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