seat, but now you have the added cost and expense of not only the facilities and equipment but the people to maintain them as well. So you're putting in place an even bigger more expensive, possibly less reliable system.... all to save one or two relief pilots?

Do you work on the side writing the Presidents budget proposals too?

Elvis90

Accident reports show US drone aircraft plagued with problems

By David Zucchino
The Ledger
July 07, 2010

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The U.S. military often portrays its drone aircraft as high-tech marvels that can be operated seamlessly from thousands of miles away. But Pentagon accident reports reveal that the pilotless aircraft suffer from frequent system failures, computer glitches and human error.

Design and system problems were never fully addressed in the haste to push the fragile planes into combat over Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks more than eight years ago. Air Force investigators continue to cite pilot mistakes, coordination snafus, software failures, outdated technology and inadequate flight manuals.

Thirty-eight Predator and Reaper drones have crashed during combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nine more during training on bases in the U.S. — with each crash costing between $3.7 million and $5 million. Altogether, the Air Force says there have been 79 drone accidents costing at least $1 million each.

Accident rates are dropping, but the raw numbers of mishaps are increasing as use of the aircraft skyrockets, according to Air Force safety experts.

But no lives are lost, and for some experts, that's the most important point: For them, drones are the vanguard of a new type of remote warfare that minimizes the risk to U.S. personnel. The number of crashes, however, illustrates how quickly the unmanned aircraft have become an essential part of U.S. combat operations. At least 38 drones are in flight over Afghanistan and Iraq at any given time.

Flight hours over Afghanistan and Iraq more than tripled between 2006 and 2009. However, ground commanders in Afghanistan say only about a third of their requests for drone missions are met because of shortages of aircraft and pilots. The loss of aircraft to crashes and other accidents can hamper combat operations — and risk the lives of troops who depend on them for reconnaissance and air cover.

The Air Force acknowledges that armed drones were not ready when first deployed as the U.S. military geared up for the campaign to oust the Taliban and al-Qaida from Afghanistan. Most weapons systems are tested and refined for years. Unarmed drones had been in use since the mid-1990s, but the first armed version went to war just nine months after it was retrofitted.

It was pushed into use after a Predator successfully launched Hellfire antitank missiles at the Naval Air Weapons testing range at China Lake in January 2001.

"It was never designed to go to war when it did," said Lt. Col. Travis Burdine, a manager for the Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force. "We didn't have the luxury of ironing out some of the problems."

Technicians bought off-the-shelf equipment at Radio Shack and Best Buy to build a system to allow ground forces to see the drones' video feeds. At least one drone crashed because it had no fuel gauge, and the aircraft ran out of fuel. In another crash, investigators cited a design flaw: The "kill engine" switch was located next to the switch to lower the landing gear, and a ground-based pilot confused the two.

Even now, the planes are not designed for the amount of use they're getting, their defenders say. The 27-foot Predators and 36-foot Reapers operate under conditions that put enormous stress on the light drones — and the humans who operate them.

"These airplanes are flying 20,000 hours a month, OK?" said retired Rear Adm. Thomas J. Cassidy Jr., president of the aircraft systems group at General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, which makes Predators and Reapers.

"That's a lot of flying," Cassidy said. "Some get shot down. Some run into bad weather. Some, people do stupid things with them. Sometimes they just run them out of gas."

The drones flew 185,000 hours over Afghanistan and Iraq in 2009, more than triple the number of hours flown in 2006. The Air Force expects that number to grow to 300,000 hours this year.

"The Air Force needs as many as they can get," said Col. Jeff Kappenman, director of the Center of Excellence for UAS Research, Education and Training at the University of North Dakota. "There has been exponential growth in need and demand."

Air Force officials say design and training improvements have lowered the Predator's accident rate. They say lessons learned from that plane's problems have solved some issues for the larger and more potent Reaper, in use in combat since 2007. Accident rates per 100,000 hours dropped to 7.5 for the Predator and 16.4 for the Reaper last year, according to the Air Force. The Predator rate is comparable to that of the F-16 fighter at the same stage, Air Force officers say, and just less than the 8.2 rate for small, single-engine private airplanes flown in the U.S.

The crash figures do not include drones flown over Pakistan by the CIA, which does not acknowledge the covert program. But independent experts said Predators flown over Pakistan probably experience problems similar to those flown by the Air Force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Four Air Force Predators have crashed this year, three of them in Afghanistan — on Jan. 15 in southern Afghanistan, one on takeoff Feb. 9 in eastern Afghanistan, and a third March 14 in the southern part of the country. All were total losses, the Air Force said. Another Predator crashed in California during a training exercise April 20.

In the 12 months ended Sept. 30, the Air Force reported 16 Predator and Reaper accidents. Four involved crashes during a 15-day period in September. On Sept. 13, a pilot inside a ground station in Nevada lost video and data links to a Reaper over Afghanistan. As it was about to exit Afghan airspace and crash, an F-15 pilot was ordered to shoot it down and ground troops recovered the wreckage to keep top-secret technology out of insurgents' hands.

In another case, a drone crashed into a Sunni political headquarters in Mosul, Iraq. No injuries were reported.

In some cases, a cause is never determined and no wreckage is recovered. On May 13, 2009, a crew in Nevada lost contact with a Predator, and it was listed as "presumed crashed" somewhere in Afghanistan, according to an Air Force report.Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, asked whether high drone mishap rates concerned him, replied: "Not really. They're expendable." Others disagree.

"We can't treat these things like disposable diapers and just throw them out," retired Air Force Gen. Hal Hornburg, former chief of the Air Force Air Combat Command, warned officers at a conference on drones.

Kyle Snyder, who tracks military drones for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a nonprofit research group, said he had never heard anyone in the Air Force call drones expendable.

----------------------------------------------

The mishap rate is lower than I thought, but still not at acceptable levels. The 1 in 3 number was from the first few years apparently, 2000-2005.

Elvis

Elliot

Ok, the Presidents budget proposals comment was funny, only because of the emoticon behind it though. (would've taken it as a "low blow" without the funny face) "I work for our Commander-In-Chief, I don't have to "agree with his policies".

I don't "disagree" with your assessment of initial costs being "cost prohibitive", but you should know as well as anyone, (assuming you're either in the military now, or military retired) that something cost prohibitive today is a "contractor's best deal" tomorrow.

Forgot to Bid posted the "economics" of reducing the amount of "pilots in the cockpit". I can't find those numbers, but to think that a Ground Control Station (GCS) having the ability to operate not only one, buy a myriad of unmanned assets at one time (technology available today) isn't "spreading the cost" and making it a viable solution would be turning a blind eye to something that could very easily become a reality in the next decade or two.

Good thoughts/discussion,

GJ

Elliot

Elvis,

Good article. Has some holes, (i.e. engine kill switch by the landing gear switch, not accurate) but overall informative.

I've mentioned it in a previous post too, but to reiterate again, the technology we're using for "unmanned" operations today, I don't foresee aircraft flying passengers around without any pilots aboard. Can we "reduce the amount of pilots required" on long haul flights? I think it's plausible. Just recently attended AFRL down at Wright-Patterson. They're working on things behind closed doors that will put today's unmanned technologies to shame. (The layout made our current control stations look like the Model A of vehicles.)

Thanks for the article,

GJ

forgot to bid

Boeing or Airbus don't have to build an airplane to make it single pilot ops. They don't have to be involved.

The FAA is modifying the NAS to support such a system with NextGen, should be completed by 2025.

Congress is funding it. The FAA already supports single pilot jet ops and has done so for 34 years. Obviously everything about 12,500 lbs requires two pilots unless the manufacturer proves otherwise. That's not new. Airliners don't have to be any different.

Europe is a part of NextGen and enroute operations wouldn't require hardly anything at all, probably nothing.

I've never heard an airline involved in this, but now there are avionics and aircraft manufacturers involved.

?

H.R. 2115 [108th]: Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (GovTrack.us)

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)

Press Release – FAA, JetBlue Agreement to Bring NextGen Precision to East Coast, Caribbean Routes

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ind...ng_nearly.html

We're talking 4 and 3 man international ops going to 2, 2 man domestic operations going to 1. No talk of UAV airliners.

That's why the pilot will be there. But I'd doubt a CRJ would meet the requirements. ERJ-145 probably would.

forgot to bid

^^^ That's the point.

Every crossing I ever did, and I mean the cruise portion, never ever required 2 pilots in the cockpit. We were just both there.

Grumble

Yeah, and in the late 90's ADS-B was supposed to be in full swing by 2005. Where's that gone? And that little box is nothing compared to what you and GJ are talking about.

As far as congress funding anything over the next decade, I'll refer you to this little gem.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

rickair7777

This statement is absolutely ludicrous, whatever your technical experience is you obviously are unaware of the big picture, regulatory issues, and how the world really works. For FAA purposes, the fundamental, underlying philosophy is that the FAA will not accept changes which reduce safety. Changes have to break even or improve safety.

Sudden incapacitation occurs in airline ops, multiple times each year (doesn't always make the news). In order to accomodate single pilot ops in 121, the airplane would have to fly itself (or possibly be remotely flown) in the event of an incapacitation.... with the same level of safety as STILL HAVING ONE FUNCTIONING PILOT ONBOARD! Current airplanes cannot achieve that! Nothing on the drawing board can achieve that! The equipment the DoD is flying misses the mark by by many orders of magnitude.

You could in theory change the rule, and accept a reduction in safety. We are the best in world, maybe we are paying too much for safety and should trade a few thousand lives each year for a lot big savings on plane tickets!

Biz jets are certified as single pilot, but the only standard for that is that the pilot can reach and see everything he needs to reach and see, and has enough automation to keep workload manageable. If you want to save money on single-pilot ops, and your pilot keels over dead, you are going to be joining him shortly! But that's not a regulatory option in 121!

There is no certification standard for an airplane to fly itself, THAT's what would be needed for 121 single pilots ops. Boeing can't build something to a standard which doesn't exist.


NextGen is not going to support automated airline operations, it is going to improve and optimize air traffic management. It could lay a little bit of the groundwork which would eventually be needed for automated ops but it is a far, far cry from being able to support that.

Congress is not funding anything along the lines of what you are talking about!

Yes, airliners do have to be different! Sudden Incapacitation = Smoking Hole Accident IS NOT AN OPTION IN 121. If your single pilot dies in part 91, you are going to die too!

Part 91/135 single pilot ops is not relevant to 121!

Who are you, some kind of management agitator trying to spook ignorant pilots???

forgot to bid

For someone with 10,000 posts you seem to struggle with having a conversation.

I cited sources. why don't you cite sources?

So what about going from 3 or 4 man crews to 2. You still have 2 functioning pilots in case something happens to the other. That seem that far fetched?

If you go from 2 to 1 and UAV type capabilities as a backup, couldn't they argue that is safer than what we have now which provides no backup if both pilots becoming incapacitated?

See above.

See above the last see above.

As in they can't write a certification standard tomorrow? As in Part 121 single pilot ops isn't already being trained or performed today? Life as a LCA can be as exciting as it is lonely.

See way above. BTW, so the FAA is okay with Part 91/135 aircraft crashing but not Part 121? Part 135/91 are expendable?

Seriously? I'm a little underwhelmed here. How about look at how GearJerk handles conversations, you could learn something.

forgot to bid

Put it this way, SWA is converting it's 733s to glass to meet RNP requirements and Delta is looking at upgrading its MD88s and parking its DC9-50's even if oil drops because of RNP requirements. So while some things fall flat on their face, not everything necessarily has, even with the ineptitude of the FAA.



Source: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...RNProadmap.pdf