Pilotless Aircraft...looks like it will be awhile.

[Otto]

Interesting article about the USAF Predator in todays edition of the USA Today. The article is about how the Air Force is short staffed and can only fill about 1 in 3 of the mission requests it gets. The thing that caught my eye, however, is the accident rate. They have lost 53 of 139 Predators and only 26% of that has been due to enemy action. Pilot (ground operater) error accounts for 30.2% and (get this!) Mechanical/computer failure accounts for 34.0%. So the computer has a higher accident rate than humans. hmmm. Granted, I realize a larger plane would have more redundancy and more automation, but consider these UAVs are operating from a basic airstrip where there are zero ATC considerations and they are dependent on decent weather. I think the FedEx guys can relax...looks like it's going to be awhile.
Here' the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-28-drones-supply_N.htm

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I wonder how many of those "mechanical failures" can be attributed to faulty glow plugs, loose wheel collars, or using old and/or an sufficient number of rubber-bands to keep the wing attached?

 

[Majurpain]

Unmanned thoughts...

We're due to see some significant changes to the accident rate - like NOW. The MQ-9 or Predator B has a turbine engine, and I'm gnna go out on a limpb and bet that it's going to have a MUCH high MTBF than diesel or Rotax engines in earlier UAS. There's a company out there called Athena Technologies (privately held, dammit- or else I'd torpedo it by buying stock in it- that'd doom it for sure) with a founder-one of those 40 pound brain M.I.T. doctorates- who is developing some really cool adaptive flight control stuff that will most likely make the man/machine interface and lost link issues more or less a thing of the past. And that's a new record for me in terms of run-on sentences. Whew. I work on the fringes of the field and wish it was different, but I wouldn't bet against FDX with a ten year (I heard) plan to be operating big jets from a box. It's kinda scary. The FAA and AOPA may end up being our friends in terms of keeping approval to operate difficult to obtain, at least for a while. I hope so!

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

(*dusts off A+P and FCC certificates*)

I wonder how much those box controllers make a year?

CE

 

[AerroMatt]

(*dusts off A+P and FCC certificates*)

I wonder how much those box controllers make a year?

CE

32 Milliwatts, I've heard. :nuts:

 

[Huck]

I wouldn't bet against FDX with a ten year (I heard) plan to be operating big jets from a box.

I think you're confusing issues here - technological ability vs. economic feasibility. A drone can't just operate - it has to operate more economically than a freighter and crew. And be blendable into the system. Same cans, same hubs, same maintenance, same regulatory bodies to comply with. Drones may by feasible but I doubt they'd be cheaper.....

 

[JimNtexas]

Lockheed Skunk Works spent $30 million building their own 'Polecat' UAV. It was designed to be very stealthy and operate at very high altitudes for long periods of time.

The Polecat crashed on its third flight when it's self-destruct safety system activated, even though there was no command to it to do so.

The Polecat followed their earlier Dark Star UAV, which also crashed early in its development program.

The U.S. Customs Service has received another Predator to replace the one they crashed last year. They'll crash this new one pretty soon I expect.

I heard Burt Rutan remark once that the Air Force would have run out of U-2s 25 years ago if they crashed at anything like the rate of UAVs.

UAVs have a lot of value in military operations. The risks of crashing a UAV are worth it when the alternative is to risk a human crew getting shot down.

UAVs make no sense whatsoever in civil applications, and they have no business being used by non-military operators.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Lockheed Skunk Works spent $30 million building their own 'Polecat' UAV. It was designed to be very stealthy and operate at very high altitudes for long periods of time.

The Polecat crashed on its third flight when it's self-destruct safety system activated, even though there was no command to it to do so.

The Polecat followed their earlier Dark Star UAV, which also crashed early in its development program.

The U.S. Customs Service has received another Predator to replace the one they crashed last year. They'll crash this new one pretty soon I expect.

I heard Burt Rutan remark once that the Air Force would have run out of U-2s 25 years ago if they crashed at anything like the rate of UAVs.

UAVs have a lot of value in military operations. The risks of crashing a UAV are worth it when the alternative is to risk a human crew getting shot down.

UAVs make no sense whatsoever in civil applications, and they have no business being used by non-military operators.

Harriers had a similar crash rate (likely much higher) in the beginning.

Also note. Simply because it is a UAV (or UCAV), does NOT mean there is
no pilot. Many (most) of the early UAV's had to be hand flown, especially
takeoff and landing. Many of the incidents were pilot error.

Newer models are no longer just fancy R/C planes. You enter the coordinates
and it goes, Taxi, takeoff, enroute, and landing...all hands off.

As for civil applications, they have plenty of use. The Proteus is designed
to have no pilot.

Finally, I have seen a pilotless version of the A-10. If the Airforce can pull
that one off, the civilian application would include water bombing and
Agricultural (seeding etc). Firebird helos would replace traffic watch and
police chases. Logging is another use.

If you can't find a civilian application, it means you have no imagination or
foresight.

CE

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Finally, I have seen a pilotless version of the A-10. If the Airforce can pull that one off, the civilian application would include water bombing and Agricultural (seeding etc).

Hopefully, the kick-off program for those unmanned A-10's will be as air tankers ("water bombers"). I suspect that planting a half-dozen or so into hillsides or sifting them through trees (hopefully without hurting anybody on the ground) will convince the Government to give up this cockamamie idea once and for all.

There is no shortage of pilots, and I doubt there ever will be. We work on the cheap too. When you consider the levels of sophistication, redundency, and maintenance that a civil UAV would require, I don't see how it would be any cheaper to put an "operator" behind a console than it would be just to leave the pilots in the cockpit in the first place. That goes double for the kinds of flying that don't lend themselves to "canned" routes and tasks...crop-dusting and aerial firefighting, for example.

Another thing...how are you going to convince John Q. Public that unmanned planes are free from glitches, when for the last 10 years you've been telling them that "unauthorized use of portable electronic devices such as cell phones or laptop computers could interfere with the navigation and communications systems" of the planes they're riding now? If a "Game Boy" left on can send a passenger plane veering into a mountain, what chance does a UAV have against a case of "Epiladys" that are improperly packed for shipment?

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Oh, and computers don't go on strike.
That alone has the ear of EVERY member of management.

CE

 

[AvroGuy]

What is the crash rate of the global hawk? I know that one is fully automated, except for eng start. I know they lost one during flight testing, but how many have they lost since?

 

[cruxx@9]

Okay, as a pilot am I afraid of eventually being pilotless aircraft....hell yes. Management would love to take us off the line, even if only to show a point! And as a passenger pilot now, there are many passengers that have the idea that we just push a button and off it goes and we are all over paid computer programers. I fly an AirBus by the way. And if management could pass off that air fares would be cheaper if WE were not up there....um some of the people wouldn't mind. These are the idiots that I fly from time to time. Anyway, the normal progression would be maybe crop dusters, fire fighters, freight then passenger and so on.

But what most people, especially managers don't see, is the value of experience that a computer can't do. I've never flown a crop duster or a water bomber, but what a computer can't do is see a particular issue and adapt to changing conditions. I'm sure there are many in water bombing and so on.

Also....ummmm Capt. Al Haynes. Has anyone forgot that every once in a while what is never supposed to happen...happens. A computer can never use experience and CRM to fix an unfixable problem. Even though Capt. Al Haynes didn't save everyone, he did a damn good job of saving most of them. A computer would have just done what it was programed to do....which was what? Call the guy that built the airplane? Call the instructors that teach in the sim? Use the jumpseater and all the experience to try and never give up?

A computer can NEVER replace us...even in management wants to.

 

[cruxx@9]

sorry it was soooo long....

I get a little defensive over this issue. The average passenger has no idea what we do. And management doesn't care.

 

[JimNtexas]

" If you can't find a civilian application, it means you have no imagination or
foresight. "

As several have pointed out, UAVs all have to have a pilot anyway. And I bet a UAV pilot is paid more than an airplane pilot. And we all know pilots work cheap anyway.

I write software for a living. At one time I wrote UAV related software, although now I'm in the internet world.

I can imagine all kinds of cool things a HAL 9000 could do besides fly airplanes. Why stop there? Trucks, trains, nuclear power plants, water and waste water systems all have operators that could be eliminated or consolated into call centers with a person with a mouse giving general directions.

Why not? I'll tell you why not. We are 50 to 100 years away from being able to write software reliable enough to replace human operators in those systems with anything close to the safety and reliablity we expect from humans. We're not even close.

Look at Eclispe. Their CEO knows computers inside and out. Yet after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars they were unable to deliver a working integrated comm/nav system for a light jet. Not software that could fly the jet mind you, just a normal com/nav system similar to what exists on most jets, large and small.

I bet if you look at the total cost of the U.S. Customs Predator operation it is 2-5x more than if they just bought manned airplanes to do the identical mission. Three Caravans or King Airs could do the job, and there wouldn't be any worries about flying in the civil airspace. I don't what a part for a Predator costs, but I bet the same part for civil airplane is half or less.

If they must have something exotic Schweizer makes manned U-2 like special purpose high endurance airplanes.

The notion of a robot A-10 tanker is just insane. It's one thing for a Predator to fire a Hellfire from a mile or two away in a war zone. It's another thing entirely for a robot A-10 to try and drop water at 100 feet in the mountains. I'd go so far to say as that is impossible with today's technology, and certainly would greatly endanger any persons or property unfortunate enough to be on the ground or in the air anywhere close to such a flying disaster.

UAVs make no sense in civil applications.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

A horseless carriage? MADNESS!!

It'll NEVER happen.

CE

 

[Huck]

A horseless carriage? MADNESS!!

The horse wasn't the driver. The propulsion changed - the driver stayed.

Name me a transportation system in wide use that has taken humans off the vehicle. Make that a system that is not in a protected environment like a warehouse or an airport tram line....

 

[urflyingme?!]

Um ya, water bomber ranks about 3rd to last for applications for UAVs.

Talk about STOOPID!