Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Brave New World Still Human . . .

predator-b.jpg

The NTSB has found "pilot error" as the main causal factor behind a Predator crash back in April 2006 according to The Washington Post:

The pilot's computer console locked up, investigators said. He started to transfer control to a backup console used by Customs agents to operate the drone's cameras but did not follow a checklist that required him to make sure the engine controls on the second console matched the ones he had been using.

Because the second console's controls were in the fuel shut-off position, investigators said, the Predator-B's engine quit when control was switched.

The pilot, who did not understand why his plane kept descending, turned off ground communication with the drone to trigger its automatic emergency responses, according to investigators. Under such conditions, the plane should have climbed to 15,000 feet and circled above a designated spot until communication was reestablished. But without engine power, the plane crashed.

The pilot told investigators that he didn't follow the checklist because he was in a hurry, said Pam Sullivan, an NTSB investigator.

Under Customs guidelines, the pilot did not have enough hours on the Predator-B to fly the plane without an instructor in the room, and the instructor was in another building, Sullivan said.

Ah, sweet solace. It does an aging aviator's heart good to see the more things change, the more they stay the same.

-- Ward

Comments

.22lr

How a UAV is better than a "real" airplane?

Three words:

Francis
Gary
Powers.

Whether you know it or not automation is the way of the future. I've had to adjust mixture controls on an airplane, but when's the last time you had to deal with that in a car? The answer is: You don't have to because of the advent of Full Authority Digital Engine Controls. Driving a car on land is actually a much tougher problem than flying in air, for one, you don't have to worry about boulders and the like when you fly.

In addition there are many jobs that shouldn't or can't be done by a pilot. Do you want to sit at 80K feet for 40+ hours while the electronics in the plane conduct surveillance? That problem is easily handled by a Global Hawk.

UAV automation is at it's very infancy and you all are kidding yourselves if you think that a human being is going to be in the cockpit of a lot of planes in the future. Fighters and other tactical craft still require a pilot, but an R2D2 type assistant is a definite possibility.

You still need to work on your spelling/grammer son, as Fredrich Von Steuben once said:

"A Corporal or Sergent who cannot read or write cannot be considered adequately qualified."

Posted by: Takeo at October 19, 2007 11:05 AM


I agree mission to loiter and drop a bomb on command or perform recon is great for a UAV, but I still can't believe that a UAV could replace the fighter pilot in my lifetime at least, or even go on a bombing run where's there's contention from a large number of anti-aircraft guns or surface to air missiles. Sensor overload for a computer, and human could never be able to maneuver through that remotely. This story just reinforces my standing. Software has way too far to go. Maybe when VR comes around, and the guys sitting in his own virtual cockpit somewhere, but we'll never see that in our lifetime.

Posted by: Greg at October 18, 2007 08:44 PM


UAVs were designed to eliminate pilot deaths, though.

So the main objective is successful!

This really isn't so much about the pilot's mistake, but the program's overcoming of it.

Posted by: Patron Vectras at October 18, 2007 06:47 PM


Well I'm glad I visited a little while after this was posted instead of right away: I would have missed out on all the entertaining commentary!
First....
Ward, you are so right about 'things staying the same'. Human nature hasn't changed. It wasn't until the last couple of years or so that the real distribution of UAV-mishap root causes started coming forth (for a lot of reasons). The AF (Maj Anthony Tvaryanas) did a study at Brooks that identified mishap drivers and trends (#HSW-PE-BR-TR-2005-0001, available online at STINET, but I can send you the pdf file if you so desire). The interesting thing was that AF UAVs flown by Meat Servos (Rated Pilots) had a higher incidence of 'pilot error' mishaps than the other services that were using non-rated pilots.
We (the Major and I) corresponded a bit after I got my hands on the study. I told him I thought the differences in UAV types could have been the most discriminating factor, but I also told him the findings jived with my old UAV instructor who always said he took rated pilots twice as high as non-rated before turning over control-- because a rated pilot could commit twice as many fatal errors as a non-rated one before he could resume control. The study is excellent and I highly recommend the methods and information if not all the findings.
Second...
Re: 'pilot and non-pilot'. I would say the 'pilot is "overtrained" and on a lot of the wrong things more than I would say the non-rated controller is undertrained. Full disclosure: There's been a whole lot of water under the bridge, but I'm still piqued about the AF doing away with my career field right about when the AF saw the light about UAVs, and all because they needed a place to 'bank' surplus pilots in the pipeline. How convenient.
Third...
Demophilius has it right: no aircraft type is one size fits all or a panacea.
Fourth...
To any human factors lurkers: I know that pilot error is very often the product of earlier links in the accident chain and the pilot is often the fall guy for a poor design, communications, etc.
Fifth...
We used to have a saying (with bumper sticker!) "RPV Pilots Never Made a Landing They Couldn't Walk Away From!" and variations thereof.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 18, 2007 06:46 PM


Biggest thing I ever flew was a 182, with glass, sweet airplane. I never said UAVs don't have a place, but to replace a real pilot it BS.

Posted by: 22lr at October 18, 2007 04:49 PM


Yo, ya ive flown, granted it was only a 172, but I fly all the time in those little birds. So you are saying a totally automated car would be safer than a real driver. Because all a car does is stop and go. No computer will ever take the place of a human brain. That statement was about the failing of the software, ya i know the cus who fly the UAVs are trained but they couldn't go fly a F-16. To fly you have to know what is happening with your airplane, sound is the first indication that something is going wrong. If all a pilot does is sit is a seat from point A to B we would never be flying today. A pilot must constantly decide on everything he does, how much he pushes the yoke, how much throttle, how much flaps, is the gear down. Ironicly enough a single pilot can fly an F-16 into combat, while it takes 2 people to fly a computer. UAVs are all good but they will never ever replace a real pilot, in a real seat, flying a real airplane. Im just trying to figure out how a UAV is so much better than a real airplane. But maybe the TV has been saying how good they are, and we all now anything you see on TV is the gospel truth.

Posted by: 22lr at October 18, 2007 04:20 PM


On the bright side of this accident, no one died. And yet it will still force the UAV's to greatly enhance their safety.

Posted by: Pantera at October 18, 2007 03:56 PM


"the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Except that little bit about the pilot not dying.

Posted by: ohwilleke at October 18, 2007 03:33 PM


"Not really, how much training does a UAV "pilot" have, Ill bet it ain't nothing like a real pilot. "

to .22lr

Are you a moron? Do you KNOW anyone involved in UAV operations? Have you ever flown a plane yourself? How about you check up on stuff before you talk out your ass?

YES with very few exceptions UAV pilots are REAL PILOTS. In the USAF, they are pilots that are tracked from manned aircraft to give them operational experience with UAVs. This might change in the near future, but for now they are fully qualified and experienced flight officers. I suspect that other government agencies do the same thing.

As for errors, anyone and I mean ANYONE who has flown a single engine plane knows that you can make serious mistakes. The whole point is that you try not to make the mistake that is going to kill you, but even then it happens. It is a rare occurance indeed where two jet fighters actually trade fire in the skies. Mostly what's required now is bombs and missles flying overhead where they are dropped on command. For that a UAV is perfect.

Posted by: Takeo at October 18, 2007 01:28 PM


@Lugo:

I didn't say manned aircraft were foolproof, or that UAVs are required to be foolproof, or that this story discredits the employment of UAVs.

If you want to pick nits with something I post, I'd be much obliged if you read it, first. When you do, it would be mighty white of you not to read anything into it that isn't there.

FTR, I'm a big believer in UAVs. Just not to the complete exclusion of manned systems.

Maybe satire's not to your taste. If not, sorry I offended you. But, just FTR? This is America. If you can't take a joke, you're f*cked.

Posted by: demophilus at October 18, 2007 01:23 PM


Demophilus, have any manned aircraft ever crashed due to the pilot's failure to follow proper procedures? Hmmmm, yeah, they have. Many, many of them. So it is hardly credible to say that this accident discredits the employment of UAVs. Why are UAVs required to be foolproof but manned aircraft are not?

Posted by: Lugo at October 18, 2007 07:37 AM


Remember the beginning to 'War Games,' starring Matthew Broderick? And the premise?

We can't have human error, but we have to have humans in the loop.

And; I helped teach a summer camp course to middle schoolers about LEGO Mindstorms. By the end of the class, any one of those tykes would be able to brainstorm a nifty little bit of code like Weaver said.

Posted by: Patron Vectras at October 18, 2007 02:26 AM


Not really, how much training does a UAV "pilot" have, Ill bet it ain't nothing like a real pilot. I'm all for UAV and they have a vital role in recon but they will never be a replacement for a real pilot flying a real combat mission. No computer has situational awareness, and the split second decision making capabilities as the human brain. Flying UAVs from a TV is a heck of a lot different from being in the seat. Like flying flight sim, and then go flying a real airplane.

Posted by: 22lr at October 17, 2007 09:30 PM


22lr: Not necessarily...

In this case, the panic reaction is "cut comm, bird should go into failsafe state". It did not.

How is this different from "Hit the reset on the in-flight computer and the Osprey should resume normal operations" crash?

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at October 17, 2007 06:52 PM


But a pilot on board could have realized what was up, and not crashed. Mistakes happen, will we be willing to cause a 300 million dollar one (airplanes sure aren't getting cheaper).

Posted by: 22lr at October 17, 2007 05:55 PM


Boy, I hope the pilot's first console didn't lock up because he spilled coffee on it, or anything. And I hope his instructor wasn't in another building because he or she was trying to score a candy bar, or anything.

Hey -- where are all the folks who advocate replacing manned platforms with UAVs?

I'm sorry -- the NEXT generation of UAVs will be foolproof, honest. I mean, they'll be built and operated by fools, but...

Wait...

Posted by: demophilus at October 17, 2007 01:14 PM


Yea.... sorry sounds like lazy programmer syndrome.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at October 17, 2007 11:47 AM


I agree with Weaver... the fail safe automated software should re-enage the fuel line and re-start the engine if off.

Posted by: gxavier at October 17, 2007 11:09 AM


However, why did the failsafe mode not include "Repower the engines if unpowered"?

So I'd say "Pilot error as the primary cause, but a secondary problem with automatic software failsafe mode"

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at October 17, 2007 10:31 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.